Fact 1: As of 2010, 14% of all college students are black. Source.

Fact 2: As of 2010, 47% of all FBS football players are black. Source

We spend a lot of time discussing whether we should pay players. Desmond Howard made the argument last Saturday that schools are making a ton of money off the players, the poor always get taken advantage of by the rich in America, and that college athletes should be able to profit from their likeness. His argument boiled down to: the players are being financially exploited.

Yet, even in light of some of the academic issues highlighted in the Oklahoma State scandal (which people like David Pollack say go on everywhere), we spend very little time debating whether black HS graduates as a whole are being exploited based on their athletic prowess by being denied educational opportunities at these money making football schools.

The new playoff system is worth a ton of money. Should we incentivize schools economically to get away from paying lip service to educating the black youth in America while "using the black athlete" on Saturdays? Shouldn't schools bear some social responsibility in exchange for exploiting football players (half of whom are black) as Howard alleges?

Maybe this is too much of a political issue, but there is a wide disparity among conferences when it comes to black enrollment. Here are the median numbers:

SEC 7.6%
ACC 7.4%
Big 12 4.6%
Big 10 4.5%
Pac 12 3.0%

Now, some of those numbers are the result of state by state demographics. There are more black HS seniors going to college in Missisissippi than there are in Oregon or Utah. Still, on the whole, none of the P5 conferences are close to 14% black enrollment, the national average.

I'm not suggesting a quota is the answer. I am suggesting that the major college football schools who benefit so much economically from black football players can do a much better job of educating the rest of our black youth in America. That they have a social responsibility to do so. And that financial incentives/penalties might help get the ball rolling.

Zero emphasis should be placed on race period. We need to start treating every case as an individual and stop looking at things in racial terms. A black kid failing and a white kid failing should be treated no differently and both be considered simply a student failing.

I'm not naive enough to say race doesn't matter. There are a lot of cultural components we have let slip into racial lines, but the only way that's ever going to end is to de-emphasize race. All the focus on diversity and breaking everything down on racial/ethnic lines is the opposite of what we should do if we want melting pot to work.

Personally I think more should be done to increase black enrollment. When black people are given the opportunity they perform just as well as whites academically, but they don't get the opportunity because colleges go out of their way to accept mostly whites.

(09-16-2013 10:36 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Zero emphasis should be placed on race period. We need to start treating every case as an individual and stop looking at things in racial terms. A black kid failing and a white kid failing should be treated no differently and both be considered simply a student failing.

I'm not naive enough to say race doesn't matter. There are a lot of cultural components we have let slip into racial lines, but the only way that's ever going to end is to de-emphasize race. All the focus on diversity and breaking everything down on racial/ethnic lines is the opposite of what we should do if we want melting pot to work.

So a school that makes $100M a year from its football program, where all 85 players are black and they are the only 85 blacks at the entire school, is not a "football plantation" and bears no social responsibility to educate other black HS grads since we should all be color blind?

Obviously, I am using an extreme example, but there are some schools where a significant percentage of their entire black enrollment is on athletic scholarship.

I find that to be morally reprehensible. To me, this is the real exploitation that Desmond Howard should be railing against. Not the ability to sell autographs.

(09-16-2013 10:47 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 10:36 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Zero emphasis should be placed on race period. We need to start treating every case as an individual and stop looking at things in racial terms. A black kid failing and a white kid failing should be treated no differently and both be considered simply a student failing.

I'm not naive enough to say race doesn't matter. There are a lot of cultural components we have let slip into racial lines, but the only way that's ever going to end is to de-emphasize race. All the focus on diversity and breaking everything down on racial/ethnic lines is the opposite of what we should do if we want melting pot to work.

So a school that makes $100M a year from its football program, where all 85 players are black and they are the only 85 blacks at the entire school, is not a "football plantation" and bears no social responsibility to educate other black HS grads since we should all be color blind?

Obviously, I am using an extreme example, but there are some schools where a significant percentage of their entire black enrollment is on athletic scholarship.

I find that to be morally reprehensible. To me, this is the real exploitation that Desmond Howard should be railing against. Not the ability to sell autographs.

We should treat everyone as an individual. A black kid with a bad education is no more or less deserving of special treatment than a white kid or vice versa. To give someone extra benefits because of color of their skin or their ethnic background is wrong regardless of what way it goes.

Now why the number of struggling students differ so much based on ethnic background is certainly worth considering. It's obviously not one simple reason, but a combination of cultural reasons, economic reasons, etc. There is definitely a strong argument that different groups require different approaches to maximize their educational achievements.

None of that means society owes any individual more then anyone else though simply because of the color of their skin or ethnic background.

(09-16-2013 10:42 PM)CoogNellie Wrote:  Personally I think more should be done to increase black enrollment. When black people are given the opportunity they perform just as well as whites academically, but they don't get the opportunity because colleges go out of their way to accept mostly whites.

Hahahaha...no.

Why stop at blacks? Hispanics are the largest minority in the US and are also largely under-represented in college enrollment.

But something else to consider: without athletics many athletes would not otherwise qualify for college. The fact that so many minority players can even get the chance to go to college, let alone FOR FREE, let alone some of the colleges that have major athletics programs, is a huge benefit.

(09-16-2013 10:07 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Fact 1: As of 2010, 14% of all college students are black. Source.

Fact 2: As of 2010, 47% of all FBS football players are black. Source

We spend a lot of time discussing whether we should pay players. Desmond Howard made the argument last Saturday that schools are making a ton of money off the players, the poor always get taken advantage of by the rich in America, and that college athletes should be able to profit from their likeness. His argument boiled down to: the players are being financially exploited.

Yet, even in light of some of the academic issues highlighted in the Oklahoma State scandal (which people like David Pollack say go on everywhere), we spend very little time debating whether black HS graduates as a whole are being exploited based on their athletic prowess by being denied educational opportunities at these money making football schools.

The new playoff system is worth a ton of money. Should we incentivize schools economically to get away from paying lip service to educating the black youth in America while "using the black athlete" on Saturdays? Shouldn't schools bear some social responsibility in exchange for exploiting football players (half of whom are black) as Howard alleges?

Maybe this is too much of a political issue, but there is a wide disparity among conferences when it comes to black enrollment. Here are the median numbers:

SEC 7.6%
ACC 7.4%
Big 12 4.6%
Big 10 4.5%
Pac 12 3.0%

Now, some of those numbers are the result of state by state demographics. There are more black HS seniors going to college in Missisissippi than there are in Oregon or Utah. Still, on the whole, none of the P5 conferences are close to 14% black enrollment, the national average.

I'm not suggesting a quota is the answer. I am suggesting that the major college football schools who benefit so much economically from black football players can do a much better job of educating the rest of our black youth in America. That they have a social responsibility to do so. And that financial incentives/penalties might help get the ball rolling.

Every single one of those schools have major programs to recruit minorities (as long as they aren't Asian). Don't know where you've been. One of my beefs is they are all worried about skin color. They'd rather get the son of an African American doctor from Clear Lake City than a better qualified son of a farm hand from Central Texas. Diversity of experiences and thinking is more important than diversity of skin color.

(09-16-2013 10:07 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Yet, even in light of some of the academic issues highlighted in the Oklahoma State scandal (which people like David Pollack say go on everywhere), we spend very little time debating whether black HS graduates as a whole are being exploited based on their athletic prowess by being denied educational opportunities at these money making football schools.

What the hell are you talking about? African Americans are being given more opportunities than ever.

(09-16-2013 10:47 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  So a school that makes $100M a year from its football program, where all 85 players are black and they are the only 85 blacks at the entire school, is not a "football plantation" and bears no social responsibility to educate other black HS grads since we should all be color blind?

Obviously, I am using an extreme example, but there are some schools where a significant percentage of their entire black enrollment is on athletic scholarship.

I find that to be morally reprehensible. To me, this is the real exploitation that Desmond Howard should be railing against. Not the ability to sell autographs.

That's not a very diverse team. If you wanted a diverse football team, you could set limits on how many black students get scholarships and require the other scholarships to only be given to students of other ethnic backgrounds.

If diversity is important to you that is.

Re: OP

You're making the assumption that most schools' athletic departments make money. This is false.

Most schools heavily subsidize their athletic departments. The bulk of this money goes toward paying the athletes, in the form of scholarships, room, board, and clothing (which they get a TON of in fb and bb). Of the small number of schools that actually make money off football, most of them that aren't in the SEC (like OSU, Texas, USC, ND etc) use that revenue to fund a ridiculous number of non-revenue sports, thus providing more scholarships for (primarily black) athletes. This fits much better with the moral mission of the schools than being a minor league NFL.

If there was a "free market" for athletic scholarships, the only athletes in the NCAA who would get paid more than they do now are a few bb and fb players at the top 20-30 schools. Most of the rest of the athletes would get paid LESS than they do now. Most schools would probably dump scholarships alltogether for track, baseball, soccer, etc, and the result would be less money funding black athletes. So Johnny Football might get $500,000, but a dozen black track stars would not be able to afford a TAMU education.

So even if you were to toss aside ohio1317's excellent point about the messed up morality of your idea and tried to implement it, you'd quickly find out that the economics of it will lead to unintended consequences that actually result in the opposite of the goal you're trying to achieve (insert reference to Obamacare here).

We do have a wide education quality gap in this country, but this is looking at it backwards. The high impact changes to education need to be made BEFORE kids get to junior high age. Investment in preschool and elementary school programs is what translates into better students in high school and then college (and the goal is at that point, you don't need Affirmative Action-type programs to inflate non-Asian minority enrollment). Trying to change the end point (when kids are in or graduate from high school) is too late.

(09-16-2013 10:42 PM)CoogNellie Wrote:  Personally I think more should be done to increase black enrollment. When black people are given the opportunity they perform just as well as whites academically, but they don't get the opportunity because colleges go out of their way to accept mostly whites.

How long has it been since you were a student applying for admission? I am 30, and as recently as when I applied to schools, those of us who are Caucasian knew better than to put our race in the voluntary fields. If anyone could find a minority race in their lineage, they jumped on it, whether it was African or Native American. I do not have any hard feelings toward minorities who receive preferred admissions treatment to most schools because it is not their fault that those rules/feelings are in place; they are just taking advantage of the system as currently constituted. Do some schools show a positive bias toward white students? Probably, but they are in the vast minority. If anything, my experience has been the opposite.

I find it disturbing that there is almost a total lack of Asians playing college football. There has to be a conspiracy!

(09-17-2013 08:52 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  We do have a wide education quality gap in this country, but this is looking at it backwards. The high impact changes to education need to be made BEFORE kids get to junior high age. Investment in preschool and elementary school programs is what translates into better students in high school and then college (and the goal is at that point, you don't need Affirmative Action-type programs to inflate non-Asian minority enrollment). Trying to change the end point (when kids are in or graduate from high school) is too late.

As Frank says, if you put ill prepared students into a competitive university, you hurt their chances for success rather than helping it. We've got a lot of bad urban, predominately poor minority elementary and middle schools in this country that we need to figure out how to do better.

A lower percentage of African-Americans and Hispanics take the SAT or ACT than those identifying as white or Asian.

If people aren't even taking the basic test used as an element of admission, how do you get them in college?

Colleges for the most part are very aggressive trying to attract minority applicants but the result is schools are essentially fighting over a very small pool. I have a friend who has been an academic recruiter for two larger regional universities and he says it is not uncommon for a city school with 700 graduates to send fewer kids to college than a suburban school with 200 graduates.

By the junior year of high school if you aren't set on getting into college, odds are extremely high that you aren't going to go to college.

The battle is being lost in Pre-K to 8th grade.

(09-17-2013 09:18 AM)CardinalZen Wrote:  I find it disturbing that there is almost a total lack of Asians playing college football. There has to be a conspiracy!

They are very small people in general. Size does matter in football.

(09-17-2013 10:03 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Colleges for the most part are very aggressive trying to attract minority applicants but the result is schools are essentially fighting over a very small pool. I have a friend who has been an academic recruiter for two larger regional universities and he says it is not uncommon for a city school with 700 graduates to send fewer kids to college than a suburban school with 200 graduates.

And yet, 14% of college students across America are black.

It seems that schools who do not play Power 5 football are doing a helluva lot better attracting those students than the Power 5 football schools are.

1) Schools are not making a ton of money because their expenses are often as significant and their income.
Desmond Howard is wrong.

2) Nobody is being exploited. These guys are getting a great opportunity.

Coug do you really think scholarship athletes are being exploited?

(09-16-2013 10:07 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Fact 1: As of 2010, 14% of all college students are black. Source.

Fact 2: As of 2010, 47% of all FBS football players are black. Source

We spend a lot of time discussing whether we should pay players. Desmond Howard made the argument last Saturday that schools are making a ton of money off the players, the poor always get taken advantage of by the rich in America, and that college athletes should be able to profit from their likeness. His argument boiled down to: the players are being financially exploited.

Yet, even in light of some of the academic issues highlighted in the Oklahoma State scandal (which people like David Pollack say go on everywhere), we spend very little time debating whether black HS graduates as a whole are being exploited based on their athletic prowess by being denied educational opportunities at these money making football schools.

The new playoff system is worth a ton of money. Should we incentivize schools economically to get away from paying lip service to educating the black youth in America while "using the black athlete" on Saturdays? Shouldn't schools bear some social responsibility in exchange for exploiting football players (half of whom are black) as Howard alleges?

Maybe this is too much of a political issue, but there is a wide disparity among conferences when it comes to black enrollment. Here are the median numbers:

SEC 7.6%
ACC 7.4%
Big 12 4.6%
Big 10 4.5%
Pac 12 3.0%

Now, some of those numbers are the result of state by state demographics. There are more black HS seniors going to college in Missisissippi than there are in Oregon or Utah. Still, on the whole, none of the P5 conferences are close to 14% black enrollment, the national average.

I'm not suggesting a quota is the answer. I am suggesting that the major college football schools who benefit so much economically from black football players can do a much better job of educating the rest of our black youth in America. That they have a social responsibility to do so. And that financial incentives/penalties might help get the ball rolling.

No, a quota is not the answer. If that were the case only about 12% of college football players could be Black. Since that is the percentage of Blacks in the total US population.