OK, so you want to become an officer in the Army. You make it into West Point, you graduate ... and then you go to play pro football for the Detroit Lions?
Uh, no. This is wrong, IMHO. You volunteered, you got your way paid through West Point, you committed to serve; now it's time to serve. You want to play pro football, you can do that after you get out.
no subject
I say to the guy I'm working with, "It's [date]. I don't know why he thinks he's coming to Georgia Tech." The guy didn't have particularly special "numbers", either.
Pause as coworker absorbs that I are a chick who is truly clueless about sports.
"He thinks he's coming because his name is Stephon Marbury (sp?) and he is one hell of a basketball player."
Later on, I did ask my boss why we worked so closely with the athletic association. I wasn't bitching, just curious. There was a damned good reason: we had hard statistics linking how many applicants we got to a winning season. Special treatment for top athletes meant a much better freshman class, overall. Better freshman classes means better national rankings. Better national rankings means you can attract better professors and more top quality students, and so forth. So it's a multiplier far beyond what you would think.
Also, the jocks got lots of tutoring support, a lot of which was mandatory. They had a consistently higher 5 year graduation rate than the general student body. 60% vs. 57%, iirc. A lot of them were management majors or similar and so didn't need to take calculus, but management is arguably a much better major choice for the kinds of things top athletes do when they retire from active play if they're really successful, and is useful as hell if they get injured, or don't make the cut, or whatever for high-flying careers in the majors.
The athletes who are good enough to go pro are serving, it's just that--like with Marbury--it can be hard to see the benefits to the organization if you don't know the behind the scenes numbers.
We had hard numbers for exactly what those athletes were doing for us. I'm sure the Navy does, too.
no subject
no subject
It's an alien perspective to me, but a thought-provoking one.
no subject
no subject
I mean, you basically have people going "I am not a football player. I am nevertheless going to apply to a school that has recently been successful in football, when I would not have applied otherwise."
To me, that's incomprehensible and totally illogical.
no subject
no subject
As for amateur vs. pro, it just seems to me the extravagantly-paid pro athletes, together with the teams' constant demand for bigger, newer and more extravagant stadiums, are a bigger waste of time and money than the amateurs who play more or less for the love of it and more or less wherever they can.
no subject
As for paying athletes, I don't think it's avoidable as long as we have a market-oriented economy. Athletes (or their agenst/promoters) understand their wide importance, and so internalize the resulting profit and attract more top talent to their sport.