The Wall Street Journal: Why College Football Should Be Banned

[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.

[CajunRebel]

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.

Well you accused the study of having a liberal bias because it was performed by a university professor. For what it's worth the professor who did the study is actually a self-professed conservative and the book he wrote about the study is called "Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind." So the jokes definitely on you for saying the study has a liberal bias. And once again you simply assume something is true when the research or evidence clearly proves otherwise.

You assumed incorrectly that the writer was talking about the government when he never said or implied the government in any way.
You assumed incorrectly that the WSJ is somehow 100% unbiased which has been dis-proven by research (by a conservative nonetheless).
You assumed incorrectly that if a scientific study doesn't match your opinion it's because of a liberal bias by the study's creators.
You assume incorrectly that college professors are liberal when there is really no definitive research to back it up.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. And if the opinion is well thought out and based on facts and research then I respect it even though I may completely disagree with it. But when people like you base your opinions off of random assumptions not based in any sort of truth then your opinion isn't worth the paper or web space it's written on.

It's easier and quicker to make assumptions about the world. But it's better to seek out the actual truth.

[Just1More]

Well you accused the study of having a liberal bias because it was performed by a university professor. For what it's worth the professor who did the study is actually a self-professed conservative and the book he wrote about the study is called "Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind." So the jokes definitely on you for saying the study has a liberal bias. And once again you simply assume something is true when the research or evidence clearly proves otherwise.

You assumed incorrectly that the writer was talking about the government when he never said or implied the government in any way.
You assumed incorrectly that the WSJ is somehow 100% unbiased which has been dis-proven by research (by a conservative nonetheless).
You assumed incorrectly that if a scientific study doesn't match your opinion it's because of a liberal bias by the study's creators.
You assume incorrectly that college professors are liberal when there is really no definitive research to back it up.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. And if the opinion is well thought out and based on facts and research then I respect it even though I may completely disagree with it. But when people like you base your opinions off of random assumptions not based in any sort of truth then your opinion isn't worth the paper or web space it's written on.

It's easier and quicker to make assumptions about the world. But it's better to seek out the actual truth.

You don't read very well, or else your comprehension skills are lacking. I never said that the author of the article wrote that the government will ban football. When someone writes "football should be banned" or "abortion should be banned"... do you know of another entity, by inference, that can do such a thing? Please advise. And no, the other bodies you referred to are not capable of banning football or I would have included them along with the state and/or federal government.

I never said that WSJ is "unbiased". I said that "I" don't consider it to be "conservative". In having read a multitude of their reporter's and editor's articles, I have never felt that the editors persuade nor hire writers based on their perceived political bias. I never told you that you don't have the right to consider the WSJ "conservative". I stated that "I do not". And no, regardless of the background of a particular study's author, I do not necessarily regard studies on "bias" as definitive.

I clowned with you on the "scientific study" comment. I don't regard many non-science "studies" to be very "scientific". I believe these terms are borrowed and they discredit "science". You and I can debate that on another day. This is obviously not the place to do so.

Do you really believe that there have not been studies on bias in our colleges and universities? That is not true. Regardless, do you believe the only ability of a discerning mind is through the production of university studies? I suppose if I stated that Baylor and Columbia probably have a different lean in their political views, as a collective body, you would tell me to show you "the study".

Ironically, leading liberals pronounce on a routine basis that there are more intellectuals that side with liberal views. I know there may not be a study to proclaim "college liberal arts professors" as "intellectuals"... and I apologize upfront for that "opinion"... but I will suggest it nonetheless.

And again... if you do not like the content of my posts... fine... but do you not know how simplistic it is to keep writing over and over "that's your opinion"? Tell me how many posts on here are not opinion laden? Yours seem to be less than scientific. And furthermore, you couldn't hold a candle to me in an argument... you can't even stay inside the painted lines without getting lost.

[cajunhawk]

Well you accused the study of having a liberal bias because it was performed by a university professor. For what it's worth the professor who did the study is actually a self-professed conservative and the book he wrote about the study is called "Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind." So the jokes definitely on you for saying the study has a liberal bias. And once again you simply assume something is true when the research or evidence clearly proves otherwise.

You assumed incorrectly that the writer was talking about the government when he never said or implied the government in any way.
You assumed incorrectly that the WSJ is somehow 100% unbiased which has been dis-proven by research (by a conservative nonetheless).
You assumed incorrectly that if a scientific study doesn't match your opinion it's because of a liberal bias by the study's creators.
You assume incorrectly that college professors are liberal when there is really no definitive research to back it up.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. And if the opinion is well thought out and based on facts and research then I respect it even though I may completely disagree with it. But when people like you base your opinions off of random assumptions not based in any sort of truth then your opinion isn't worth the paper or web space it's written on.

It's easier and quicker to make assumptions about the world. But it's better to seek out the actual truth.

The whole idea of Universities being bastions for liberal machinations is idiotic. The reasoning for this is that Republican leaders don't like people who can think with their brains. It has to be. Every one of the Republican candidates for President, and the majority of Representatives & Senators have gotten their formal education at one or more Universities. So why do they vilify them? Because they know they cannot sell the idea of AMURICA!!!! to them without getting several questions and people trying to hold back laughter. I have been a Republican since the day I could vote, but I despise what the new Republican party is doing. Hell I despise what the new Democratic party is doing. Hell I despise all politicians these days with the exception of Ron Paul. That poor man could not get elected if he ____ golden eggs and knew how to balance the friggin' budget. I hate this Partisan rhetoric crap. It's a hot and cold argument. If the Democrats say it's hot, the Republicans say it's cold. That is not politics, it's a farce. The sooner people wake up to this notion the sooner we can get back to what America is known for, innovation and prosperity...both of which are severely restrained at the moment.

[Just1More]

The whole idea of Universities being bastions for liberal machinations is idiotic. The reasoning for this is that Republican leaders don't like people who can think with their brains. It has to be. Every one of the Republican candidates for President, and the majority of Representatives & Senators have gotten their formal education at one or more Universities. So why do they vilify them? Because they know they cannot sell the idea of AMURICA!!!! to them without getting several questions and people trying to hold back laughter. I have been a Republican since the day I could vote, but I despise what the new Republican party is doing. Hell I despise what the new Democratic party is doing. Hell I despise all politicians these days with the exception of Ron Paul. That poor man could not get elected if he ____ golden eggs and knew how to balance the friggin' budget. I hate this Partisan rhetoric crap. It's a hot and cold argument. If the Democrats say it's hot, the Republicans say it's cold. That is not politics, it's a farce. The sooner people wake up to this notion the sooner we can get back to what America is known for, innovation and prosperity...both of which are severely restrained at the moment.

Where's your scientific study?! Rebel wants to back you up, but can you cite the study or studies by leading collegiate authorities that support your view? Don't tell me this is just "your opinion".

[cajunhawk]

Where's your scientific study?! Rebel wants to back you up, but can you cite the study or studies by leading collegiate authorities that support your view? Don't tell me this is just "your opinion".

For every "college liberal arts" professor that is beloved by the Democratic party, there are 5 toothless yokels who still believe evolution is wrong that are beloved by the Republican party. That's not a scientific study...it's called reality.

[Just1More]

For every "college liberal arts" professor that is beloved by the Democratic party, there are 5 toothless yokels who still believe evolution is wrong that are beloved by the Republican party. That's not a scientific study...it's called reality.

Let's keep the Tech fan accusations on the correct thread, Hawk.

Oh, and be a little cautious with your political composition analysis. There are ten times more democrats than toothless yokels that exist on the wrong end of the intellectual spectrum.