The Wall Street Journal: Why College Football Should Be Banned

[NewsCopy]

In more than 20 years I've spent studying the issue, I have yet to hear a convincing argument that college football has anything do with what is presumably the primary purpose of higher education: academics.

That's because college football has no academic purpose. Which is why it needs to be banned. A radical solution, yes. But necessary in today's times.

The rest of the story

[Cajuns71]

Now you know why it should be no to NMSU---LOL---

[tank]

Public education teachers and FOOTBALL right up my alley.Lets not get personal.

[Just1More]

This is a well thought out article? It announces the "banning of college football". There's nothing wrong with discussing the downsides of all kinds of social downfalls in America and their affect on education. I don't see where football is the social pariah this article implies. The author points out schools that can't cove their athletic costs, but fails to point out where Title IV costs universities massively. Why doesn't he take that up in his "well thought out article"? Why doesn't he point out the schools that cover the costs of their track and field, golf, tennis, and so much more... through their football program. This article takes on 3 of the 20 key issues and concludes we should (our government... you jacklegs that fail to see where that dovetails into politics) sum it up with... "ban college football". And this easy to Jo down in 30 seconds gets in the Wall Street Journal?

PS. The Wall Street Journal is neither conservative nor liberal. Read the damn thing ever so often. And if you bring "Global Warming" into this forum, you're open game.

[CajunRebel]

This is a well thought out article? It announces the "banning of college football". There's nothing wrong with discussing the downsides of all kinds of social downfalls in America and their affect on education. I don't see where football is the social pariah this article implies. The author points out schools that can't cove their athletic costs, but fails to point out where Title IV costs universities massively. Why doesn't he take that up in his "well thought out article"? Why doesn't he point out the schools that cover the costs of their track and field, golf, tennis, and so much more... through their football program. This article takes on 3 of the 20 key issues and concludes we should (our government... you jacklegs that fail to see where that dovetails into politics) sum it up with... "ban college football". And this easy to Jo down in 30 seconds gets in the Wall Street Journal?

PS. The Wall Street Journal is neither conservative nor liberal. Read the damn thing ever so often. And if you bring "Global Warming" into this forum, you're open game.

A few things.

First I don't agree that we should ban college football. I think that's the wrong conclusion. But his argument that college football is a net negative for Universities is spot on. And yes it was a well thought out argument even though I disagree with it's conclusion.

Second the article never said the government should ban football. You just somehow assumed that it did. So that makes you the jackleg.

And I guarantee you I read much more news and much more of the WSJ than you do on a daily basis. But I'm not arrogant enough to beleive that I alone can determine a newspapers level of political bias. I tend to rely on scientific studies instead of my own personal hunches when I state things as fact. And the most recent scientific study on media bias determined that the WSJ was the second most conservative newspaper of all major papers behind only the Houston Chronicle.

[Just1More]

A few things.

First I don't agree that we should ban college football. I think that's the wrong conclusion. But his argument that college football is a net negative for Universities is spot on. And yes it was a well thought out argument even though I disagree with it's conclusion.

Second the article never said the government should ban football. You just somehow assumed that it did. So that makes you the jackleg.

And I guarantee you I read much more news and much more of the WSJ than you do on a daily basis. But I'm not arrogant enough to beleive that I alone can determine a newspapers level of political bias. I tend to rely on scientific studies instead of my own personal hunches when I state things as fact. And the most recent scientific study on media bias determined that the WSJ was the second most conservative newspaper of all major papers behind only the Houston Chronicle.

Who in the world, other than our government, has the power to ban college football? "Scientific study"? They used beakers? I didn't give a hunch or a referenced fact... I gave my opinion... of which you might wish to review a couple of your opinionated posts pal. And no, there are very few rags that are not liberal, so indeed I find the Journal is neither conservative nor liberal. There editors are outspoken that Journal reporters remain independent and impartial. Some studies prior to Murdock used to call the Journal more liberal in their data sourcing than the New York Times.

[CajunRebel]

Who in the world, other than our government, has the power to ban college football? "Scientific study"? They used beakers? I didn't give a hunch or a referenced fact... I gave my opinion... of which you might wish to review a couple of your opinionated posts pal. And no, there are very few rags that are not liberal, so indeed I find the Journal is neither conservative nor liberal. There editors are outspoken that Journal reporters remain independent and impartial. Some studies prior to Murdock used to call the Journal more liberal in their data sourcing than the New York Times.

The NCAA, NAIA, College Students, College Presidents, and many accredidation bodies would all have at least some power to ban college football.

And do you seriously not know what a scientific study is? Also, I could care less what Just1More's opinion of the WSJ is because he is not an expert on media bias. If he was he would understand that no editor of a newspaper that features an opinion section is ever going to claim that their rag is impartial. Now when this guy http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/people/faculty-pages/timothy-groseclose, who is actually considered an expert on media bias, does an actual scientific study that determines the level of media bias in different papers, I'm interested in what he has to say. And if you're a conservative you'd probably like what he has to say too.

[Just1More]

The NCAA, NAIA, College Students, College Presidents, and many accredidation bodies would all have at least some power to ban college football.

And do you seriously not know what a scientific study is? Also, I could care less what Just1More's opinion of the WSJ is because he is not an expert on media bias. If he was he would understand that no editor of a newspaper that features an opinion section is ever going to claim that their rag is impartial. Now when this guy http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/people/f...thy-groseclose, who is actually considered an expert on media bias, does an actual scientific study that determines the level of media bias in different papers, I'm interested in what he has to say. And if you're a conservative you'd probably like what he has to say too.

Yes, please hold your breath and wait for these organizations to collectively ban college football. Yes, yes, that's exactly who he's implying will ban college football when he says "we". And get this straight, I don't care whether you like my opinion or not. And yes, as I said, the editors of the Journal are outspoken regarding the demand their reporters are independent and impartial. I never said they claimed any rag to be liberal or conservative or bias. I stated what has been written by the Journal editors. I do not personally find that the Journal is either liberal or conservative. I do find most major print media to be left leaning. It doesn't surprise me that a scientific study, done at/by US colleges, would place the Journal well to the right of center.

But again, I seriously don't care whether you like my opinion at all.

[TravlnCajun]

Who in the world, other than our government, has the power to ban college football? "Scientific study"? They used beakers? I didn't give a hunch or a referenced fact... I gave my opinion... of which you might wish to review a couple of your opinionated posts pal. And no, there are very few rags that are not liberal, so indeed I find the Journal is neither conservative nor liberal. There editors are outspoken that Journal reporters remain independent and impartial. Some studies prior to Murdock used to call the Journal more liberal in their data sourcing than the New York Times.

I'm not so worried about a government entity banning it as I am afraid the lawyers will. If the threat of massive liability awards materialize, I fear that will be all the "ban" required.

[Bandwagon King]

I'm not so worried about a government entity banning it as I am afraid the lawyers will. If the threat of massive liability awards materialize, I fear that will be all the "ban" required.

The only way that occurs is if loser _______s like Roger Goodell lose their nerve & allow the idea that personal accountability & common sense is a character trait that is no longer present in America to be become the prevailent mode of thinking in America. The reason people no longer have the common sense to realize that football is a dangerous collision sport just as it has always been is because of idiots like that who run our sports leagues & are responsible for running them. As I said before, one of the main reasons college football participants don't suffer the same amount of serious damage due to concussions is becasue college players are mandated to wear mouth pieces & professional players are not. But university presidents look at what is going on with the NFL & get scared, then football, hockey, lacrosse, wrestling, or any other collision sport will be in trouble as a result. It's called being chicken ____.

[Cajuns71]

Bingo---Travln...that's the message I got when the Saints "scandal" hit the wires. I don't think that football will be banned, but it will be changed after all the law "suits" file their lawsuits. There's big money in the NFL and I hope the legal mess doesn't get to the college level. The game is already changing and I hope we don't get to flag football. The pre-knowledge that football is a contact sport has been present since the start of the game--but now the personal responsibility is often lacking. I will not get into the chronic injury area--anybody who played the game knows that first hand.

[CajunRebel]

Yes, please hold your breath and wait for these organizations to collectively ban college football. Yes, yes, that's exactly who he's implying will ban college football when he says "we". And get this straight, I don't care whether you like my opinion or not. And yes, as I said, the editors of the Journal are outspoken regarding the demand their reporters are independent and impartial. I never said they claimed any rag to be liberal or conservative or bias. I stated what has been written by the Journal editors. I do not personally find that the Journal is either liberal or conservative. I do find most major print media to be left leaning. It doesn't surprise me that a scientific study, done at/by US colleges, would place the Journal well to the right of center.

But again, I seriously don't care whether you like my opinion at all.

Again he didn't imply that the government should ban football. You just assumed that he was implying that the government should do it. But your assumption was wrong. It's not like he was trying to be poitically correct or wishy-washy in his writing of this article. If he was calling for the government to ban football he would have come out and said so.

And please, please explain to me what you mean when you say that "it doesn't surprise me that a scientific study, done at/by US colleges, would place the Journal well to the right of center."

[Turbine]

In more than 20 years I've spent studying the issue, I have yet to hear a convincing argument that college football has anything do with what is presumably the primary purpose of higher education: academics.

That's because college football has no academic purpose. Which is why it needs to be banned. A radical solution, yes. But necessary in today's times.

. . . Call me the Grinch. But I would much prefer students going to college to learn and be prepared for the rigors of the new economic order, rather than dumping fees on them to subsidize football programs that, far from enhancing the academic mission instead make a mockery of it.



The rest of the story

In my uneducated opinion . . .

An institution of higher learning should have three roles.

1) Educate the student
2) Market the school and thus the education of the student.
3) Proactive job placement of the educated student.

I find a lot of schools do a good job of (1) a great job of (2) and an average job of (3)

Without saying it this writer says do a good job of (1) forget (2) and (3)

I wonder if he thinks companies in the real world should quit advertising with the WSJ because they can't account for direct dollar out dollar in value. In other words in his view advertising loses money because that is what football does for a university. Advertise your name and diploma.

jmueo

[Just1More]

Again he didn't imply that the government should ban football. You just assumed that he was implying that the government should do it. But your assumption was wrong. It's not like he was trying to be poitically correct or wishy-washy in his writing of this article. If he was calling for the government to ban football he would have come out and said so.

And please, please explain to me what you mean when you say that "it doesn't surprise me that a scientific study, done at/by US colleges, would place the Journal well to the right of center."

I never said that he stated that the government will ban college football. I said that government will never ban college football. I was responding to the guy stating "college football should be banned". The government, again, is the only entity that make something federally illegal. Even lawsuits will not "ban" football. They may wreak havoc on the sport, and the NCAA and others may react wildly, but the only institution that could "ban"... "eliminate" college football would be the government. Universities agree to belong to the NCAA... voluntarily. If the NCAA even attempted to ban a sport, colleges could leave the NCAA and play football under a separate agency. College football will never be "banned" without a federal law being passed to do so.

Oh, and if you are not aware that most university political science departments are liberal, I'll never accomplish convincing you on here. Gauging bias requires a standard. You, for instance, may regard my views, if you knew me, to be substantially conservative. I regard my views, by measure of the two extremes, to be very slightly right of center. I can assure you that major university political science professors would consider me further to the right. You can't start with a bias, as they do, and adequately gauge bias. Extreme bias is easy. Slight variations on specific topics is forever arguable. I know liberals that argue what's regarded as liberal. I know conservatives that disagree on what's conservative.

[Just1More]

I'm thinking of writing a WSJ opinion piece on why skateboards should be banned. I guess if I cited some head and other significant injury data, and how young people don't get any educational value out of skateboarding, and how little Timmy skateboarder wasted that skateboard time and money when he could have purchased some study guides with the money... in these "tough times"... and studied more... instead of skateboarding... we'd probably solve our current education system shortcomings. Let's see... what songs and books do we find harmful? Let's get on a banning crusade!

Um... No... Let's just discuss the bad side of these and many other issues and work toward informed solutions, including personal responsibility and the risk of making certain choices in life.