Anonymous wrote:NCAA athletes have tutors and all sorts of people to help them graduate. I'm not sure this is relevant.

Do you know how many hours a year they work for the school? They miss so many classes, how do you expect them to learn without a tutor?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NCAA athletes graduate at a higher rate than other students.

But at what cost for the non-athletes?

There would not be a band without a football team. Or a computer lab, or a library.... really... do you have any clue how much NCAA sports makes (profit) for a school?

The non-athletes would not be able to afford college without the revenue of the sports teams.

You can aruge this is not true for soccer, etc. but that is like saying okay we won't have band because it does not make money.

Anonymous wrote:well I read the article in the OP. Leads of with a 16 year old girl from Korea who comes to the U.S. and wonders why we spend so much time and money on sports? Who cares what they think? They have pressure cooker testing and go to school on Saturday - yet for some reason she emigrated to the U.S. Hmmm. I wonder if I can just emigrate to Finland. I hear they have a good school system.

I think most of those who emigrate here are prepping for entrance to colleges/universities. I don't think they came here for the relatively subpar K-12 education system

NCAA athletes have tutors and all sorts of people to help them graduate. I'm not sure this is relevant.

well I read the article in the OP. Leads of with a 16 year old girl from Korea who comes to the U.S. and wonders why we spend so much time and money on sports? Who cares what they think? They have pressure cooker testing and go to school on Saturday - yet for some reason she emigrated to the U.S. Hmmm. I wonder if I can just emigrate to Finland. I hear they have a good school system.

Public high schools are not in the NCAA. Sports also provide wholesome outside activities for the spectators, the band, etc. They are a good thing.

Anonymous wrote:NCAA athletes graduate at a higher rate than other students.

But at what cost for the non-athletes?

Do they give the high schools money or something? Or is it just prestige of having a good player at the school?

maybe they'll quit when colleges stop recruiting and offering scholarships for athletes.
BTW, notice Stanford is ranked No. 5 in NCAA football this season?

Anonymous wrote:The article mentions the benefits of sports teams:

the many benefits of high-school sports: exercise, lessons in sportsmanship and perseverance, school spirit, and just plain fun

I would add the ability to work with others and develop leadership and subordinate skills/relationships.

I think most people who advocate team sports to help their children develop interpersonal, group, and leadership skills. These soft credentials are very important in today's job market. Being smart is not good enough today. Employee need to be able to manage, coordinate, self-promote, and advocate. Schools do not do a good job of teaching these skills.

Except, all of these teamwork, leadership, perseverance, etc. could also be achieved through clubs and activities that are not sports related (debate, It's Academic, model UN, etc.)
The was a very interesting part of the article that talked about the decision of the Spellman college president to eliminate sports and instead offer health/fitness programs.
This seems like a good approach to me. Have schools educate and promote healthy exercise for all people, not just athletically gifted. That kind of program will cost less than the sports programs, and more time and resources can go to promoting academics.
For kids that really have an interest in more organized sports, we can follow the European/Asian model of doing it in clubs outside of school.

Anonymous wrote:It is important to be physically fit. However, the emphasis on organized sports is counterproductive. The term dumb jock is not completely without merit. Our entire American society is in intellectual decline as a result of junk food and an over emphasis on sports

Says the "intellectual" who thinks that junk food leads to intellectual decline.

Philosophically, I have no problem with the homeschool kids. But, it does seem to give them an unfair advantage in that they can sleep late, etc. School kids cannot play if they are tardy or absent that day.

I didn't read the article, so I'm just speaking off the cuff here. Are schools putting too much emphasis into "sports" or into "winning" at sports? I'm guessing it's the latter. If it was the former, I wouldn't be as concerned because as an earlier poster mentioned there are other life skills kids learn from sports - teamwork, social skills, physical fitness training, etc.

Anonymous wrote:And then there's the whole argument about the private school and homeschool kids wanting to join these teams. Is it still a benefit to the school as a whole in that case?

I assume these are in boundary homeschool kids whose parents are also paying taxes. I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed.

My daughter was fortunate to play on several hs teams. Every single season she would get into a heated argument with whoever the coach was over the time commitment. Coaches say academics come first, but they don't walk the walk - ever.