COLLEGE admission scandal

So the one thing no one seems to be talking about regarding the admissions scandal is how the method of labeling applicants as an athletic recruit got them a spot at a school that their academic qualifications wouldn’t get them into.

So the question no one is asking is: Why are athletic students being preferred over academic ones at supposedly academic institutions?

I know I’ve had conversations with Disgust about how athletic programs interfere with academics but we could never come up with a workable solution, primarily because the schools would resist losing the money associated with collegiate sports. But anyway here is yet another suggestion, that could serve to solve multiple problems at once.

So recruited student athletes can choose either a full (or partial) ride scholarship to a NCAA Division I or II school of their choice (depending on what Division team they were drafted to) or a salary equivalent to the tuition and expenses that would have been covered by the scholarship. Students that choose a scholarship but are unable to gain admission to a school on their academic merits would take the salary instead.

Athletes would be drafted in a process similar to professional sports leagues. By taking the team choice out of the hands of students (and disassociating the team they play for and the school they attend) the problem of “gifting” to prospective recruits should be eliminated, although there may be some gifts to entice an athlete to declare themselves eligible for the draft.

An added effect, since the salary paid to non-student athletes would be based on tuition cost, it should encourage schools to keep tuition low, or at least not raise it as rapidly as its going up now. Another bonus is that flunking out or being expelled from a school would not effect eligibility to play on a team, so coaches wouldn’t have to pull strings or otherwise allow their players to “coast” in their academics.

It does create one problem, that of geography, for example if a student is drafted to Duke, but accepted to attend UCLA. This could possibly be mitigated by limiting it by conference, allowing greater use of online classes and distance learning, or possibly deferring the education until after the sports career is concluded. But separating the team someone plays for from the school they attend is an important aspect to eliminate conflicts of interest (which is the cause of most of these problems in the first place)

The draft would have to be to early enough to allow students to apply to schools in the division of conference they were drafted to, but considering they spend most of the student’s senior year in high school trying to court them to apply to their school it shouldn’t be a problem

Obviously this would require changing a LOT of NCAA rules, but in the end I think would be for the best, and it wouldn’t impact costs much, as the NCAA already pays over 200 million a year in Div I scholarships, that same money would simply be applied to scholarships for those students who attend a school, or the equivalent in a salary (and it might even reduce costs if tuition goes down as noted above) NCAA would retain all their licensing rights to both the team logos, game broadcasts, and player likenesses so their income would be unaffected

13 thoughts on “COLLEGE admission scandal”

  1. I was just talking about this, I’m unsure why this is a big story. Rich and influential people have lobbied for their spoiled, underachieving children to get into prestigious schools since society became organized. It’s been really advantageous this decade to put liberal activism in your Ivy league application. One minority student famously wrote the same word over and over again in his personal essay on his Stanford application and was gladly admitted. Many schools employ an anti Asian bias because the university left have labeled them ‘white’, the lowest form of scum in 2019. Why? Asians mostly are too smart, busy, and family motivated to entertain the irrational sentiments of neo-liberalism. Athletics, Greek Life, and School Spirit is what brought alumni and their dollars back every year. The left has successfully dismantled the latter two in the past decade, so many schools only have athletics left and they are rife with corruption and rich alums with nowhere else on campus to blow their money. I don’t believe we will ever see a minor league system to replace college in our lifetime because of all the money and infrastructure already in place, but with the waning popularity of professional sports domestically at the same time college popularity has risen, maybe it’s time the scholarship players get a stipend. With the trillion plus student loan bubble about to burst, and 1/3 of American colleges struggling to keep their doors open, don’t hold your breath!

    1. The difference here is that what they did here was actually illegal. Falsifying SAT scores, bribing coaches to label them as athletic prospects, having someone else take your entrance exam (and bribing proctors not to check ID)
      The traditional way for a rich person to their kid into college is to make a big donation, and its just “understood” that the kid should be accepted. It was all unspoken wink wink nudge nudge stuff.

      As for the Stanford essay, it was actually 3 words: Black Live Matter, repeated 100 times.

      My suggestion isn’t a total spinoff into a minor league, the NCAA would still manage the athletics as a non-profit and teams would still be associated with a particular school, so the gravy will still flow to the schools with the best teams, but academics would be separate. I don’t think this would impact alumni donations much either, as I imagine most student athletes would think of “their school” as the one they played for, not the one they graduated from, and for non-athletes the distinction would be irrelevant. Schools would simply include former players (those who went to other schools and those who didn’t attend any school) as a special “athletic alumni” status along with their regular graduates. They would maintain this list on their own because its in their best interest to hit them up for donations

      1. Public schools do that every day on many students. I know what the essay said, stop giving them free attention! Nobody will pay for the minor leagues since most of the stadiums are on school property, disadvantages little schools who couldn’t afford to pay for the minor league, etc.

        1. How is the current system not disadvantaging small schools already that can’t afford to have a team?

          The only big difference is athletes wouldn’t have to attend the school they play for. The salary option would be paid by the NCAA and equal to the scholarship money they already pay to schools. Instead of writing a check to the school they’d just write the same check to the player

          And the schools wouldn’t lose any money either because a student athlete not attending would open a spot for them to accept another student who’s money is as green as the next person’s. So unless you’re telling me an NCAA Division I or II school has a 100% acceptance rate, enrollment numbers would remain the same

          1. Small schools do not have money to build new facilities and contribute to a new minor league system. The NCAA isn’t going to turn into a pro sports enterprise, it’ll never happen. The only sport that is profitable is football.

          2. Exactly, the small schools don’t have the money to build facilities to participate in the NCAA either, nothing would change for them. The NCAA wouldn’t be doing anything it isn’t already doing, and wouldn’t stop doing anything its currently doing.

            Also 82% of the NCAA’s 1.06 billion dollar revenue comes from basketball, not football. Specifically the Div I tournament

          1. That article confirms what I’ve been saying: The vast majority of the NCAA’s revenue comes from the Div I basketball tournament.

            The NCAA is the one who makes the rules, and who’s rules I am proposing changing. The NCAA also pays out the athletic scholarships, nothing would change at the school level

  2. The conferences and schools earn more for making it to big bowl games. College campuses are all about liberal narrative, little about education and diversity is their call. They need minority athletes on campus to keep alumni entertained with the ball sports, they don’t pay them anything, they’re not taking some white suburban male’s scholarship, the school doesn’t want him in the first place. The only way a minor league could bring down the NCAA would be if a group of billionaires got together with a vendetta. The more likely option is a stipend for scholarship players in the near future.

    1. Apparently the bowl games don’t make that much money (less than 20% of NCAA revenue when combined with everything other than March Madness) probably because at this point there are more bowl games than people who watch bowl games

      But of course none of that would change, you’re the only one here talking about a new minor league, or a competitor to the NCAA, I’m just talking about the NCAA making a few changed to how it does things. Any revenue the NCAA makes would still go to the NCAA, any revenue the schools make would still got to the schools

      The athletes would still be on campus, the teams still play for the schools, the bread and circuses would continue. The only difference is the players wouldn’t necessarily be students at that school. Other than that it would function as the NCAA does today, not like a professional league (teams don’t move, players can’t be traded, etc)

      The schools would of course be free to take any academic candidate to fill the spot the athlete isn’t taking, it wouldn’t have to be white person. They could use the opportunity to allow even more minority students to attend

      1. The C in NCAA is college, they’re not going to manage nonstudent athletes. Football makes more for the schools locally, NCAA makes the money on the tournament because they rent all the pro stadiums and get a cut of the gate. Universities are so corrupt and without merit these days, it should be completely a free market, pay players, don’t, give them cars, let them skip school go straight to the draft, who cares, the NCAA has always been a disaster.

        1. Yes, the C is for Collegiate, meaning the fundamental unit of the Association is the College. Not the athlete, and not the student. The NCAA should act in the best interest of the schools, which is what my proposal seeks to preserve.

          Clearly the schools don’t care if their athletes are students in good standing, if they did there wouldn’t be these admission scandals where athletic prospects are given preference over academic ones, and we certainly wouldn’t have the age-old and generally just accepted practice of letting the athletes coast in their academics.

          Clearly the NCAA doesn’t care either, or they would be enforcing their own rules against these sorts of things. Both college and association want athletes first, and students second (if at all). My proposal seeks to remove the burden (and scandal) of having to shoehorn an athlete into a student role. If colleges are truly greedy, they should welcome the change. It means they can avoid the scandals associated with admissions and coasting, and save the cost of all the cars they give away

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *