Ralph Nader's plan: eliminate athletic schollies

[Jacie]

http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news;_ylt=AkiudA8.8Wd4UfdM5zgmIIIcvrYF?slug=ap-nader-athleticscholarships

Ralph Nader calls for ending athletic scholarships

By FREDERIC J. FROMMER, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP)—Consumer advocate Ralph Nader is calling for the elimination of college athletic scholarships, saying the move is necessary to “de-professionalize” college athletes.

“As we near the exciting conclusion of `March Madness’—which would more accurately be described as the 2011 NCAA Professional Basketball Championships— it’s time we step back and finally address the myth of amateurism surrounding big-time college football and basketball in this country,” said Nader, whose League of Fans is proposing that the scholarships be replaced with need-based financial aid. The Associated Press obtained a copy of the proposal Thursday, ahead of its official release.

NCAA spokesman Bob Williams said referring to college athletes as professionals defies logic.

“They are students, just like any other student on campus who receives a merit-based scholarship,” he said.

Nader, a former presidential candidate, argued that his plan would also help reduce the “win-at-all-costs” mentality in high schools, by reducing the incentive of college scholarships.

“An entire industry has developed in the youth sports arena—club teams, personal trainers, etc.—to prey on families’ dreams of an athletic scholarship,” he said. “The lure of the elusive athletic scholarship is the primary—sometimes the only—marketing tool these youth sports entrepreneurs use.”

He said he would try to gin up support for his proposal from university presidents, Capitol Hill and the Education Department.

“We’ll use all the levers,” Nader said. “We’ll use the parents of athletes who’ve been mistreated and sick, and forced to play when they’re injured.”

Nader added that he hadn’t yet canvassed Capitol Hill, but figured he’d find lawmakers who are concerned about the way college athletes are treated.

He noted that the Drake Group, a college athletic watchdog organization, has come out in favor of banning athletic scholarships.

Nader said that colleges should either integrate athletics into the educational mission by eliminating college scholarships, or, “openly acknowledge the professionalism in big-time college sports, remove the tax-exempt status currently given to athletic departments, and make universities operate them as unrelated businesses.”

The longtime former head of the NCAA, Walter Byers, has called for paying college athletes.

Nader said his proposal was the opening initiative of a rejuvenated League of Fans, a sports reform group that has been dormant for some time.

[agoo758]

.

[B1rd]

I guess needlessly messing up the Corvair was not enough for him.

[sooner ngintunr]

He sounds more logical than this guy:

NCAA spokesman Bob Williams said referring to college athletes as professionals defies logic.

“They are students, just like any other student on campus who receives a merit-based scholarship,” he said.

That sounds like a big ol load of bull****.

[soonerinkaty]

If I didn't like college sports so much, this might sound like an OKAY idea. But I like my college sports so he can **** off.

[Mongo]

Sounds like Nader should have been a better athlete in high school

[goingoneight]

The only thing about athletic schollies that bothers me is some braindead jock who can only muster up a six on the wonderlic gets to go to school at his school of choice and have the world all laid out for him.

But, like stated above... he can **** off. we like us some CFB.

Local economies thrive on successful collegiate athletics. Kill the sport, well... you get the picture.

[btb916]

He sounds more logical than this guy:

NCAA spokesman Bob Williams said referring to college athletes as professionals defies logic.

“They are students, just like any other student on campus who receives a merit-based scholarship,” he said.

That sounds like a big ol load of bull****.

It is a big ol' load of bull****.

I think it's a joke that college athletes aren't paid. The scholarships etc only constitute a fraction of the value they bring in. But, I would hate to see the sport messed up by changing it too much. Hopefully we can find a good alternative to the current system that doesn't screw up the current goodness.

[Memtig14]

Guess he's never been a poor kid trying to find a way out of the ghetto.

[FtwTxSooner]

Actually, football players may end up better off without athletic scholarships. A Norman, Oklahoma based semi-pro team with the colors of crimson and cream will take its place. The players could then get paid, and I'm sure arrangements can be made to enroll in the University and take some classes for the players that actually care about their education. Those that just want to play ball can do that as well.

[Spray]

Guess he's never been a poor kid trying to find a way out of the ghetto.

That's where "need-based financial aid" comes in.

[Tiger6]

It is a big ol' load of bull****.

I think it's a joke that college athletes aren't paid. The scholarships etc only constitute a fraction of the value they bring in. But, I would hate to see the sport messed up by changing it too much. Hopefully we can find a good alternative to the current system that doesn't screw up the current goodness.

You think getting 30,000 dollars worth of education PLUS books, free workout gear, personal tutors, housing, and food isnt enough? Span that out over 5-6 years (the average time for college students to graduate these days) and thats at least 60,000 dollars worth of materials and living expenses that student athletes receive as opposed to the traditional college student taking out loans. I didnt even throw in interest.....

Hardly a joke....

[Memtig14]

Actually, football players may end up better off without athletic scholarships. A Norman, Oklahoma based semi-pro team with the colors of crimson and cream will take its place. The players could then get paid, and I'm sure arrangements can be made to enroll in the University and take some classes for the players that actually care about their education. Those that just want to play ball can do that as well.

Don't we already have "semi-pro" teams that no one cares about?

[badger]

Even if they took scholarships away from athletics, the best players would still be recruited to attend big college programs. Look at baseball - a majority of players get less money than OHLAP students at OU to attend college. Yet, here they all are, part of a big time, ranked program, even without a full scholarship, even on outta state tuition.

How can that be, Ralph Nader? :rolleyes:

[Memtig14]

That's where "need-based financial aid" comes in.

Nader did not call for "need-based financial aid". The NCAA spokesman refered to that.

[FtwTxSooner]

Don't we already have "semi-pro" teams that no one cares about?

Though, they don't have near the talent. The demand won't go away. I'd like to see the big school football programs to break away from the NCAA. They can still be affiliated with the university, though not be shackled as they are now by the NCAA.

[Memtig14]

It is a big ol' load of bull****.

I think it's a joke that college athletes aren't paid. The scholarships etc only constitute a fraction of the value they bring in. But, I would hate to see the sport messed up by changing it too much. Hopefully we can find a good alternative to the current system that doesn't screw up the current goodness.

Workers getting a bigger portion of "what they bring in" is a totally different subject. Now we are getting into pro football.....and see where that topic is taking us. A scholarship and a chance of an education is the deal. And not a bad one at that.

[prrriiide]

Nader is just pi$$ed because there's no scholly for water fountain sitting.

[Memtig14]

Though, they don't have near the talent. The demand won't go away. I'd like to see the big school football programs to break away from the NCAA. They can still be affiliated with the university, though not be shackled as they are now by the NCAA.

I just see that as a totally different subject. Maybe it has merit. But there has to be regulation.

[Spray]

Nader did not call for "need-based financial aid". The NCAA spokesman refered to that.

Actually, it was Nader's group that did:

"...said Nader, whose League of Fans is proposing that the scholarships be replaced with need-based financial aid."

[Spray]

Even if they took scholarships away from athletics, the best players would still be recruited to attend big college programs. Look at baseball - a majority of players get less money than OHLAP students at OU to attend college. Yet, here they all are, part of a big time, ranked program, even without a full scholarship, even on outta state tuition.

How can that be, Ralph Nader? :rolleyes:

Probably a bad example. The best baseball players go pro straight out of high school.

[Tiger6]

Listen...if they took away the athletic scholarship....then OUDavid would have to find something to do other than stalk athletes' facebook and twitter pages.

Nader is a genius.

[SoonerMom2]

Why would anyone pay attention to what Nader has to say?

[Spray]

Why would anyone pay attention to what Nader has to say?


Because his argument might have some merit?

[Memtig14]

Actually, it was Nader's group that did:

"...said Nader, whose League of Fans is proposing that the scholarships be replaced with need-based financial aid."

What is Nader's "League of Fans"?

[Memtig14]

Why would anyone pay attention to what Nader has to say?

LOL Perhaps the best question.

[BoomerJ]

http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news;_ylt=AkiudA8.8Wd4UfdM5zgmIIIcvrYF?slug=ap-nader-athleticscholarships

Ralph Nader calls for ending athletic scholarships

By FREDERIC J. FROMMER, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP)—Consumer advocate Ralph Nader is calling for the elimination of college athletic scholarships, saying the move is necessary to “de-professionalize” college athletes.

“As we near the exciting conclusion of `March Madness’—which would more accurately be described as the 2011 NCAA Professional Basketball Championships— it’s time we step back and finally address the myth of amateurism surrounding big-time college football and basketball in this country,” said Nader, whose League of Fans is proposing that the scholarships be replaced with need-based financial aid. The Associated Press obtained a copy of the proposal Thursday, ahead of its official release.

NCAA spokesman Bob Williams said referring to college athletes as professionals defies logic.

“They are students, just like any other student on campus who receives a merit-based scholarship,” he said.

Nader, a former presidential candidate, argued that his plan would also help reduce the “win-at-all-costs” mentality in high schools, by reducing the incentive of college scholarships.

“An entire industry has developed in the youth sports arena—club teams, personal trainers, etc.—to prey on families’ dreams of an athletic scholarship,” he said. “The lure of the elusive athletic scholarship is the primary—sometimes the only—marketing tool these youth sports entrepreneurs use.”

He said he would try to gin up support for his proposal from university presidents, Capitol Hill and the Education Department.

“We’ll use all the levers,” Nader said. “We’ll use the parents of athletes who’ve been mistreated and sick, and forced to play when they’re injured.”

Nader added that he hadn’t yet canvassed Capitol Hill, but figured he’d find lawmakers who are concerned about the way college athletes are treated.

He noted that the Drake Group, a college athletic watchdog organization, has come out in favor of banning athletic scholarships.

Nader said that colleges should either integrate athletics into the educational mission by eliminating college scholarships, or, “openly acknowledge the professionalism in big-time college sports, remove the tax-exempt status currently given to athletic departments, and make universities operate them as unrelated businesses.”

The longtime former head of the NCAA, Walter Byers, has called for paying college athletes.

Nader said his proposal was the opening initiative of a rejuvenated League of Fans, a sports reform group that has been dormant for some time.



Nader doesn't sound much like a consumer advocate.

[Spray]

What is Nader's "League of Fans"?

Honestly, I have no idea.

The interesting thing about this is the problem Nader perceives with youth and high school sports. Because the incentive of a college athletic scholarship has become so large, the business of sports training, travel teams, youth leagues has grown to the point of exploiting children... in Nader's eyes. So he is targeting that incentive- the athletic college scholarship.

I don't necessarily agree with his proposed solution, but it does raise an interesting point about youth athletics and could stimulate debate on the subject.

[Spray]

Nader doesn't sound much like a consumer advocate.

That's the first thing I thought.

[Memtig14]

Honestly, I have no idea.

The interesting thing about this is the problem Nader perceives with youth and high school sports. Because the incentive of a college athletic scholarship has become so large, the business of sports training, travel teams, youth leagues has grown to the point of exploiting children... in Nader's eyes. So he is targeting that incentive- the athletic college scholarship.

I don't necessarily agree with his proposed solution, but it does raise an interesting point about youth athletics and could stimulate debate on the subject.

I just saw where it said he was calling for the end of athletic scholarships. It might make for a worthy converstation, but kids should go to college and get the experience. I admit it is (or can be) a different experience than most college kids have, but it is a chance for kids to be exposed to the world of academia that they would otherwise never get.

Why screw with college sports? I agree, it doesn't seem to make him that much of a consumer advocate because I love it the way it is.

[Spray]

Can't say I disagree, Memtig.

But I am undecided about sports for kids these days. My youth leagues were through the YMCA with volunteer coaches (i.e., "dads") and didn't get really serious until at least junior high. I couldn't imagine being on a traveling baseball team for my whole summer at age 12.

On the one hand, what a great experience and I do believe sports teach invaluable life lessons. On the other hand, "parents obsess much?"

[Blue]

Why does Ralph Nader hate America?

[Soonerjeepman]

The only thing about athletic schollies that bothers me is some braindead jock who can only muster up a six on the wonderlic gets to go to school at his school of choice and have the world all laid out for him.

But, like stated above... he can **** off. we like us some CFB.

Local economies thrive on successful collegiate athletics. Kill the sport, well... you get the picture.

it's called CAPITALI$M....me being a teacher...realize...that no matter how well my students do I don't get a raise..no prob..I knew that going in...I'm all for capitali$m....it's what makes the world go round..

oh and NO I don't believe in "sharing the wealth"...as obama says..

[OU_Sooners75]

Actually, football players may end up better off without athletic scholarships. A Norman, Oklahoma based semi-pro team with the colors of crimson and cream will take its place. The players could then get paid, and I'm sure arrangements can be made to enroll in the University and take some classes for the players that actually care about their education. Those that just want to play ball can do that as well.


So in other words we should go back to the era of pre-1930's?

You do know it was not until the 1930s or 1940s (maybe a little earlier) when players actually had to be enrolled in the university to play for the teams, right?

Before then the teams consisted of firefighters, pharmacists, farmers and others in the community that wanted to play.

In other words, it was basically a semi-pro league back then.

[OU_Sooners75]

Also, look at this way...

If they take scholarships away, then what happens? There would be no scholarships, therefore no limits on scholarships awarded...then you get into the problem of having to deal with the bigger money makers grabbing all the players.

Think about it....if Texas had free reign on any player they wanted with no limitations... After all they are the tops when it comes to sports revenue in the nation!

[yankee]

You think getting 30,000 dollars worth of education PLUS books, free workout gear, personal tutors, housing, and food isnt enough? Span that out over 5-6 years (the average time for college students to graduate these days) and thats at least 60,000 dollars worth of materials and living expenses that student athletes receive as opposed to the traditional college student taking out loans. I didnt even throw in interest.....

Hardly a joke....

Well said.

Sounds like a good deal to me!

[Spray]

Also, look at this way...

If they take scholarships away, then what happens? There would be no scholarships, therefore no limits on scholarships awarded...then you get into the problem of having to deal with the bigger money makers grabbing all the players.

Think about it....if Texas had free reign on any player they wanted with no limitations... After all they are the tops when it comes to sports revenue in the nation!

Obviously, you would just set roster limits.

[ouwasp]

Why does Ralph Nader hate America?

Yeah. Ralph ought to go wallow in the socialist misery of NK. Ought to make him feel right at home.

As for the parent obsessive angle, that has gone overboard. But don't spoil my college football viewing because of those nimrods. :texan:

Funny story: A coach I know had a mom stop him on the way to get a bus a few yrs ago. "Coach X, don't mean to hold you up, but I'm trying to decide which camp to send Johnny to this summer, football or basketball? He wants to go pro, which do you think he has a better shot at?" Coach: "Shoot, if I were you, I'd just flip a coin. Probably has the same chance either way." :D

[Leroy Lizard]

Guess he's never been a poor kid trying to find a way out of the ghetto.

I'm not sure I buy Nader's argument, but this argument is no better. There would still be academic scholarships that would give students from poorer communities a chance to attend college through (get this) academic achievement.

Running faster than someone else shouldn't give one kid a free ride at a university. Running fast has nothing to do with academics.

[Bishop3000]

Well said.

Sounds like a good deal to me!
Ya know a lot of cool things come with being a football player on scholarship. But really, the free gear, education etc doesnt come for free. If you are on academic scholarship you have to maintain a certain GPA or lose your scholarship. So you work harder in between maybe a little work study or off-campus job. As an athlete you have, oh about 40 hours of commitments a week and have limitations on work. So I think that balances out the "free" gear argument. The only thing that's "somewhat" free is the education. But once again we are talking about a scholarship that comes with certain requirements. Do athletes get extra attention and benefits? Sure. But they also have a ton of time requirements.

The only legitimate argument made is the "professionalism" word. Because students on academic scholarship don't bring money into the school in the way the athletes do. Since the athletes dont get paid actual cash they're no more a professional than the academic on scholarship, they just make the school (for some schools that is) money. I won't even go into how incredibly stupid eliminating athletic scholarships is. But I'm glad Nader wasnt important when I played...then again I guess he's not now either.

[Leroy Lizard]

I just saw where it said he was calling for the end of athletic scholarships. It might make for a worthy converstation, but kids should go to college and get the experience. I admit it is (or can be) a different experience than most college kids have, but it is a chance for kids to be exposed to the world of academia that they would otherwise never get.

Why screw with college sports? I agree, it doesn't seem to make him that much of a consumer advocate because I love it the way it is.

I don't see this as having anything to do with consumers.

If he saw a factory that was putting its employees in harm's way, he would probably speak out against it. The fact that the consumer wants the factory's products is not really the issue.

I'm no fan of Nader, but this is a pretty weak argument against him.

[Leroy Lizard]

Obviously, you would just set roster limits.

Yeah, that was a silly counterargument. My old softball team didn't have scholarships, but we could only sign 20 players max.

[Leroy Lizard]

Ya know a lot of cool things come with being a football player on scholarship. But really, the free gear, education etc doesnt come for free. If you are on academic scholarship you have to maintain a certain GPA or lose your scholarship. So you work harder in between maybe a little work study or off-campus job. As an athlete you have, oh about 40 hours of commitments a week and have limitations on work. So I think that balances out the "free" gear argument. The only thing that's "somewhat" free is the education. But once again we are talking about a scholarship that comes with certain requirements. Do athletes get extra attention and benefits? Sure. But they also have a ton of time requirements.


Sure sounds like a free education to me.

[texaspokieokie]

I guess needlessly messing up the Corvair was not enough for him.

that's a neat link !!

[texaspokieokie]

Why would anyone pay attention to what Nader has to say?

i've been wondering that ever since he killed the "corvair".

he wanted GM to recall 1959 cadillacs for some supposed flaw he found. don't remember what it was. only thing; THIS WAS IN 1972 !!!!

i've always considered him to be a "Nader-advocate".

[texaspokieokie]

Actually, football players may end up better off without athletic scholarships. A Norman, Oklahoma based semi-pro team with the colors of crimson and cream will take its place. The players could then get paid, and I'm sure arrangements can be made to enroll in the University and take some classes for the players that actually care about their education. Those that just want to play ball can do that as well.

i've been a season ticket holder to OU football games for the past 22 seasons. if there was a "semi-pro" team playing in their place, i would never see any reason to support that team. it's a long drive from irving to norman
& it's only for OU (& me) that i would make that trip. (way over 100 times)

the whole system would fall apart. (JMHO)

[KantoSooner]

Look, Ralph Nader suffers from the same disease that many on the left do. He is a bright man and he has had a number of good ideas (mandatory seat belts being one, as I recall). Where he falls apart is in his frustration with his fellow man.
Since he is so intelligent, he sees no reason at all for people to not follow his advice. Since that is obviously 'stupid' he seeks to impose his will on his fellows. "For their own good". I've got a couple of college buddies who've worked for him. One escaped the cult of ralph. The other is still there. The escapee and I have talked about it over the years and as far as we can tell, Ralph's perfect world is one in which Ralph tells everyone what to do and everyone obeys.
He just can't accept that people might have legitimately differing view points. Or that any system that allows for differing viewpoints or actions can actually produce more human 'happiness' than one in which we are all obedient drones.

[No1Better]

Nader is irrelevant and misses the spotlight. So he drums up this nonsense to grab a headline. Student athletes have a commitment beyond a normal student and should be awarded a schollie. Nader is a doosh...

[badger]

Amazing how when the economy tanks that people care less about saving the environment and more about saving money.

(T. Boone and Nader are both glaring at me right now, hehe)

[texaspokieokie]

don't get the connection between , this thread, the economy, the environment, nader & t-bone ??

[SoonerNutt]

I don't see this as having anything to do with consumers.

If he saw a factory that was putting its employees in harm's way, he would probably speak out against it. The fact that the consumer wants the factory's products is not really the issue.

I'm no fan of Nader, but this is a pretty weak argument against him.

Agree with that, but the sticking point is that every article, including this one, tags him as "Ralph Nader, consumer advocate, said...." In this context, he is essentially a pro-labor advocate, which is very often at odds with being a pro-consumer advocate. So, if he is always billed as a "consumer advocate", even though it's probably been a long time since he actaully did anything noteworthy on that front, then it's fair to point out when his positions are at odds with the wants or needs of the actual consumers.

[SoonerNutt]

Look, Ralph Nader suffers from the same disease that many on the left do. He is a bright man and he has had a number of good ideas (mandatory seat belts being one, as I recall). Where he falls apart is in his frustration with his fellow man.
Since he is so intelligent, he sees no reason at all for people to not follow his advice. Since that is obviously 'stupid' he seeks to impose his will on his fellows. "For their own good". I've got a couple of college buddies who've worked for him. One escaped the cult of ralph. The other is still there. The escapee and I have talked about it over the years and as far as we can tell, Ralph's perfect world is one in which Ralph tells everyone what to do and everyone obeys.
He just can't accept that people might have legitimately differing view points. Or that any system that allows for differing viewpoints or actions can actually produce more human 'happiness' than one in which we are all obedient drones.

That describes a big chunk of the "intellectual elite" in thus country. The problem is, they don't live in the same world that they are trying to micro-manage.

[cantwait48]

ralph nader wants a wolf to eat your family so they will stop polluting

[jkjsooner]

I remember Chris Weber complaining about how he wasn't allowed to share in the revenue when he was at Michigan. The question I asked then and still ask now, why didn't the players from the '50s feel victimized by the universities? Why were they simply happy to get a free education, some admiration, and the occasional coed? Why all of a sudden are student athletes victims?

If these guys don't like the system then don't get involved in it. Nobody is stopping them from starting their own professional minor league. I think they'll find out that the universities name and history has a lot to do with the money that the university brings in.

Even if we did have legitimate minor league football, the fans would still flock to college football. Even if the best players stayed away, college football would still be a huge deal. (Look at college basketball. Even when the best were going directly to the NBA it didn't harm college basketball one bit.)

[Leroy Lizard]

Look, Ralph Nader suffers from the same disease that many on the left do. He is a bright man and he has had a number of good ideas (mandatory seat belts being one, as I recall). Where he falls apart is in his frustration with his fellow man.
Since he is so intelligent, he sees no reason at all for people to not follow his advice. Since that is obviously 'stupid' he seeks to impose his will on his fellows. "For their own good". I've got a couple of college buddies who've worked for him. One escaped the cult of ralph. The other is still there. The escapee and I have talked about it over the years and as far as we can tell, Ralph's perfect world is one in which Ralph tells everyone what to do and everyone obeys.
He just can't accept that people might have legitimately differing view points. Or that any system that allows for differing viewpoints or actions can actually produce more human 'happiness' than one in which we are all obedient drones.

He's an egomaniac, for sure. But why not discuss his ideas at face value? Who cares who came up with them?

[PalmBeachSooner]

He sounds more logical than this guy:

“They are students, just like any other student on campus who receives a merit-based scholarship,” he said.

That sounds like a big ol load of bull****.

They are there for me to live vicariously through so that I might feel better about myself when they win and wallow in self-pity when they lose. I need something to blame for my lot in life.

Duh.


:rolleyes:

[jkjsooner]

But really, the free gear, education etc doesnt come for free. If you are on academic scholarship you have to maintain a certain GPA or lose your scholarship. So you work harder in between maybe a little work study or off-campus job.

The first sentence I quoted is true. They must invest a lot of time to their sport.

You second sentence is, well, misguided. Maintaining a good GPA is in the player's best interest. After all, a free education means nothing if the player doesn't take advantage of it. (I'll also point out that the GPA requirements are hardly rigid. It's definitely lower than the requirements on academic scholarships.)

This really gets to the heart of why so many kids feel victimized. Some of them place absolutely no value on education. In their eyes they are getting nothing of value in return for playing their sport. In fact, some probably consider school work to be just a part of the job (as you seem to imply) rather than an opportunity to improve one's self.

[Leroy Lizard]

Agree with that, but the sticking point is that every article, including this one, tags him as "Ralph Nader, consumer advocate, said...." In this context, he is essentially a pro-labor advocate, which is very often at odds with being a pro-consumer advocate. So, if he is always billed as a "consumer advocate", even though it's probably been a long time since he actaully did anything noteworthy on that front, then it's fair to point out when his positions are at odds with the wants or needs of the actual consumers.

It makes no difference what we call him. Is it his fault that we label him a consumer advocate? Is he supposed to change his views because others have labeled him a certain way?

I, for one, consider Ralph's idea pretty radical and pie-in-the-sky. But I understand his point.

Suppose we got rid of athletic scholarships over a period of ten years. After ten years, the makeup of college football teams would be completely different. But OU would still field a team. So would Texas. And fans of both teams throughout the country would still watch the games. And as long as fans watch the games, tvs would still tune in.

Will fans show up to watch non-scholarship players? Absolutely. The Harvard-Yale game features non-scholarship players and still sells out, even though neither team has a large alumni base. In 1923 over 80,000 showed up to watch Yale play Army. Even in 1983 the game sold out with roughly 77,000 fans.

If anything, college football's popularity might even rise if the public perceives the players as true amateurs and real students. There is no way of knowing, of course.

So I don't think Nader's idea would kill college football. Without having to pay all that scholarship money, universities might even make more money on it.

Radical? Yes. But not as crazy as I think many feel. But I'm not sure we're ready to go there yet.

[Leroy Lizard]

I remember Chris Weber complaining about how he wasn't allowed to share in the revenue when he was at Michigan. The question I asked then and still ask now, why didn't the players from the '50s feel victimized by the universities? Why were they simply happy to get a free education, some admiration, and the occasional coed? Why all of a sudden are student athletes victims?

It's the Age of Entitlement. The more you have, the more you complain, especially if you think someone else (the university) is making a lot of money.

[badger]

don't get the connection between , this thread, the economy, the environment, nader & t-bone ??

Nader's party when he ran for president was the Green Party. T. Boone was pushing his Pickens Plan as a more expensive, but important step toward lessening our footprint on the environment. Both Nader and T. Boone's plan tanked as the economy soured. Now, with no room in the national media to talk about expensive environmental projects they're both sticking their noses in athletics.

Make sense now? :D

[badger]

Probably a bad example. The best baseball players go pro straight out of high school.

Very good point. It kind of amazes me that more kids don't go the baseball route when choosing which sport to play, because it's the sport worldwide where there's tons of pro playing opportunities, even without the college schollys.

Basketball too... but football? If they don't get college scholarships, where will most football players end up? Nowhere. The NFL won't take them till three years removed from high school and not sure on the Canadian and Arena league rules, but their pay scales stink.

I still find it weird that Nader is clinging to this idea after making a name for himself by being the Greenie guy.

[Memtig14]

I'm not sure I buy Nader's argument, but this argument is no better. There would still be academic scholarships that would give students from poorer communities a chance to attend college through (get this) academic achievement.

Running faster than someone else shouldn't give one kid a free ride at a university. Running fast has nothing to do with academics.

Let Switzer know.........this has always been one of his favorite arguments.

[Spray]

Basketball too... but football? If they don't get college scholarships, where will most football players end up? Nowhere. The NFL won't take them till three years removed from high school and not sure on the Canadian and Arena league rules, but their pay scales stink.



Again, I think what Nader's solution would be is need-based financial aid. So all these players still end up playing college football, just on their own (future) dime.

It loops back to what problem he is aiming to solve. It has nothing to do with improving college athletics. It's about reducing the exploitation of kids by their parents/hangars-on/etc. whose sole goal is to get them an athletic scholarship.

[Mongo]

He should worry about social security, medicare/medicaid hanger onners first. They are way more damaging to this country than this issue

[badger]

It's about reducing the exploitation of kids by their parents/hangars-on/etc. whose sole goal is to get them an athletic scholarship.

The irony that I've heard is that most parents spend far more on all of those specialized training and competing opportunities than what colleges end up paying Junior to play sports for them. That might not be the case in the big time sports like football and basketball, but for the vast majority of other sports, full rides are not common, for guys especially.

The NY Times had an interesting feature on this a few years back. Parents are absolutely stunned to find out that there just isn't scholarships like they had been investing in for years. The conclusion? Shoulda just prompted Junior to study harder, because there's tons more academic aid out there than athletic aid.

Which brings us back to Nader... his fight isn't a good fight. I think many of his one-time supporters grew furious at him for basically handing W. the presidency in 2000, and this isn't going to get him any new fans, either.

[Soonermagik]

Ralph Nader can GTFO!! He brings nothing to the table but controversy.

[KantoSooner]

He's an egomaniac, for sure. But why not discuss his ideas at face value? Who cares who came up with them?

I'm fine discussing his ideas, and you'll note even conceded that some are good and that he's a bright guy. I then named an example of one of his ideas that I thought was good.
Then I focused on what I felt was where the conversation was going: whether college athletics should be seriously reformed because they took up too much time and energy, both for the athletes and for the schools and society.
I assumed that there would be a spectrum of opinion on this/these point(s) so I concentrated on why Ralph would not see the issue as one that is even open to debate or discussion.
Which, in a way is his Achilles heel anyway.
Sorry if I free associated ahead a bit.
Have a good weekend.

[texaspokieokie]

Nader's party when he ran for president was the Green Party. T. Boone was pushing his Pickens Plan as a more expensive, but important step toward lessening our footprint on the environment. Both Nader and T. Boone's plan tanked as the economy soured. Now, with no room in the national media to talk about expensive environmental projects they're both sticking their noses in athletics.

Make sense now? :D

more than before; but t-bone has been involved for quite some time..
nader's not really involved, just spouting crap.:D

[Bishop3000]

The first sentence I quoted is true. They must invest a lot of time to their sport.

You second sentence is, well, misguided. Maintaining a good GPA is in the player's best interest. After all, a free education means nothing if the player doesn't take advantage of it. (I'll also point out that the GPA requirements are hardly rigid. It's definitely lower than the requirements on academic scholarships.)

This really gets to the heart of why so many kids feel victimized. Some of them place absolutely no value on education. In their eyes they are getting nothing of value in return for playing their sport. In fact, some probably consider school work to be just a part of the job (as you seem to imply) rather than an opportunity to improve one's self.
Im not sure what you said about my 2nd sentence and my actual sentence have to do with each other. I was drawing the correlation between the extra time an athlete spends maintaining their scholarship and an academic spends maintaining their scholarship. Athletes spend extra time in film, practice, work-outs, meetings, commutes etc. Academics spend extra time studying or working. The difference as you actually point out in a round about way is that if you're on academic scholarship the extra time you spend should help you out in the future whereas the athletes extra time spent occasionally helps them in the future in landing a job but not in aptitude gained.

[badger]

ENA said something interesting on this topic on one of his Morning Animals interviews (he's on Tuesdays and always has something fun to hear about his OU playing days).

Basically, he pointed out the difference between OU giving scholarships to student-athletes and paying coaches to coach football. Both are very important to a program but with the student-athlete, there is no choice to how to use your compensation, unlike Stoops' salary (or other coaching salaries out there). What he meant by that is that if the compensation for playing college football is a college scholarship, athletes do not have the choice of whether they personally use it, or their spouse uses it, or their sibling or parent or child uses it. However, Stoops and coaches can use their salaries however they want - they aren't tied to a single purpose for their compensation.

Whether you agree or not, it's an interesting perspective.

[Scott D]

Nader has lost touch with reality, it must be those failed runs for President for his insignificant made up political party.

[Leroy Lizard]

Let Switzer know.........this has always been one of his favorite arguments.

I would love to ask Barry sometime why he thinks a kid that can run fast should be entitled to an education more than anyone else. I think he would struggle to answer it.

[Leroy Lizard]

He should worry about social security, medicare/medicaid hanger onners first. They are way more damaging to this country than this issue

You can worry about a lot of issues at the same time. There is no need to just focus on one. After all, we wouldn't be posting here if such wasn't the case.

[Leroy Lizard]

ENA said something interesting on this topic on one of his Morning Animals interviews (he's on Tuesdays and always has something fun to hear about his OU playing days).

Basically, he pointed out the difference between OU giving scholarships to student-athletes and paying coaches to coach football. Both are very important to a program but with the student-athlete, there is no choice to how to use your compensation, unlike Stoops' salary (or other coaching salaries out there). What he meant by that is that if the compensation for playing college football is a college scholarship, athletes do not have the choice of whether they personally use it, or their spouse uses it, or their sibling or parent or child uses it. However, Stoops and coaches can use their salaries however they want - they aren't tied to a single purpose for their compensation.

Whether you agree or not, it's an interesting perspective.

I would fire back and say that we are providing the athlete something even better -- opportunity. The coach will gain experience on his resume, so he will have enhanced his marketability. But he will still be stuck to coaching or something closely related. The athlete, on the other hand, is being provided a wide range of education/training he can use to go into any field he wishes.

There is, unfortunately, a large segment of the population who do not appreciate what that means. They should spend some time in a region where an education is scarce and only available to a select few.

[Leroy Lizard]

The more I think about it, the more I realize Nader is right.

He's right. I am absolutely convinced of it. That doesn't mean his dream will ever come to existence.

Nader's pushing of a ban on athletic scholarships reminds me of my short-lived campaign to implement writing across the curriculum. I'm right -- student writing skills are every professor's problem and all should work cohesively to solve it. But then the business profs realize that they would have to attend professional development, and they don't want to do that. The engineering profs don't want to stray from their prepared lectures on technical skills, because they have their existing system down pat. English profs don't want others intruding on their domain.

So in the end, too many people have too much stock invested in the wrong way of doing things. We're stuck with athletic scholarships forever, I'm afraid.

I think Ralph Nader is wasting his time. Being right is only half the battle.

[Sooner Cal]

Here are a few arguments against Nader.
1. What does he know about college athletics?
2. What does he know about escaping low socio-economic conditions?
3. Why does he dislike incentives to succeed?
4. What does he know about winning?
5. What has he ever done for us?

The man represents One thing that is wrong with capitalism, you can be stupid and still earn a living claiming to be intelligent. He's made a good living spewing stupidity and finding an audience willing to pay for it. The media gives him a platform without ever wanting questioning his credentials. I don't care if he ran for President. How hard can it be to be selected by the Green Party when you are the only member who has any name recognition.

He'll get nowhere with his attack on collegiate athletics. He doesn't really get anywhere on anything.

[Leroy Lizard]

Here are a few arguments against Nader.
1. What does he know about college athletics? [Not sure.]
2. What does he know about escaping low socio-economic conditions? [Not sure.]
3. Why does he dislike incentives to succeed? [Loaded question]
4. What does he know about winning? [Ask Chevrolet.]
5. What has he ever done for us? [WTF?]

The man represents One thing that is wrong with capitalism, you can be stupid and still earn a living claiming to be intelligent. He's made a good living spewing stupidity and finding an audience willing to pay for it.

For all my dislike of him, he's not a stupid man.

BTW, those are not arguments; they're questions. I don't know how much he knows about athletics, nor do I know how well off he was as a kid. I don't think those things matter anyway.


He'll get nowhere with his attack on collegiate athletics. He doesn't really get anywhere on anything.

Again, ask Chevrolet.

[longbeachjeff]

Nader is a dumbass....kinda like a termite. not good for anything, but can screw stuff up. idiot.

[Monster Zero]

http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news;_ylt=AkiudA8.8Wd4UfdM5zgmIIIcvrYF?slug=ap-nader-athleticscholarships

Ralph Nader calls for ending athletic scholarships

By FREDERIC J. FROMMER, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP)—Consumer advocate Ralph Nader is calling for the elimination of college athletic scholarships, saying the move is necessary to “de-professionalize” college athletes.

“As we near the exciting conclusion of `March Madness’—which would more accurately be described as the 2011 NCAA Professional Basketball Championships— it’s time we step back and finally address the myth of amateurism surrounding big-time college football and basketball in this country,” said Nader, whose League of Fans is proposing that the scholarships be replaced with need-based financial aid. The Associated Press obtained a copy of the proposal Thursday, ahead of its official release.

NCAA spokesman Bob Williams said referring to college athletes as professionals defies logic.

“They are students, just like any other student on campus who receives a merit-based scholarship,” he said.

Nader, a former presidential candidate, argued that his plan would also help reduce the “win-at-all-costs” mentality in high schools, by reducing the incentive of college scholarships.

“An entire industry has developed in the youth sports arena—club teams, personal trainers, etc.—to prey on families’ dreams of an athletic scholarship,” he said. “The lure of the elusive athletic scholarship is the primary—sometimes the only—marketing tool these youth sports entrepreneurs use.”

He said he would try to gin up support for his proposal from university presidents, Capitol Hill and the Education Department.

“We’ll use all the levers,” Nader said. “We’ll use the parents of athletes who’ve been mistreated and sick, and forced to play when they’re injured.”

Nader added that he hadn’t yet canvassed Capitol Hill, but figured he’d find lawmakers who are concerned about the way college athletes are treated.

He noted that the Drake Group, a college athletic watchdog organization, has come out in favor of banning athletic scholarships.

Nader said that colleges should either integrate athletics into the educational mission by eliminating college scholarships, or, “openly acknowledge the professionalism in big-time college sports, remove the tax-exempt status currently given to athletic departments, and make universities operate them as unrelated businesses.”

The longtime former head of the NCAA, Walter Byers, has called for paying college athletes.

Nader said his proposal was the opening initiative of a rejuvenated League of Fans, a sports reform group that has been dormant for some time.

Another busybody liberal inviting himself into everyone else's business. Surprise, Surprise.

[Jacie]

However, Stoops and coaches can use their salaries however they want - they aren't tied to a single purpose for their compensation.

I imagine Mrs. Stoops has a lot to say about it . . .

[PDXsooner]

I'll say this: If we were really concerned (which we're not) about the "purity" of college sports, it's a great idea. Wait until the school year starts and then have tryouts, and the people that make the team are a pure representation of your student body.

Why dig deep into the high school population for guys that would never want to go to college and waste a desk in a classroom on these athlete-students? A true student-athlete would be someone who is already a student. Oh yeah, they run fast and can help us win games.

Either way, I'm not a hypocrite because I don't pretend I care if they graduate or represent the school well. I want the best players who can somewhat stay out of trouble for 4 years. Whether they graduate or really care about the university is of little concern to me.

[Leroy Lizard]

I'll say this: If we were really concerned (which we're not) about the "purity" of college sports, it's a great idea.

Speak for yourself. I am definitely concerned about the purity of college sports. I also realize that I am limited in what I can do about it.


Wait until the school year starts and then have tryouts, and the people that make the team are a pure representation of your student body.

Why do we always have to invoke the extreme?

"Ralph Nader wants to get rid of athletic scholarships. He hates college football. Then why don't we just round up all college football players and just shoot them? After all, if we really want to solve the problems of college football, shooting all the players would do it, right?"

Nader doesn't think we need to go this far. Just eliminate athletic scholarships. You try to solve problems by invoking reasonable measures, not eradicate them by salting the ground.

Is getting rid of athletic scholarships in itself too extreme? Probably.

[Jacie]

I'll say this: If we were really concerned (which we're not) about the "purity" of college sports, it's a great idea. Wait until the school year starts and then have tryouts, and the people that make the team are a pure representation of your student body.

They already do this. It is called intramurals.

Why dig deep into the high school population for guys that would never want to go to college and waste a desk in a classroom on these athlete-students? A true student-athlete would be someone who is already a student. Oh yeah, they run fast and can help us win games.

You profess to know what motivates 18-year old student-athletes to attend school now?

Either way, I'm not a hypocrite because I don't pretend I care if they graduate or represent the school well. I want the best players who can somewhat stay out of trouble for 4 years. Whether they graduate or really care about the university is of little concern to me.

You are actually. I seriously doubt you would pay to attend or support a team that played at the level of an intramural football squad . . .

[ashley]

The big myth is that a large percentage of scholarship athletes are dumb asses that don't have to go to class to pass. Sure 15 to 20% of some of our sports team players academically challenged but what difference could that make. We have a great University and because they are enrolled does not diminish that fact. The myth degrades the many student athletes who go to class and study hard to get a degree. Sure, there are others who don't work their asses off but do enough to get the job done, just like many in the general school population.

[Memtig14]

I don't see this as having anything to do with consumers.

If he saw a factory that was putting its employees in harm's way, he would probably speak out against it. The fact that the consumer wants the factory's products is not really the issue.

I'm no fan of Nader, but this is a pretty weak argument against him.

It would upset consumers if he forced factories to make products the consumers did not like or want.

How much more argument do you need?

[Memtig14]

Sure sounds like a free education to me.

Nothing "free" about an athletic scholarship. Football in particular. They earn every penny of it.

[Memtig14]

i've been a season ticket holder to OU football games for the past 22 seasons. if there was a "semi-pro" team playing in their place, i would never see any reason to support that team. it's a long drive from irving to norman
& it's only for OU (& me) that i would make that trip. (way over 100 times)

the whole system would fall apart. (JMHO)

I agree with you wholeheartedly........ also JMHO

[Memtig14]

I remember Chris Weber complaining about how he wasn't allowed to share in the revenue when he was at Michigan. The question I asked then and still ask now, why didn't the players from the '50s feel victimized by the universities? Why were they simply happy to get a free education, some admiration, and the occasional coed? Why all of a sudden are student athletes victims?

If these guys don't like the system then don't get involved in it. Nobody is stopping them from starting their own professional minor league. I think they'll find out that the universities name and history has a lot to do with the money that the university brings in.

Even if we did have legitimate minor league football, the fans would still flock to college football. Even if the best players stayed away, college football would still be a huge deal. (Look at college basketball. Even when the best were going directly to the NBA it didn't harm college basketball one bit.)

Could not agree more!!! Well said.

[Memtig14]

It makes no difference what we call him. Is it his fault that we label him a consumer advocate? Is he supposed to change his views because others have labeled him a certain way?

I, for one, consider Ralph's idea pretty radical and pie-in-the-sky. But I understand his point.

Suppose we got rid of athletic scholarships over a period of ten years. After ten years, the makeup of college football teams would be completely different. But OU would still field a team. So would Texas. And fans of both teams throughout the country would still watch the games. And as long as fans watch the games, tvs would still tune in.

Will fans show up to watch non-scholarship players? Absolutely. The Harvard-Yale game features non-scholarship players and still sells out, even though neither team has a large alumni base. In 1923 over 80,000 showed up to watch Yale play Army. Even in 1983 the game sold out with roughly 77,000 fans.

If anything, college football's popularity might even rise if the public perceives the players as true amateurs and real students. There is no way of knowing, of course.

So I don't think Nader's idea would kill college football. Without having to pay all that scholarship money, universities might even make more money on it.

Radical? Yes. But not as crazy as I think many feel. But I'm not sure we're ready to go there yet.

Would you continue to eat hamburgers if they had to take the meat out?
Would you continue to watch "sexy" movies if the girls were ugly and not sexy?
Would you continue to drive American cars if they were expensive and unreliable?

I think people are willing to pay for the best they can get....that is capitalism. I think that has proven more "satisfying" to consumers than being told whay they can have.

Look at the money that Army and Yale have to spend on football ...then and now. Big programs like OU have so much more money because people are willing to spend a lot of money to be a part of and see the best.

When football is down....donations to the unniversity in general go down. People want to be a part of a winner.

[Memtig14]

Whether you agree or not, it's an interesting perspective.

I agree it is an interesting perspective. I never thought of it that way.

But, college (and playing a sport) is either training for pro sports or training for going to work.

Is that any different than comparing a person on academic schloarship to his teachers?

I got four years of free education, had a lot of fun. It was a lot of work and a lot of reward. I was and am grateful for the opportunity. Some made the most of it....some didn't. Just like about everything else in life.

[Memtig14]

I would love to ask Barry sometime why he thinks a kid that can run fast should be entitled to an education more than anyone else. I think he would struggle to answer it.

I doubt it.

For the same reason a kid that can that can work an algebraic equation better than anyone else would be entitled to an education.

They can do something others can't and that has value to some people.

And (perhaps unfortunately) a heck of a lot more people find value in watching someone run fast than want to watch someone work an algebraic equation.

[Memtig14]

Here are a few arguments against Nader.
1. What does he know about college athletics?
2. What does he know about escaping low socio-economic conditions?
3. Why does he dislike incentives to succeed?
4. What does he know about winning?
5. What has he ever done for us?

The man represents One thing that is wrong with capitalism, you can be stupid and still earn a living claiming to be intelligent. He's made a good living spewing stupidity and finding an audience willing to pay for it. The media gives him a platform without ever wanting questioning his credentials. I don't care if he ran for President. How hard can it be to be selected by the Green Party when you are the only member who has any name recognition.

He'll get nowhere with his attack on collegiate athletics. He doesn't really get anywhere on anything.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

[Memtig14]

I imagine Mrs. Stoops has a lot to say about it . . .

:D

[Memtig14]

The big myth is that a large percentage of scholarship athletes are dumb asses that don't have to go to class to pass. Sure 15 to 20% of some of our sports team players academically challenged but what difference could that make. We have a great University and because they are enrolled does not diminish that fact. The myth degrades the many student athletes who go to class and study hard to get a degree. Sure, there are others who don't work their asses off but do enough to get the job done, just like many in the general school population.

Very true.

Numbers of "dumb asses" in athletics is probably higher among scholership athletes, but you are right that they ( "dumb asses") exist to a great extent in the general student population as well. Athletics tends to dig out of the "ghettos of life" a lot of those kids that would never go to college and gives them a chance.

Schools have a certain number of "exceptions" of academic standards to allow "low performing" (if you will) students into school to give them a chance. Some of these "exceptions" are taken by athletes....most are not.

I have a "dumb ***" white middle class nephew who's girlfriend did all of his (and I mean all) homework for him for 4 years. Though is fairly intelligent he got nothing out of college except he learned to drink beer and chase women. You will never hear about this on the news or hear a complaint about his attitude going to college.

Kids have a chance for an education....they can use it or not.....whether they play ball or not.

jmo

[PDXsooner]

You are actually. I seriously doubt you would pay to attend or support a team that played at the level of an intramural football squad . . .

Wrong. No, I would not pay to see intramurals, I am simply pointing out that I don't care if players are wrothy students or not. Players should have the option of taking a scholarship or simply competing with a grant for the team. I see no need in wasting space in the classroom on someone who doesn't want to be in school.

But I see the entertainment value in the sport.

[PDXsooner]

The big myth is that a large percentage of scholarship athletes are dumb asses that don't have to go to class to pass.

Let's focus on the only 2 sports that generate revenue. Football and Men's basketball. Then, it is not so much a myth.

[PDXsooner]

Here are a few arguments against Nader.
1. What does he know about college athletics?
2. What does he know about escaping low socio-economic conditions?
3. Why does he dislike incentives to succeed?
4. What does he know about winning?
5. What has he ever done for us?

h his attack on collegiate athletics. He doesn't really get anywhere on anything.

Ha ha ha. Classic. Why don't you google "Ralph Nader seat belts" and try again. You may not like Nader, but he's smarter and has done more for people than your inferior little mind will ever be able to grasp.

[Memtig14]

Wrong. No, I would not pay to see intramurals, I am simply pointing out that I don't care if players are wrothy students or not. Players should have the option of taking a scholarship or simply competing with a grant for the team. I see no need in wasting space in the classroom on someone who doesn't want to be in school.

But I see the entertainment value in the sport.

Isn't that pro football?

[Memtig14]

Let's focus on the only 2 sports that generate revenue. Football and Men's basketball. Then, it is not so much a myth.

What do you mean by a "large" percentage?

[Leroy Lizard]

It would upset consumers if he forced factories to make products the consumers did not like or want.

How much more argument do you need?

Let's just once again ignore the point that he is speaking out against college football because he sees an injustice. That fits perfectly within his philosophy.

[Leroy Lizard]

Nothing "free" about an athletic scholarship. Football in particular. They earn every penny of it.

Regardless, it sounds like a fair trade. If they don't agree, they can walk away from it.


Would you continue to eat hamburgers if they had to take the meat out?
Would you continue to watch "sexy" movies if the girls were ugly and not sexy?
Would you continue to drive American cars if they were expensive and unreliable?

No, no, and no... but none of those have anything to do with this conversation. Rotten analogies at best (because none of these describe competition, the essential element of college football).


I think people are willing to pay for the best they can get....that is capitalism. I think that has proven more "satisfying" to consumers than being told whay they can have.

Let me ask: When we reduced scholarships drastically in the 1980s, what happened to the popularity of college football?

It only increased.

Universities largely benefited, as their gate receipts increased and they had to pay out less money for scholarships.

The fans will still show up. Don't worry about that.


Look at the money that Army and Yale have to spend on football ...then and now. Big programs like OU have so much more money because people are willing to spend a lot of money to be a part of and see the best.

When football is down....donations to the unniversity in general go down. People want to be a part of a winner.

That's a bull**** myth. Harvard and Yale totally wipe us out in overall endowments. It isn't even close.





Still don't believe me? Count the football superpowers in the endowment ranking below.

Harvard University
Yale University
Princeton University
University of Texas System (system-wide)
Stanford University
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
University of Michigan
Columbia University
Northwestern University
Texas A&M University System (system-wide)
University of Pennsylvania
University of Chicago
University of California (system-wide)[7]
University of Notre Dame
Duke University
Emory University
Washington University in St. Louis
Cornell University
Rice University
University of Virginia
Vanderbilt University
Dartmouth College
University of Southern California
New York University
Johns Hopkins University
University of Minnesota
Brown University
University of Pittsburgh

[jersey sooner]

Gee, let's check out the University of Michigan's endowments over the past five years:

University of Michigan: $4.931B (2005) $5.652B (2006) $7.090B (2007) $7.572B (2008) $ 6.001B (2009) $6.564B (2010)

Now kindly show me a correlation between winning in football and endowment funding?

I heard this crazy rumor that Michigan is the winningest program in college football history. Probably just a rumor...

[Leroy Lizard]

I heard this crazy rumor that Michigan is the winningest program in college football history. Probably just a rumor...

Actually, Michigan's endowments tanked in 2008, but then so did everyone's. Ohio State also lost tons of money in that year, but it's football program has steadily stayed near the top of the standings. (Cal Tech's endowments plunged too.)

There is little relationship between the success of a football program and overall university endowments.

After all, how do you explain Northwestern's endowments? When is the last time they fielded a powerhouse football program?

[MamaMia]

Hes obviously very senile.