Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyEagle  ESPN is saying how a high percentage of athletes don't graduate with a degree. What's wrong with them reporting that? The NCAA isn't intended just to be a platform for the pros, and it's showing how that's exactly what is becoming.
Big props to ESPN here from me. |
They are not reporting all the facts, but simply providing a platform of speculation. They are using data that is aproximately 8 years old. They are using Degree and not academic achievement as a basis for their conclusions.
Again, you are holding students to a higher level than you are hold regular students. They are giving the assumption that because these players earn a scholorship to the University, that for some reason they must either obtain the degree or stole the money and where a failure. They are further making leading to the assumption that these students have no academic interest, but are only there for basketball.
The students that ESPN refers to where in many cases as successful in the classroom as they were on the court. If the NCAA is not just a platform for the pro's, then perhaps they should not be benefiting to the degree of Billions of dollars each year but this has nothing to do with my initial arguments..
They are given credence to some guy that did a study based on data that exceeds the academic life of the players they are criticizing, yet fail to provide enough information to support the claims but are trying to fuel the assumption that these are Universities and players of poor character and academic prowess. You wanna debate the NCAA as a platform for professional athletics, then why don't you bring in the NBA and talk about pressuring the players to leaving prior to their degree. That has nothing to do with the point at hand.
Actually that doesn't even address my arguments from the initial thread, which is they are using a degree as a basis for the validity of the Universities curriculum, and a basis for the players academic success.
What's wrong with the old adage that farming is bad for your health. Without mention the fact that it is based on the concept that they fed a tractor to a mouse and it died. Simply put, if they want to make blanket statements, unsupported by all the fact, great, but don't be saddened when people who hold you to a higher level consider you no better than any other rag that does so for a simple method of sparking a media frenzy.
They admitted in the 2007 study it was based on 1996-99 freshman, what does that have to do with players that started no earlier than 2003 and how does it reflect their academics? You think we should hold players accountable from expired data and use it as a basis to reflect their character. The importance of education is to prepare you for life and give you the tools you need to succeed in your desired field, not give you a piece of paper with the name of the University boldly scribed. How did they did not succeed at that task? Please explain your specific criteria for academic success, I know alot of people with degrees that can't find a decent job. I guess once you get a degree, you can just end it all, because you have obviously reached your highest level of success.
If ESPN want to criticize education, at least provide enough information for the readers to make an educated decision and not simply make one side blanket statements based on ancient data from someone with an axe to grind. At least give information on the curriculum of the the universities you choose to criticize. Since when does a student owe it to a university to get a degree?