Effusive apologies for my absence of late. There is just so much going on right now that I've had a difficult time finding time to write. Yet, I feel the need to say something, so here is brief topic for discussion: NCAA scholar-athlete graduation rates. Here are a few of my brief thoughts:
1. The following is link to a USA TODAY article about the subject. In short, it extols the general rise in overall graduation rates among NCAA athletes. I have a number of issues with looking at overall rates in this discussion, as they aren't indicative of the overall problem and is egregiously obfuscatory. Meaning, the problem isn't with sports like golf, lacrosse, or tennis...the problem is with basketball and football...each with graduation rates way below 50%.
2. With the pressures on head coaches to win...students leaving early for the draft...and schools and boosters unwilling to slaughter their cash cows...what is to be done? I would suggest making freshmen ineligible to play. I've not put much thought into it...but it seems to me that this would keep those who might not care about learning away...while giving those freshmen who enroll a chance to adapt to college life. What do you think?
3. Housekeeping issues:
A. There will be more later, but I am truly swamped, and consistent posts will have to wait.
B. Unfortunately, this includes the discussion on Hegel. I'm about 1/3 of the way in...and there is a lot there.
C. How 'bout them Rams. Though I am associated with their crosstown rival, it was great to see them make a run. In other tourney news....look for Tennessee to make some noise. Until then...
4 comments:
VCU's recent success (and that of the Patriot League in general) leads me to think that UR made a terrible mistake in bolting for the A-10. Also, I will forever loathe WVU for stealing our coach.
My first reaction to your suggestion that freshmen not play, I have to admit, was contempt. But after giving the idea a few minutes to percolate and settle, I have to agree that it could, ideally, be a tremendous boon to the way "scholar"-athletes adjust to college life, and the expectations and attitudes with which high school athletes begin their college careers. A couple drawbacks do immediately occur to me, however:
1. the NCAA's stranglehold over access to professional sports is in no way reduced; in fact, it is tightened (that said, from a player's point of view, if he has a dream, he must jump humbly through whatever hoops set before him, in order to achieve it---within the bounds set by reason and principle)
2. the likelihood of a pecking order of seniority is increased, unfortunate for institutions of higher learning, which should be the epitomes of American-style freedom and mobility (for freshman athlete's POV, see note to point 1)
3. scholarship requirements and availability and eligibility for transfer would have to be completely redrawn (maybe not such a bad idea, even without a freshman no-play rule)
All in all, despite the shortcomings such a rule would incur (in terms of collegiate ideals), athletes would very likely be better off in the long-run for it (greater good, herodotus?). Despite your disclaimers, such a rule would have to apply to ALL freshmen athletes, to satisfy the demands of fairness and of the opponents (and lawyers of such opponents) to such a rule. I have to imagine the first few seasons' adjustment period, both for high school athletes and spectating ideologues, would be a pretty intense withdrawal experience (think "Trainspotting").
I may offer a distinctive perspective on this. I completely agree with our lauded leader, Herodotus. The fact is such a rule would benefit the athlete, the program, and the sport. Most college athletes, in football especially, do not play their freshmen years. They are generally "red-shirted." This allows the athlete to acclimate themselves to their new surroundings, physically, mentally, socially. I am not sure how such a system could be detrimental to the sport.
I will preface my next statement by saying that the "hoops" an athlete must jump through have become more strenuous lately and I believe the "student" aspect of student athletes has more significance than ever before. However, I wonder if even these standards are too low. For example, an athlete wishing to pass the NCAA clearinghouse must score a 19 on the ACT (which is the test most used in the Southeast) and MAINTAIN a 2.0 on their core GPA (i.e. the courses required to graduate high school). While the contributors to this blog had no problem achieving this, many, especially among the underprivileged, have to struggle to accomplish this feat. Making plans for the future has no real priority when one is living hand to mouth. This is not a liberal tirade...as you know...all government attempts to correct this have fallen short if not exacerbated matters.
How, then, should be consider the graduation rate issue among lucrative collegiate athletics? I argue that this issue is symptomatic of a mediocre primary and secondary education. Primary schools do not prepare students for intermediate schools (i.e. Jr. Highs, Middle Schools). Intermediate schools do not prepare their students for high school. High schools, in turn, do not prepare students for college. Educators may take issue with this but if they objectively take account of the situation, one cannot deny the facts.
I will write a post on this topic.
Post a Comment