Hypeman wrote: ↑
April 1st, 2020, 9:54 am
AJcat7755 wrote: ↑
April 1st, 2020, 8:41 am
Completely missing the point.
Many football players are dual sport athletes already, some even play 3. Kyler Murray was drafted by the MLB but decided to play football, Terrance Newman was a track star, Patrick Mahomes played SS, we have seen John Holcombe dunk. Ndamunkon Suh, Odell Beckham, Chad Johnson, Andrew Luck, Wes Welker, Karl Joseph, Marcus Mariota, Jay Ajayi, Jake Butt all played soccer growing up but choose football instead. Examples like this are all over the place.
It's not about just tossing them into another sport, but given their athletic abilities, if they spent their whole lives training in another sport, they would probably be successful enough to earn a scholarship to play it. But at some point, even the multi-sport athletes, had to make a decision to focus on football instead.
The argument is the only way they can get a paid education is through football, which is false. If their only goal was an education, they are many other sports, and many other levels of school they could go to to do so. Let's not act like football is mandatory to save their lives. Football is a voluntary sport, they play it because they want a chance at the highest pay day and the most glamor, not because they want an education. If education was their only goal, there are many other ways to do so, with much less risk of bodily harm in the future. Not to mention the number of players that never even finish their degree, showing how much they actually care about that education in the first place. There are risks, CTE being a big one, with seeking out that glamor and $$, but let's not pretend it's their only option in life.
Basketball is actually consider the most accessible sport for urban youth because of the space requirements for a basketball court, or just a hoop, compared to that of a football field or baseball field. So if any sport was the one that had a better chance of helping players get a scholarship, that would be considered higher.
I agree with you that b-ball is accessible, but the scholarships are fewer, especially if your theory that the kids do it for the shot at the pros is true. And if that’s the case, why couple college football with colleges? Just go semi-pro. The P5 could become the south division of the CFL.
As for assuming football players would excel at any sport Is assuming they all require the same physical and mental skill sets. I thinks that’s utterly ridiculous. Suggesting that because some of these guys participated in other sports as kids, like soccer, they could have excelled in those sports is also ridiculous. Perhaps they chose football because they sucked at the other sports and football fit their skill set and body type. It takes brute strength, less touch and hand eye coordination and dexterity and endurance than many other sports. I suspect the skill sets and body types that make a great football player are quite different than say golf, or baseball, or soccer, or cycling, or tennis, or equestrian or ...... Are there exceptions? of course there are. Ever seen Bo Jackson or Tim Tebow or Tony Romo? But those are 1 in a million.
That’s all somewhat off topic, but if the theory that playing football is all about fame, money, and has nothing to do with education is true, why the heck is football associated with an educational institution?
There are far fewer basketball scholarships then football. Football scholarships represent 28% of overall men's players. Only 8.4% of HS football players play in college (NCAA I, II, III, NAIA, or JUCO). That is higher then basketball as well, but not really a sound strategy to getting an education. It's also not a sound strategy to making the pros as only 1.6% of NCAA FB players make the pros. Men's basketball has far better pro options with 21.3% of NCAA players playing pro ball somewhere as there are many more pro opportunities in basketball compared to football. As someone suggested, would focusing on education in HS be a better route to getting a higher education?
Again, I'm not assuming a "football" player would be good at other sports. I'm assuming a talented athlete could have been trained to play another sport instead of football. Instead of tailoring their talents to football and bulking up strength and size, they could have trained for something else. Their body types wouldn't have been a football body type if they didn't train to be that. Physical abilities can translate to other sports if trained properly. Quick twitch muscles for speed and agility can be used in a variety of ways. Fast athletes could run track, tall athletes can play basketball, etc. Lot of those big linemen in football also wrestle, or perform various track items like shot put or discuss. Athletes aren't just destined for football or nothing, their abilities can be trained for other applicable sports instead of football. A lot of college coaches even look for multi sport athletes because it shows that they have more raw talent. Leach and Harbaugh have said in the past they love getting football/soccer players because of their speed and agility translate well.
And even going to another method, those "football" bodies could also join the military service which takes all body types. The military would also pay for their education if that is their goal. And before we jump on the military is unsafe part, there are plenty of roles in the military that do not involve direct combat. The point being, there are many ways for someone to get an education outside of just playing football. But the goal of a lot of football players is not a degree, its big $$.
Football used to be about education, but it has become so much more money driven for schools. We try to make schools care, with APR and such, but not everyone gets their degree, and not every degree gotten is even that great with a lot of athlete filler classes (hello UNC). There are still many that use football, and other sports, to get an education, but it's not what it used to be.