[BostonCard]

Rosen is right and not just in the micro. Most college football players are at school to play football, not go to class. The academics are secondary–if even considered in the first place. Also, this isn't new and trying to argue that this isn't the case is arguing about ideals not reality.

Even at Stanford, where many on this board are hailing as a paragon of virtue in this department, sure seems to have a lot of science, tech, and society or communications majors. I make no claim on the validity of these fields of studies but there isn't a biochemical engineering major on the roster (for example). Rosen is right, competing at a high level and putting in the work that is required to compete does interfere with studies.

Let's not pretend that we drive to Stanford Stadium or turn on ESPN to watch these guys study molecular physics or read Foucault. We watch football to see players run fast and hit each other hard. Should this be the case? Maybe not. But again, that's an argument about ideals and not reality.

Point taken, but Stanford doesn't have a program in biochemical engineering.

More broadly, I don't think the fact that we don't watch football to see players study has any relevance to the importance of academics and football.  As long as the student-athletes are getting an appropriate education, that is all that matters.  What they major in is their business.  The deal is that in return for us getting to watch them run fast and hit each other, they get a free, rigorous education.  I think by that measure, Stanford does quite well.

Rosen does have a point in that schools often sacrifice the latter in the quest for the former.  Then again, Rosen is in a unique position to show how much he values his education by not going pro after his junior year.

BC

[BostonCard]

Rosen is right and not just in the micro. Most college football players are at school to play football, not go to class. The academics are secondary–if even considered in the first place. Also, this isn't new and trying to argue that this isn't the case is arguing about ideals not reality.

Even at Stanford, where many on this board are hailing as a paragon of virtue in this department, sure seems to have a lot of science, tech, and society or communications majors. I make no claim on the validity of these fields of studies but there isn't a biochemical engineering major on the roster (for example). Rosen is right, competing at a high level and putting in the work that is required to compete does interfere with studies.

Let's not pretend that we drive to Stanford Stadium or turn on ESPN to watch these guys study molecular physics or read Foucault. We watch football to see players run fast and hit each other hard. Should this be the case? Maybe not. But again, that's an argument about ideals and not reality.

Point taken, but Stanford doesn't have a program in biochemical engineering.

More broadly, I don't think the fact that we don't watch football to see players study has any relevance to the importance of academics and football.  As long as the student-athletes are getting an appropriate education, that is all that matters.  What they major in is their business.  The deal is that in return for us getting to watch them run fast and hit each other, they get a free, rigorous education.  I think by that measure, Stanford does quite well.

Rosen does have a point in that schools often sacrifice the latter in the quest for the former.  Then again, Rosen is in a unique position to show how much he values his education by not going pro after his junior year.

BC