Ban College Footballzz Trolololol

[prock]

Come on WSJ, you are better than this poor excuse for journalism. This is probably the most ignorant thing I've read in awhile.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...p_mostpop_read

Discuss.

[Sloopy]

By this argument, all college sports should be banned.

Furthermore, I can't get past the ignorance that college players don't receive anything. There are tons of kids who wouldn't be attending college at all if it weren't for the scholarships awarded to players. Even guys who don't go on to the pros receive full rides.

Schools may not be able to report direct income from these programs (ticket, memorabilia, jersey etc. sales) but the exposure that they get from it and thus attendance numbers is not so easily tracked.

Yes, the UAB argument is somewhat valid. No one is going to UAB for their football program nor do they really make money from it, but they still award scholarships to players who may not attend college without that scholarship.

This argument basically comes down to an argument of, why play sports period? With relatively few exceptions, there is no monetary gain involved. Certainly time involved could be considered waisted and it is rarely cost effective.

Yet every year there are millions of teams fielded in numerous sports at every level, from town recreational leagues all the way to the professional ranks.

The fact is that there are both mental and physical benefits to the players of these sports, and in some cases monetary benefits (salaries or scholarships).

[Santonio10]

These kids get a FREE education to play football. If they choose not to take advantage of it and focus solely on making it to the NFL, then that is their problem.

I don't really understand why PSU is mentioned with OSU, Miami and USC about scandals. Yes there was a scandal, but it had nothing to do with winning/losing football games. PSU is one of the few schools that sells education over football to its recruits, which is what JoePa believed in. Student first, athlete second. Dare I say that if every shool ran there program like coach Paterno that this wouldn't be an issue? Gasp!

[JoeJoeBrown]

Originally Posted by Santonio10

These kids get a FREE education to play football. If they choose not to take advantage of it and focus solely on making it to the NFL, then that is their problem.

I don't really understand why PSU is mentioned with OSU, Miami and USC about scandals. Yes there was a scandal, but it had nothing to do with winning/losing football games. PSU is one of the few schools that sells education over football to its recruits, which is what JoePa believed in. Student first, athlete second. Dare I say that if every shool ran there program like coach Paterno that this wouldn't be an issue? Gasp!

This is the funniest thing that I've read in weeks. Thanks for the laugh!

[Santonio10]

Glad you enjoyed it

[MassNole]

Malcolm McDowell opined on this earlier this week. It would make more sense for college to ban chemistry labs than football.

[Santonio10]

Originally Posted by JoeJoeBrown

This is the funniest thing that I've read in weeks. Thanks for the laugh!

Ignorance is bliss

[JeffSamardzijaIRISH]

Originally Posted by Santonio10

Ignorance is bliss

What is that? Boise State is a terrible school, I think some high schools might be tougher than Boise State. What are you trying to prove here?

[JoeJoeBrown]

Originally Posted by JeffSamardzijaIRISH

What is that? Boise State is a terrible school, I think some high schools might be tougher than Boise State. What are you trying to prove here?

He is the gift that keeps on giving.

[GallopingGhost]

The guy is trolling.

[Santonio10]

Apparently I'm missing something. All I said was that if more programs were run the way PSU has been, this wouldn't be an issue. Can you show me some facts as to why I am wrong in my statement?

[JoeJoeBrown]

Originally Posted by Santonio10

Apparently I'm missing something. All I said was that if more programs were run the way PSU has been, this wouldn't be an issue. Can you show me some facts as to why I am wrong in my statement?

PSU is one of the few schools that sells education over football to its recruits, which is what JoePa believed in. Student first, athlete second. Dare I say that if every shool ran there program like coach Paterno that this wouldn't be an issue? Gasp!

1) PSU football was about winning first, kids second. And obviously, troubled young boys were way down JoePa's list.

Every major college football program is about winning first, so please stop with the pollyanna crap about how PSU was an academics first college football team and CFB would be great if every coach were like JoePa.

JoePa got great players and tried to turn them into good students if they weren't already. That was a good thing. But don't make him out to be something that he wasn't. It was never about students first. It was about winning.

2) WTF is the Academic BCS chart you posted? It's a farcical list if it's purporting to be about academic excellence of football teams.

3) I think the trolling comment was addressed at the author of the WSJ article. You aren't trolling at all. You just have imbibed way too much Happy Valley KoolAid if you are offended at PSU being mentioned in some troll article.

Sports writers have figured out that big name teams, particularly college football and basketball teams, are easy to troll for hits. Say something sensational that is vaguely associated with reality and some team and the fanbase lovers and haters will read the article (at least the first and last sentences).

[soybean]

There is no way Stanford isn't number one.

[soybean]

Originally Posted by Santonio10

These kids get a FREE education to play football. If they choose not to take advantage of it and focus solely on making it to the NFL, then that is their problem.

Free education is nothing to a top 150 prep. that's like giving a billionaire a lifetime supply of Pepsi.

[Halsey]

Originally Posted by soybean

Free education is nothing to a top 150 prep. that's like giving a billionaire a lifetime supply of Pepsi.

An education is worth a little more than Pepsi. Especially for the 150 preps who don't live up to the hype.


On the topic of banning college football: I don't think banning is the answer. I just think there should be more options. There should be a viable junior league for high school graduates who just want to focus on trying to be a pro football player. The NFL doesn't want to pay for that, however.

[scottyboy]

that list had west virginia in top 6 of something academic. it is automatically invalid

[Shane P. Hallam]

Originally Posted by scottyboy

that list had west virginia in top 6 of something academic. it is automatically invalid

The list is based on team graduation rates and academic performance rates compared to the rest of the school. It has NOTHING to do with how difficult the school is or the level of academics at that school.

[Santonio10]

Originally Posted by JoeJoeBrown

1) PSU football was about winning first, kids second. And obviously, troubled young boys were way down JoePa's list.

Every major college football program is about winning first, so please stop with the pollyanna crap about how PSU was an academics first college football team and CFB would be great if every coach were like JoePa.

JoePa got great players and tried to turn them into good students if they weren't already. That was a good thing. But don't make him out to be something that he wasn't. It was never about students first. It was about winning.

2) WTF is the Academic BCS chart you posted? It's a farcical list if it's purporting to be about academic excellence of football teams.

3) I think the trolling comment was addressed at the author of the WSJ article. You aren't trolling at all. You just have imbibed way too much Happy Valley KoolAid if you are offended at PSU being mentioned in some troll article.

Sports writers have figured out that big name teams, particularly college football and basketball teams, are easy to troll for hits. Say something sensational that is vaguely associated with reality and some team and the fanbase lovers and haters will read the article (at least the first and last sentences).

1) yes you are right, he cared about winning, but he cared about doing it with players who worked hard in the classroom. He combined the two into a winning formula.

Not sure what your little boys comment has to do with anything. Since you didn't show me anything factual like I asked for, and don't believe that academics came first, I present this snippet from an article about Jamil Pollard, a highly recruited DT who will be a freshman at PSU this fall.

"He went into the summer before his senior year with a 1.7 GPA, and an ominous sense. Soon, the anvil fell.

In July, he received a call from Penn State assistant coach Ron Vanderlinden. His offer had been pulled because his grades were too poor. "I knew it was coming," Pollard said of the phone call. "It’s like when you know death is coming for you. I knew it was coming."

Pollard took the call in his coach’s office at the school. His eyes quickly welled, and after hearing that his offer to play at the school had been revoked, the rest of the conversation was a blur. He spent the following moments slumped sadly in his chair."

He had to work his butt off in school school just so he could be at PSU, and ended up making it. If that's not an academics first approach, then I dont know what is. And yes, I know this is one example, but there are countless others.

2) Shane explained it well. I will add that PSU is a great academic school, if you are not aware.

3) I never said I was offended by PSU being in there. I just don't think that the PSU scandal supports his argument. I just don't see how the PSU scandal had anything to do with winning football games. It's a totally different monster than what happened at OSU, USC and Miami. That's all I said.

However, my main point is that College coaches should be responsible for making sure their players perform in the classroom. Something like 2% of all college football players will make it to the NFL. If more coaches stressed academics instead of just winning football (like JoePa), then this wouldn't be an issue, as I previously stated.

[JoeJoeBrown]

Originally Posted by Santonio10

1) yes you are right, he cared about winning, but he cared about doing it with players who worked hard in the classroom. He combined the two into a winning formula.

Not sure what your little boys comment has to do with anything. Since you didn't show me anything factual like I asked for, and don't believe that academics came first, I present this snippet from an article about Jamil Pollard, a highly recruited DT who will be a freshman at PSU this fall.

"He went into the summer before his senior year with a 1.7 GPA, and an ominous sense. Soon, the anvil fell.

In July, he received a call from Penn State assistant coach Ron Vanderlinden. His offer had been pulled because his grades were too poor. "I knew it was coming," Pollard said of the phone call. "It’s like when you know death is coming for you. I knew it was coming."

Pollard took the call in his coach’s office at the school. His eyes quickly welled, and after hearing that his offer to play at the school had been revoked, the rest of the conversation was a blur. He spent the following moments slumped sadly in his chair."

He had to work his butt off in school school just so he could be at PSU, and ended up making it. If that's not an academics first approach, then I dont know what is. And yes, I know this is one example, but there are countless others.

2) Shane explained it well. I will add that PSU is a great academic school, if you are not aware.

3) I never said I was offended by PSU being in there. I just don't think that the PSU scandal supports his argument. I just don't see how the PSU scandal had anything to do with winning football games. It's a totally different monster than what happened at OSU, USC and Miami. That's all I said.

However, my main point is that College coaches should be responsible for making sure their players perform in the classroom. Something like 2% of all college football players will make it to the NFL. If more coaches stressed academics instead of just winning football (like JoePa), then this wouldn't be an issue, as I previously stated.

I generally agree with your post. It was well written, and you took time, and I greatly appreciate that.

PSU is a great public school with a grand tradition. I just don't buy into the mythology of the football program wrt academics.

PSU flat out denies requests for a bunch of info.

There is zero visibility into Happy Valley and many of us whom aren't a part of the Nittany Lion family just don't get good vibes from that. The information coming out of there is, and was, far too positive and sanitized for the reality of big time college football. The game is very corrupt, and there is no way PSU has not been involved in scandal to some extent (not counting the Sandusky stuff).

[JHL6719]

Here's an interesting counter argument...

http://www.everydayshouldbesaturday....humble-opinion



..and another by Scarbinsky...

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2...buzz_biss.html

[JoeJoeBrown]

Originally Posted by JHL6719

Here's an interesting counter argument...

http://www.everydayshouldbesaturday....humble-opinion



..and another by Scarbinsky...

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2...buzz_biss.html

Good stuff. Especially liked the second article.

[Santonio10]

Originally Posted by JoeJoeBrown

I generally agree with your post. It was well written, and you took time, and I greatly appreciate that.

PSU is a great public school with a grand tradition. I just don't buy into the mythology of the football program wrt academics.

PSU flat out denies requests for a bunch of info.

There is zero visibility into Happy Valley and many of us whom aren't a part of the Nittany Lion family just don't get good vibes from that. The information coming out of there is, and was, far too positive and sanitized for the reality of big time college football. The game is very corrupt, and there is no way PSU has not been involved in scandal to some extent (not counting the Sandusky stuff).

I couldn't access your article for some reason. But I completely agree that the program isn't very visible. Joe liked to handle things himself and privately, which I don't agree with. Coach O'Brien seems to want to make the program more transparent to the public eye.

I can see how the lack of transparency may seem questionable to outsiders. I know a few former players and they all say that they never received anything for coming to PSU other than their scholarship. That's what they SAY at least haha. My girlfriend had class with quite a few players and said that none of them got preferential treatment by professors for being on the football team. The players I know echo the same thing. She studied with some of them and said they worked through the class together (because the class was difficult).

I am also friends with the academic advisor to the football team. He always told me how much Joe stressed academics to the players. I have been in the academic building and have seen first hand the amount of players that go there to get their school work done. Based on what the players tell me and seeing it first hand, I truly believe that they had to earn their grades and didn't receive preferential treatment for eligibility reasons. Some probably have, but it wasn't because the football program told them to boost their grades.

I agree that PSU has been involved in some sort of scandal (besides Sandusky). I'm sure there have been instances that haven't been made public where coach Paterno handled a player who got into trouble questionably, but that's a different topic. His emphasis on academics cannot be questioned. The players I know always told me that Joe stressed academics first. He used to say "if you can't perform in the classroom, how can you perform on the football field?"

[Santonio10]

I apologize for making this about PSU, but like I said earlier, I think college coaches need to make sure that their players are working hard in the classroom regardless if it's division 1-A or d-3. The coaches know that not many will make it to the NFL, so I just don't understand they can be ok with making it only about football.

To me, it seems that the student athletes are the ones making questionable decisons (they are 18-22 after all). A coach should be the one to get them in the right direction, especially with academics. I know it is there job to win football games, but making it only about winning shows carelessness on the part of the coach. They should be held to some responsibility in that regard.

While I don't agree that college football should be banned, I do think that higher academic standards should be in place. I know that not all kids are smart enough to make it in college, but they doesn't mean they cannot work hard at it. They are getting a free education and many don't take advantage of it like they should. Like I have said, Coaches should make sure their players perform in the classroom (since they are the ones offering them the free education)

[descendency]

Stanford is just trolling. Those kids get 100s on everything.

[hulk]

Hey santanio10 when you coming back to the house? I only ask on here cause i can't look at funny pictures without 10 post, this is number 2.