Forbes Writer Calls For Removal of College Football From ALL Universities

Let me be the first to say that I am an avid college football fan and I wouldn't trade my Saturday afternoons between August and December for anything. I love the sport and see no inherent issue in that fact.

However, Steven Salzberg (a contributing blogger for Forbes) feels college football is driving academia to its death:

"...The culture of football in American universities is completely out of control. It is undermining our education system and hurting our competitiveness in technology, science, and engineering. If we keep it up, the U.S. will eventually be little more than the big, dumb jock on the world stage—good for entertainment on the weekend, but not taken seriously otherwise.

Too harsh? I don’t think so. I think we need to eliminate football entirely from our universities if we want to maintain our pre-eminent position as the world’s scientific and technological leader."

Oh boy, where to begin? Let's state the obvious here, first: playing, watching, attending, or following college football is a choice. No one is forced to pledge their allegiance to any one team and the mere notion that the sports' presence at a university plays a significant role in the dumbing down of our society is, at best, an irresponsible inference.

The educational system is a wreck all by itself—what with the standardized testing models made necessary by the presence of "No Child Left Behind—and removing college football won't change that one bit.

Quite honestly, if Salzberg's hope is to see the United States "...maintain our pre-eminent position as the world’s scientific and technological leader" then his efforts to make that change should start much earlier than college. He should encourage more reform at the elementary, middle, and high school levels first—as that is where his message is likely to be the most useful.

Mr. Salzberg goes on to imply that,

"...If football disappeared, we could get our entertainment from another sport, as we do every year after the football season ends. But if we stop producing scientists, other countries will make the discoveries that solve the technological, medical, and engineering problems of the future, and that form the basis for great civilizations."

Let me just say that there's a certain amount of ignorance that goes into such a statement because it seems to suggest that sports fans are not unlike drones—sitting around waiting to be entertained by whatever option is presented them.

As a college football fan I say, with confidence, that I don't enjoy all sports with the same passion as I do college football. So, to say that eliminating it is okay because, well, I (and countless others) could just find some other sport to follow is a touch insulting.

Even more, who's to say that simply by ridding society of college football, more scientists would be produced? That seems like a big jump to make. Is he really willing to stand behind the notion that the only reason college students aren't able to reach their maximum potential is because college football exists?

If that's his aim, he's reaching.

Quite honestly, the more I read his points, the more his rant seemed aimed at his current employer—the University of Maryland, than anything else,

"The football-industrial complex has too much power over our universities. Nothing else can explain how we spend so much money and time on football, which contributes almost nothing to students’ education, while academic departments are cutting faculty and staff. The culture of football worship has gotten so out of control that I think the only solution is to get rid of it entirely."

College football is the cash cow at many universities and, regrettably, that means that some academic departments are forced to play second-fiddle to the athletic department. Is that wrong? Perhaps, but those same dollars are often used to upgrade facilities, build better buildings, and pay for programs meant to enhance the academic experience of the student body (via study abroad programs, guest professors, etc.) as well—whether those individuals follow football or not.

Are all universities using their money in an even-handed way? Of course not, but the college football fan isn't writing or cashing those checks, and it's up to each university's president to advocate that the monies earned be divvied up in  such a way that it both sustains their athletic programs and uplifts the academic ones.

If that fails to happen, that's not the fault of college football, it's fans, or the athletes that play the sport.

In the end, Mr. Salzberg's ire and concern are coming from a good place, but his anger is misdirected and his message needs tweaking.

You can read his entire article here.

College Football Debate: To Pay or Not To Pay—Should There Be A Question?

By now, most everyone has either read or heard about the interview that, Josh Luchs gave to Sports Illustrated regarding his time as a sports agent. It's an interesting read, chocked full of all types of tidbits that make you raise an eyebrow at just how seedy the world of college athletics can truly be— when no one is watching.

However, after finishing the article, only one question can possibly come to mind: Should the NCAA allow amateur athletes to be paid or not?

The question is simple enough, but the answer is more complicated than any could possibly imagine because there is no black and white response to a query that has so many shades of gray. Of course the hard-line response would be to say that athletes are paid already—via their cushy $100,000 plus scholarship.

While the majority of college graduates will exit with a mountain of debt, most athletes will exit not only debt free, but with a degree that will be worth something in the job market, and a level of recognition that, depending on where they live, will grant them an opportunity to find a career that pays well.

Think about the sheer number of former athletes who find their way into the broadcast booth, onto the radio, and linked to lucrative business offers just for the use of their name and image—mostly because they played football or basketball.

There are benefits to being a successful collegiate athlete—even if you aren't an all-conference player who manages to garner a pro contract.

That said, the NCAA, and the institutions that these athletes serve, are also getting paid. The A.J. Green incident shed new light on the fact that a college athlete is powerless to what they can do for monetary gain. He sold his jersey for $1,000 and, while he was wrong for doing so, the NCAA sells a replica of his jersey for—at minimum—$50.00.

Look around Sanford Stadium and count the number of No. 8 jerseys—how many do you see? Is it more than a $1,000 worth—does Green get a cut of that? Did Reggie Bush reap the benefits of his No. 5? I bet Tim Tebow could have paid for a lot of circumcisions with his No. 15—just putting that out there.

Furthermore, look at the video game industry, they've struck gold with NCAA football series—the recently released NCAA 11' football sales increased 8% over the previous version. Keeping that in mind, it has to sting a little when a popular college football player sees their jersey number, but not their name, featured amongst the 100-plus schools the game promotes—knowing that most fans will know exactly who they are on said game.

And then there's the issue with players accepting monies, gifts, or favors. If they do so, there are steep consequences attached. Yet, the NCAA expects them to get by only on what they are allowed to have under the guidelines: tuition, books, meals, and on-campus housing are covered. However, there are no stipends given to cover other non-academic expenses: clothing, entertainment, etc.

Many of these athletes are poor and don't have the means to do anything.

Sure, the NCAA allows them to work but, let's be honest, what student-athlete has the time to fit a job into their daily commitments? Between practice, training, classes, tutoring-sessions, and study time, there isn't enough time in the day to hold down a job?

So, that leaves the athlete to depend on his/her family for any extra expenses and most cannot afford to do so.

That said, there will be some athletes who will take advantage of their popularity by accepting money and gifts from an agent, a booster, or an overzealous fan. Is that the right thing to do? No, but, despite what the NCAA has to say about why student-athletes aren't paid, there is a need for further discussion on how to best address these matters.

The debate is one that has so many angles that it's difficult to tackle them all, but it's anything but black and white—it always has been.

What say you?

Georgia Wide Receiver, A.J. Green, Is Ready To Play Some Football (VIDEO)

The Georgia Bulldogs have been without A.J. Green for the last four weeks. Many thought he would return to a team that was 4-0, at best, and 3-1, at worst. There were few who believed he would make his debut on a team that was 1-3 and reeling from one of the most embarrassing losses in a very long time.

However, Green is undeterred by the record or the circumstance. After sitting on the sidelines, watching the offense sputter minus his play making hands, he is simply ready to suit up in his signature No. 8 jersey and play a little Georgia Bulldog football.

Fans are hungry for something to feel good about and, for the first time in a month, A.J. brings the hope of something better—at least for the moment.

Green is ready to play—saying he still feels he has a lot to "prove" to those out there who might still be questioning his overall legitimacy as a player. (h/t wnegtv)

Georgia Basketball's Connor Nolte Finds Fame Through Tricks

A very cool trick shot video created by Georgia basketball player, Connor Nolte. Nolte was a walk-on who eventually laded a full-scholarship playing ball for Coach Mark Fox and the Georgia Men's Basketball team.

The best part may very well be the end, however, I found myself wondering what on earth Charles Barkley was doing in Athens in the first place?

Enjoy!