Why do you have to go to college become a pro football/basketball player?

Should NCAA academic eligibility determine whether an athlete qualifies to play for a team in the only amateur sport program that develops professional basketball and football players?


Why do you have to play college football to get drafted into the NFL?

Why is that young athletes in America must play amateur sports for schools in order to become professional athletes? 

Should NCAA academic eligibility determine whether an athlete qualifies to play for a team in the only amateur sport program that develops professional basketball and football players?

I've been asking myself these types of questions for a few years now. Michael Lewis has touched on the apparent contradictions in the NCAA system in bunch of his work over the last few years, most pointedly in "Serfs of the Turf" - http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/opinion/11lewis.html .  I think the United States is the only country on earth that in which an amateur athlete's career development is completely dependent on educational institutions.

Pele played soccer professionally at the age of 15. Wayne Gretzky dropped out of high school when he was 17 years old to play in the WHA.  Neither of them had to play for a school, and neither of them had to meet academic standards in order to qualify to play their sports.  I'm guessing Walter Gretzky might have taken away Wayne's skates for few days if he came home with bad grades on his report card... but no organization or school told Wayne what his minimum GPA had to be if he wanted to make it to the NHL. 

Today, soccer players in Europe, Africa and South America sign professional contracts  as young as 16 years of age.  They don't have attend college classes and play for a college teams in order to become a professional athletes.  In fact schools, and academics have absolutely nothing to do with the how these young athletes pursue their amateur/professional soccer careers. 

Top youth hockey players in Canada are drafted to play in 'Major Junior Hockey' leagues at 16 years of age and play as amateurs until they are 19.  Junior hockey teams have owners, these owners run the teams to make money. Its not a big money business, so you only get involved if you love hockey.  The players aren't paid salaries but they receive world class coaching and get paid enough  for room & board and 4 years worth of college tuition (assuming they want to attend school, if they choose to simply play hockey that's ok too).

The MLB farm systems exist as a functional alternative to NCAA for baseball players.  They can become a pro baseball player without attending school.  But football and basketball players must attend a college to progress their athletic careers.  The choice is go to college or end your athletic career.  The NCAA seemingly has exclusive control of amateur player development for these sports.

On the surface the idea of college scholarships for athletes sounds like a good one. Athletes are provided with the opportunity to earn a college degree that will benefit them in their lives regardless of the outcome of the athletic career.  But its seems like the system is now corrupted.

Athletes attending colleges with 'big time' athletic programs and are enrolled in specific courses that require minimal effort  (think basket weaving 101).  These same colleges employ an army of tutors for their athletes.  One might think the tutor's job is to actually help the student to 'learn' but that's not really what goal.  The real goal of tutorsis to maintain an athlete's academic eligibility, the focus is GPA not actual learning.  This is not to say that the athletes are all stupid, the strategy of easy courses and comprehensive tutoring  just helps to minimize the impact of 'academic distraction' on athletic performance.  Is there any value in a scholarship if the student lacks the time, interest or aptitude to actually study?

A complex, web of boosters, recruiters,  and coaches conspire to subvert NCAA recruiting rules using gifts, bribes and influence to get athletes to attend their school (in comparison Junior Hockey leagues in Canada use a draft to assign players to team avoiding corruption in the recruiting process).  High school teachers are pressured into providing generous grades to help the athlete's qualify for college.  And then we wonder why a disproportionate number of young NCAA athletes seem to struggle to stay out of legal trouble or seem to be lacking moral character. Could it be in part the influence of the adult role models that surround athletes in the pseudo-academic world of the NCAA? These role models seem very comfortable helping athletes cheat NCAA system's own academic, recruitment  and compensation rules.

Is there a better way to develop athletes? Do we need to continue to pretend that all these athletes are also students? 

  • 17 year old basket prodigy Jeremy Tyler has decided skip his final year of high school and play professionally for club team in Europe. That's an interesting development, although he's taking career guidance from Sonny Vaccaro, a shifty behind the scenes power broker in the world of youth basketball recruiting .
  • Jozy Altidore signed a pro soccer contract with the NY Red Bulls at 16 years old and moved Villareal in Spain's La Liga at 18 years old. Major League Soccer Teams are setting up 'Youth Academies' to develop young soccer players on their own. Its interesting that MLS has found money to fund player development but the NFL and NBA don't seem to have any cash available for this activity
  • I'm betting that the NBA and NFL tolerate the arcane NCAA system because its cheaper and lower risk for them to let the NCAA schools develop young athletes for them.  They save on having to pay salaries to young prospects and they don't have to fund infrastructure for their own development systems.  Its great deal, the NCAA does a nice work and its free of charge.  Players  are developed and the lesser talent is culled before the pro leagues ever need to pay a salary.  But in long run will this hurt the product they put on the court or field.  In the NBA, young American players coming out of NCAA schools seem to lack some skill development compared to the kids coming out of European clubs  (passing, shooting  etc). 

    I'm also willing to bet that the upstart MLS is not simply being charitable with its decision to invest in youth player development.  The global market for soccer players is lucrative. Players rights are owned by clubs and their rights are sold for huge sums of money, so developing youth soccer players is actually a viable side business for the MLS (a nice bi-product  like wood chips or mulch  for a lumber mill).  So the MLS is getting serious about player development because:

    1. The market opportunity to sell players internationally provides motivation

    2. NCAA system isn't very good a developing top quality soccer players

    3. Within the global market for soccer players, an 18 year old American prospect who is already competing against professionals and who possesses as yet unrealized potential, is actually more valuable in the eyes of European clubs, then a 22-25 year old American player who has played in the NCAA for 3-4 years and the MLS for 1-2 years and is perceived to be developmentally behind players of same age from Europe.

    In looking at Pele and Wayne Gretzky, would you say that their post athletic lives have been negatively impacted by their lack of college education.  Both men became famous as teenage sports prodigies.  As teenagers they probably weren't well rounded individuals.  It takes a lot of time and focus to be an athletic prodigy.  But look at them now, they are probably two of the greatest ambassadors for sport the world has ever known.  Articulate, thoughtful, humble and gracious, they are true gentlemen.  I'm wondering if either of them would have turned out differently, if they had spent a couple of their early adult years  scheming and scamming their way through NCAA rules so they could attend college in order to continue to play the sports they loved.  

    'Upstreamism': Your zip code affects your health as much as genetics

    Upstreamism advocate Rishi Manchanda calls us to understand health not as a "personal responsibility" but a "common good."

    Sponsored by Northwell Health
    • Upstreamism tasks health care professionals to combat unhealthy social and cultural influences that exist outside — or upstream — of medical facilities.
    • Patients from low-income neighborhoods are most at risk of negative health impacts.
    • Thankfully, health care professionals are not alone. Upstreamism is increasingly part of our cultural consciousness.
    Keep reading Show less
    Videos
    • A huge segment of America's population — the Baby Boom generation — is aging and will live longer than any American generation in history.
    • The story we read about in the news? Their drain on social services like Social Security and Medicare.
    • But increased longevity is a cause for celebration, says Ashton Applewhite, not doom and gloom.


    After death, you’re aware that you’ve died, say scientists

    Some evidence attributes a certain neurological phenomenon to a near death experience.

    Credit: Petr Kratochvil. PublicDomainPictures.net.
    Surprising Science

    Time of death is considered when a person has gone into cardiac arrest. This is the cessation of the electrical impulse that drive the heartbeat. As a result, the heart locks up. The moment the heart stops is considered time of death. But does death overtake our mind immediately afterward or does it slowly creep in?

    Keep reading Show less

    Yale scientists restore brain function to 32 clinically dead pigs

    Researchers hope the technology will further our understanding of the brain, but lawmakers may not be ready for the ethical challenges.

    Still from John Stephenson's 1999 rendition of Animal Farm.
    Surprising Science
    • Researchers at the Yale School of Medicine successfully restored some functions to pig brains that had been dead for hours.
    • They hope the technology will advance our understanding of the brain, potentially developing new treatments for debilitating diseases and disorders.
    • The research raises many ethical questions and puts to the test our current understanding of death.

    The image of an undead brain coming back to live again is the stuff of science fiction. Not just any science fiction, specifically B-grade sci fi. What instantly springs to mind is the black-and-white horrors of films like Fiend Without a Face. Bad acting. Plastic monstrosities. Visible strings. And a spinal cord that, for some reason, is also a tentacle?

    But like any good science fiction, it's only a matter of time before some manner of it seeps into our reality. This week's Nature published the findings of researchers who managed to restore function to pigs' brains that were clinically dead. At least, what we once thought of as dead.

    What's dead may never die, it seems

    The researchers did not hail from House Greyjoy — "What is dead may never die" — but came largely from the Yale School of Medicine. They connected 32 pig brains to a system called BrainEx. BrainEx is an artificial perfusion system — that is, a system that takes over the functions normally regulated by the organ. The pigs had been killed four hours earlier at a U.S. Department of Agriculture slaughterhouse; their brains completely removed from the skulls.

    BrainEx pumped an experiment solution into the brain that essentially mimic blood flow. It brought oxygen and nutrients to the tissues, giving brain cells the resources to begin many normal functions. The cells began consuming and metabolizing sugars. The brains' immune systems kicked in. Neuron samples could carry an electrical signal. Some brain cells even responded to drugs.

    The researchers have managed to keep some brains alive for up to 36 hours, and currently do not know if BrainEx can have sustained the brains longer. "It is conceivable we are just preventing the inevitable, and the brain won't be able to recover," said Nenad Sestan, Yale neuroscientist and the lead researcher.

    As a control, other brains received either a fake solution or no solution at all. None revived brain activity and deteriorated as normal.

    The researchers hope the technology can enhance our ability to study the brain and its cellular functions. One of the main avenues of such studies would be brain disorders and diseases. This could point the way to developing new of treatments for the likes of brain injuries, Alzheimer's, Huntington's, and neurodegenerative conditions.

    "This is an extraordinary and very promising breakthrough for neuroscience. It immediately offers a much better model for studying the human brain, which is extraordinarily important, given the vast amount of human suffering from diseases of the mind [and] brain," Nita Farahany, the bioethicists at the Duke University School of Law who wrote the study's commentary, told National Geographic.

    An ethical gray matter

    Before anyone gets an Island of Dr. Moreau vibe, it's worth noting that the brains did not approach neural activity anywhere near consciousness.

    The BrainEx solution contained chemicals that prevented neurons from firing. To be extra cautious, the researchers also monitored the brains for any such activity and were prepared to administer an anesthetic should they have seen signs of consciousness.

    Even so, the research signals a massive debate to come regarding medical ethics and our definition of death.

    Most countries define death, clinically speaking, as the irreversible loss of brain or circulatory function. This definition was already at odds with some folk- and value-centric understandings, but where do we go if it becomes possible to reverse clinical death with artificial perfusion?

    "This is wild," Jonathan Moreno, a bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania, told the New York Times. "If ever there was an issue that merited big public deliberation on the ethics of science and medicine, this is one."

    One possible consequence involves organ donations. Some European countries require emergency responders to use a process that preserves organs when they cannot resuscitate a person. They continue to pump blood throughout the body, but use a "thoracic aortic occlusion balloon" to prevent that blood from reaching the brain.

    The system is already controversial because it raises concerns about what caused the patient's death. But what happens when brain death becomes readily reversible? Stuart Younger, a bioethicist at Case Western Reserve University, told Nature that if BrainEx were to become widely available, it could shrink the pool of eligible donors.

    "There's a potential conflict here between the interests of potential donors — who might not even be donors — and people who are waiting for organs," he said.

    It will be a while before such experiments go anywhere near human subjects. A more immediate ethical question relates to how such experiments harm animal subjects.

    Ethical review boards evaluate research protocols and can reject any that causes undue pain, suffering, or distress. Since dead animals feel no pain, suffer no trauma, they are typically approved as subjects. But how do such boards make a judgement regarding the suffering of a "cellularly active" brain? The distress of a partially alive brain?

    The dilemma is unprecedented.

    Setting new boundaries

    Another science fiction story that comes to mind when discussing this story is, of course, Frankenstein. As Farahany told National Geographic: "It is definitely has [sic] a good science-fiction element to it, and it is restoring cellular function where we previously thought impossible. But to have Frankenstein, you need some degree of consciousness, some 'there' there. [The researchers] did not recover any form of consciousness in this study, and it is still unclear if we ever could. But we are one step closer to that possibility."

    She's right. The researchers undertook their research for the betterment of humanity, and we may one day reap some unimaginable medical benefits from it. The ethical questions, however, remain as unsettling as the stories they remind us of.