« The Great Migration | Main | Long Way, Short Amount of Time »

The Football Major?

Posted on Monday, July 24, 2006 at 03:42AM by Registered CommenterCFR in , , , | Comments18 Comments

I don't agree, but we can at least table it:

The Football Major

Let's get serious, folks. Most of the players who fill football and basketball rosters at Division One schools are NOT legitimate students. Many would not be at their universities were it not for their athletic ability.

There are entrance requirements for regular students and then there are the entrance requirements for athletes. There is usually a huge gap between the two.

Now, in my book, there is nothing wrong with that. What's wrong is that we try to pretend that there's no difference.

We celebrate the concept of the student-athlete and expect players with NFL talent to also do well in useless (to them) majors like sociology or public policy and management.

I say it's time we cut all this nonsense out.

If you are football player, you should be able to major in football.

After all, if you are a gifted cello player, you come to a music school to major in cello. Why can't Brandon Cox major in quarterback?

Heisman Pundit makes a good case for his proposal, noting that football players with football or sports-related majors are not all that different from people with music majors etc.  They're following a curriculum that involves practice and an understanding of their field of study.

It would certainly abate some of the childish crowing about the great numbers of sociology, human development and basket weaving majors found within the rolls of major football teams.

Personally, I hope athletes would pursue more traditional majors and continue the facade of "student-athletes".  But there's something very libertarian and realist about HP's proposal that I cannot ignore.

As it is we're setting up many a young man and woman to fail with the status quo, pigeonholing them into pursuits they may not give a hoot about if not for needing a degree to stay eligible.

At least with more realistic degree options an extra ounce of choice is inserted into the process, and an athlete can pursue his or her true interest and calling and suffer the consequences if they fail along the way.  That's life.  For whatever reason there's a strong impulse within society to regulate a great amount of behavior and outcomes instead of letting people chase their interests right or wrong.  Perhaps a football (or athletics/sports) major is a check against that impulse.

I'm reminded of the story of former Notre Dame tight end Joey Hiben who ditched the football program to pursue a degree in the ultra-demanding architecture program.  To his credit the kid made an interesting choice and will face the consequences of that decision.  I think he was smart, as it's almost impossible to balance such a demanding pursuit with the demands of year-round football at major programs like Notre Dame.  He didn't choose football, but many others do, and it's a touch unfair to demand of them a pursuit they may not have great interest in.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (18)

I'm on your side here, in that I don't agree with HP on the idea that a football major will cure ills in college sports. Should they get credit for the work they do? Sure, but I almost think it makes more sense to pay them than give them college hours. As after-school special as it sounds, you have to think about the greater good of the kids.

The football players who should be majoring in football are going to be ok. They are the ones who will be in the pros, making bank, and at least having a chance at a better life because of athletics. The problem with this idea is that it will cause many kids, especially those that are highly touted, to take on a useless degree path expecting to get to the league. Sure, some of them are wasting their time majoring in psychology or something, but at least if football doesn't work out, they HAVE a degree. Maybe they can become PE teachers or something, but if they have a football degree, they are Grade A screwed. Where's the need?
July 24, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterCody
Hey, the world needs ditch diggers, too.
July 24, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterHP
Cody is right. We can't have kids with no talent major in football and graduate with a worthless degree. They are playing for a SCHOOL. If they are attending the school they should get an education. Otherwise the NFL should draft players in their teens and start a minor league system for the NFL like baseball does. But I hope this doesn't happen because that would kill college football as we know it today.
July 24, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterPSUMike
I got no problem with ditch diggers. Shouldn't we give our athletes better, though? Come on! They entertain us from the sidelines at least 10 days a year!!
July 24, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterCody
Well, are you going to make that cello player major in sociology, too?
July 25, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterHP
Maybe there should be a "general studies" section for the first two years or so of the football major, after which point you get into the "core" football major classes. This way, if after a couple of years, the player is still on the bench, his options are still open to move into a truly academic major (such as sociology, history, or psychology...I'm saying this somewhat tongue in cheek). If the player is successful on the field and sees a future in football, he can continue with the core classes, culminating in classes about contracts, collective bargaining, and negotiation techniques. Of course there could be abuses to the system, just as there are today, so there would have to be some oversight to make sure the whole thing doesn't turn into a joke.

As far PSUMike's comments, at some point you have to force the players to take some responsibility about their future. Coaches, administrators, parents, etc should be giving good guidance, but there is only so much that can be done. If the player is not motivated to go to class and get a education, then no amount of cajoling on the part of the administration is going to change things. If anything, continuously providing "help" to pass academic classes only cheapens the major for all of those students who actually did the work.
July 25, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterFC
I have major problems with this. College football is not about getting into the NFL. Honestly, how many people on a 85-125 player roster get on an NFL team? And even those who get drafted, how many survive the first cut? So what do the other 95% that didn't successfully wind up on an NFL roster do?

There is no "cello" major, yet there ARE sports/phys ed majors. Football is a subject - not a major - and a college degree is to prepare you for life, not a single subject. I was a geophysics major, but it didn't mean I didn't have to take English, History, Classics, etc. To rearrange the entire accreditation process, because that's what it would take, just so that a tiny minority of players could move more easily into the NFL while remaining essentially illiterate would be a crime.

There IS a class-less way to get into the NFL. Sit 3 years playing with your XBox after you finish highschool then enter the draft. Do you think that's what the NFL wants?

Non-football classes develop the mind in ways that make smart football players and smart football players play better. If someone's dumb as a post and can't pass a class, the NFL will still be there after 3 years - only the dumb player is going to be going up against smart players equally talented. If you were the NFL, who would you pick?
July 25, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterSmog
Oh but there are cello majors. And piano majors. Etc.

College is whatever each university makes of it.

I'm a little less absolute about statements like "college football is not about getting to the NFL". For a decent amount of these guys (upwards of 230-300 in each graduating class) it is.

I'd rather have these guys study something relevant and important while enrolled, but again that should be their choice whether to do so or not, it shouldn't be force-fed to them.
July 25, 2006 | Registered CommenterCFR
No on is saying that the general elective/gen ed. portion of a degree would be phased out. football players would still have to take Comp 101 and Classics and the Proto-Feminist-Communist classes that now exist as part of required curriculum. Just like anyone else.

I am referring to the Major portion of the degree. Why should someone who has spent his entire life in a field and who wants to one day work in that field be forced to take another major?

What's more, he is forced to take that major not for the purpose of bettering him, but more often than not just to keep him eligible.

We do not force someone majoring in Cello to also major in Economics. Nor do we force someone majoring in Sculpting to also major in Sociology.

Sure, not all college players play in the pros. But not all econ majors become Milton Friedman or John Kenneth Galbreath.

Not all history majors become Paul Johnson or Stephen Ambrose.

That's why we have the teaching profession. If football players don't make it in a pro league, their major can prepare them for a variety of tasks--being a trainer, a coach, a gym teacher, a nutritionist, and so on.

Instead, we stick our heads in the sand and pretend that these athletes are getting educated. Not even close.
July 25, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterHP
As much as I would hate to admit it, HP makes a point. Even the so called difficult majors, such as engineering, doesn't garuntee a job in that field. I know many engineering majors from my alma mater (myself included) that never truly took an engineering job. The major and the education prepared us for a wide range of possible positions. A Football major could be the same way, just as HP says. Maybe it would be an easier pill to swallow if it was named something else, although a good substitute name escapes me now. Of course, you also open up this major to students who are not football players, creating a true academic major that would also prepare students to go into football related fields, such as coaching, trainers, etc. It might make college more of a vocational school, but how do you think most finance majors view college? Its their ticket to a high paying investment banking position, as long as they perform well enough while in college.
July 25, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterFC
Is it bad that when I read Paul Johnson I think of the Georgia Southern/Navy coach and have my heart warmed at the thought of the triple option?
July 25, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterCody
Not at all, you sick puppy.
July 25, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterHP
Heh.

Leave it to Cody to provide the comic relief.
July 25, 2006 | Registered CommenterCFR
I would agree with the article. Of course, some exceptions such as USC Matt Leinart who managed to be both a student and football player at the cost of some $$$$....not entirely his fault, methinks.
July 26, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterRoger
Schools that do not graduate at least, say 70% of their athletes on average should be moved into a semi-pro league and chased from the NCAA. NCAA should be reserved for schools that actually have classes and students. Then all the semi-pro football factories with classes like ballroom dancing could go play by themselves.
July 26, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterCoffee Colored Angel
If that happened the quality of D-I football would go down the toilet. It would be less popular than professional hockey at that point.
July 26, 2006 | Registered CommenterCFR
"For a decent amount of these guys (upwards of 230-300 in each graduating class) it is."

Out of how many thousands that leave universities each year? Universities are not day care for dreamers. As for some pathetic institution offering a "Cello" major, if that's the case let's just dumb the whole system down to the least common denominator and give degrees to anyone that wants to show up. USC doesn't do this, don't know what trailer park school being given as an example in the other comment. USC also doesn't offer underwater basketweaving as a major.

Should they allow women's lacrosse to be a major as well?

The comment about "hard majors" not guaranteeing a job either is also kind of lame. If you have an engineering degree - you might not wind up an engineer - but you dang sure are qualified for a whole lot of other jobs. Football major? Not so much.

There is already Journalism, Medicine, Sociology, Business and such that can be applied in the area of sports if a player wishes. Sports Journalism, Sports Medicine, Sports Sociology, Sports Business. Just take the classes. This would give the NFL flop a way out. Even Phys Ed offers the opportunity to be competitive for jobs in education.

Someone headed to the NFL has no God given right to a university diploma they didn't earn. They can still play in the NFL. Are they as competitive? No. So what. Same can be said for a person wanting to be an executive for a Fortune 500 company. It's a lot harder without a good diploma, so should we give every kid with this dream an easy diploma just so he can apply at Citigroup?

Athletes aren't the only group inwhich some can't make it through a university education. Non-athletes in this situation don't get admitted at all. It just boils my hide when people want to dumb something down for those who can't hack it. A degree is not necessary for entry into the NFL.
July 27, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterSmog
Smog,

I hate to break it to you, but USC does offer a Cello major... sort of. It's just called "Strings".

At the USC Thornton School of Music there are also majors in "Studio/Jazz Guitar", "Keyboard Studies", "Classical Guitar", "Scoring for Motion Pictures & Television" and many others---complete list here:

http://www.usc.edu/schools/music/programs/

There's a reason USC is derisively nicknamed "Fig Tech" by UCLA fans, at its core USC is a trade school more than a liberal arts school (thus the strong schools in public policy, journalism, dentistry, pharmacy, music, etc.).

I believe HP's argument is that a football major could be legit, involving studies of coaching, organizational management, business, dealing with media and agents and the financial end of the game, etc. Sports is a business and a trade just like everything else in this world if we can ever get over our biases against athletics and realize as much.

No, it's not exactly as mind-numbing as plugging away feverishly for 4-5 years getting an EE or Architecture degree, but it's purpose is the same: to provide necessary education in a field that people seek to enter.
July 27, 2006 | Registered CommenterCFR

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.