Debate: Ban College Football
 

Good debate took place last night in NYC. Journalists Buzz Bissinger and Malcolm Gladwell argued for the proposition we should ban college football. Former NFL player Tim Green and columnist/former college player Jason Whitlock argued against banning it.

I thought Buzz destroyed Green/Whitlock, but I also came in biased. Although I also think we should probably just get rid of all varsity college athletics.

FORA.tv - Ban College Football

Letting Whitlock in there was their first mistake.

Looks interesting and while I may be more on the ban side, the debate seemed to be loaded. You have a respected journalist and respected writer going up against a former NFL player and Jason Whitlock. I mean c'mon! That'd be like having Barack Obama debate against the head of NYU's College Republicans.

we're one 60 minutes episode away from the football doomsday clock being at midnight.

all it takes is one overwrought mother with a brain damaged kid.

We should just put all of our kids in bubbles.

It's the only way to be sure.

College football is right up there with tobacco and alcohol as hazardous activities that are so ingrained in the US culture and, more importantly, the US economy that it would be impossible to get rid of. The arguments pro/con and which side makes more sense are irrelevant.

While I don't know if I'd put it to the extreme of tobacco and alcohol, college football, and, to a lesser extent men's college basketball, is such an economic machine and so important to universities developing a brand and awareness, it won't ever go away.

Man, Whitlock was bad.

I just mean from the standpoint of this: it's a product of America that we have to capitalize on for monetary purposes and it would cost us too much money to simply ignore them to avoid the side effects. All the bad things associated with them are not bad enough to offset the loss of the product, even though in a perfect world, it might make sense to eliminate them.

HS football is the bigger issue IMO. At least in college almost all the participants are of legal age. In HS we're dealing with children. Putting them or allowing them to put themselves in a situation where a certain percentage will suffer brain damage is troublesome to say the least.

and you can't discredit all the good it does for a lot of kids. We all know many of the football and basketball players don't take school seriously, but some do and likely would never had a chance to get an education without it. Then there are all the kids who play softball, polo, track, etc...that the revenue from football and basketball provides them their oppritunity they may not have had.

We should ban bicycles because a certain percentage of kids will get hit by cars.

not to mention the difference in body development from a HS freshman to senior is much bigger than a college freshman to senior.

During the heat when the Sandusky scandal was heaviest, I saw an interview a long-time Penn State professor. He came across like the standard awkward uncoordinated kid you knew in high school who hated sports because he sucked at all of them. The first part of his comments were how he hated football and all sports, blah blah blah. But he was quick to point out something along the lines of "as much as I can't stand it, I have to acknowledge that a significant percentage of people in the academic community here at Penn State have jobs because of Joe Paterno and the football program. The prestige, money, and therefore increased capacity for achievement and research that football brings to this university are undeniable to the point that over time I've learned to see football as pretty much a necessary evil." It was a pretty interesting take.

Sure, it does good for kids, but you need to look at it relatively, not absolutely. Couldn't we use the money to help underprivileged kids that are good at math or science? Maybe those kids won't have a chance to get an education without a scholarship, either. At the very least, that seems like a far better use of the "profits"* from football and basketball than supporting sports like softball and tennis.

* The NCAA also enforces a labor cartel that depresses wages for football and basketball players. In evaluating the merits of the subsidy the "profits" provide to other schools, one also needs to justify why underprivileged football players should be penalized to provide it.

Much of it is just an arms race. Michigan might think it needs football simply because Texas has football. But if we banned football, both schools might be better off because they don't have to waste money competing. It's a zero-sum game for prestige.

i'm waiting for, 'the nfl had hard data on the severity of head trauma in 1997 and spiked it' investigative report to come out

defcon 6 media shitstorm

Huh? Michigan and Texas gain over $100M in profit from football. They don't exactly "waste money" competing. Yes, it's a zero-sum for prestige, but most certainly not for money.

1.) Profits are inflated by a labor cartel. Lots of industries could make money if the participants could get together and agree to suppress wages.

2.) Cannot measure benefit by profits alone. Need to know the return to other investments they could make with the money.

3.) Even if you refuse to accept 1.) and 2.), not every school makes money on football. Take my point with Rutgers and some random MAC school instead.

We should allow everything that kills kids because there are some things that are legal and kill kids

But if a kid gets hit by a car, I bet they're going to do some tests on him/her to see what kind of injuries may have been sustained, and treat them appropriately. Unlike in youth football, when these smaller but repeated headshots are potentially (and in many cases, proven) amounts of undiagnosed damage.

I swear to fucking god there's nothing I hate more about sports than this "you might as well put them in flags" mentality.

That is another conversation entirely. I don't give this argument any sort of validity. We're taking about football, not riding bikes or how many concussions happen in other sports.

Just because these other things have their issues, that doesn't excuse brain damage caused by football.

Here's Buzz's actual column on WSJ:
Buzz Bissinger: Why College Football Should Be Banned - WSJ.com

I understand why non sports fans hate college football. It's the same reason that non-DVR TV watchers hate commercials. It detracts from the overall experience and is a little annoying. Yet, both are necessary "evils".

Blaming college football for tuition increases is also silly. Look at online "University of Phoenix" style schools or even non-sports program academics-only schools like MIT and see their massive tuition increases since 2000. What this basically comes down to is people that don't like the facade of college football/basketball in regards to academics. That's fine - and I agree to a point. But getting rid of the sports all together is like cutting off your nose to spite your face. The revenue, marketing and overall enrollment boost of these sports does help the universities. Plus, for most major universities, the football and basketball programs end up funding the other sports like track, tennis, golf, most women's sports, ..

At the end of the day, most major universities gain a lot more from having basketball/football than they lose. And, while some of these kids (esp in hoops) have little interest in getting a degree, they still provide value to the university. Who do you think raised more money for Kentucky last year - the five starters on the basketball team or 5 random academic scholarship undergrads in the English department?

1. But they can't and don't. Therefore this particular industry has a massive leg up.
2. I'd love to see anywhere else that a school can get an ~250% ROI as the two you mentioned do. Even greatly streamlining fundraising processes isn't going to get that kind of margin.
3. Changing your point midstream now, eh? ;)

No one is putting a gun to the heads of these guys and forcing them out there.

But part of the debate about banning football involves whether it is fair to continue granting the NCAA the right to enforce this cartel. As part of the argument for keeping college football, you need to justify that, or admit the NCAA should be reformed, in which case profits will be lower. You can't simply take it as is.

From Buzz's article:

This whole premise is faulty. A vast majority of division I schools get enormous benefits from their football/basketball schools - most of which are financial. Now, are there some that don't make money on football? I'm sure there are - but often they have extenuating circumstances (ie, just helped fund a stadium that will have an ROI a few years down the road or had a couple lean years on the field). Over time, most teams that lose money for a short term get back to making money.

Now, if his argument is whether a school that loses money every year from their football program should cancel the program? I would be fine with that. But understand that this is a stance not held on academic programs (ie, a department with low enrollment, little research and high faculty salaries isn't likely to be cancelled if the dept loses money).

Sure I can take it as it is. The people "debating" to ban college football have no voice that matters.

(I see you conveniently just skipped the ROI point there...)

And again, no one is holding a gun to these guys' heads and forcing them to sign up to be free labor, so I can't for the life of me figure out why it's anyone's business other than the dudes playing and the dudes making money.

The truly 1-and-dones only go to college because it's a means to an end - getting to the NBA - not because they really have anything to gain from the college basketball experience.

Football seems to me to be the only sport I can think of where age/physical maturity really matters, such that there is a general need for that interim step between high school and pros. High school kids can compete in pro basketball. They can compete in nearly every other pro sport. Football is different. If it's not college, then it would be some sort of minor league/pro affiliation as an interim step to the NFL. Sure, on a case by case basis some kids would be ready for the NFL, but the vast majority are not physicially ready for it.

Basketball tries to make that argument, I guess, but fails miserably. In fact, the argument only exists to try to protect the institution of college basketball because ... it makes tons of money and has to be preserved. Which goes back to my original point.

Right. In the end, if you banned college football, I'm quite sure the upshot would be that millions of dollars would get siphoned out of the university system into the pockets of the 1%ers who'd set up whatever minor league system took its place.

Such a hack that guy is. I cringed when I heard he got slated.

I didn't skip over the point. Those numbers are inflated by the suppressed wages. In addition, college athletic departments benefit from being part of tax-exempt institutions. So we need to consider whether they deserve a massive government subsidy from the IRS. (We also have yet to discuss benefits beyond profits in other investments--not all benefits can be internalized, which governments should consider in making budget decisions, given they're creating public goods--which, to be fair, includes football).

Your final point also isn't exactly true--someone that wants to play in the NFL almost surely needs to play in the NCAA first. The NFL benefits from getting a free player developments system, so, of course, it's happy to place restrictions on players joining the league.

Further, by your reasoning, any cartel could be justified. If airline companies got together and set the prices they charged to consumers, we have no complaints. No one "put a gun to our heads" to decide to fly after all. Businesses would sure love you heading the DOJ's antitrust division.

Keeping players safe and the whole NCAA as cartel thing are two entirely different debates. The only correlation is that people who have a hardon about the NCAA=Slave Laobor thing see an opportunity to attack from a different angle.

The debate is whether to ban college football. Both are directly relevant to the debate.

Tim Duncan would surely disagree with this statement - as would many current and former NBA players. In fact, many people (myself included) support at 20-year old age minimum for entry into the NBA. Steve Kerr makes many of the points why it's needed here:

Steve Kerr on the problems with the age limit in the NBA - Grantland

Especially with college basketball, I fail to see the harm done by having the program. The chances for injury are small and the cost is often minimal to the university. It's only 10 or so scholarships, a small coaching staff and travel. When you factor in the money from merchandising alone that most major universities make from college hoops, it's an enormous financial windfall. I covered the Arizona athletic department on the school paper in the late 90s and the basketball program alone covered all other division I sports expenses and funded numerous academic scholarship programs. Getting rid of basketball at the UofArizona would have significantly hampered the school's ability to have any other Div I sports.

Again, if basketball or football doesn't make money for the university over time, then they have every right to cancel it (and many schools have). But to say a blanket ban is needed because a couple Div I schools may not make money doesn't pass the smell test.

Why have privately funded research departments then? If things that solely make money are bad at universities, you could get rid of numerous cracker-jack bogus research studies that provide little value and are either political or a payback for other more important activities. There are many things at the university that are solely about making money and offer little intrinsic benefits to students - just look at tuition itself.

Just the kid being born will eventually kill the kids. I believe that is legal too. I have no solution.


And why do you think they do that when a kid gets hit by a car? Probably because there's an established procedure and lawyers that would love to get involved. This problem with head injuries in football could be substantially reduced with a change in the culture of 'play when you're hurt' and quit the coddling of star players, while an injured non star is ignored.

What I hate is when you have alarmists wanting to ban everything because a small percentage of the population has X happen to them, instead of trying to come up with a solution that works for all parties.


Regardless of whether or not you think it has no validity, the point is, nothing is 100% safe. The argument should be, how to minimize the chances of brain injuries occurring when someone plays football. I say a good start is to take away their helmets. A second thing would be to get rid of the ridiculous attitude that football players are 'warriors'. A third thing would be to look at similar sports like rugby and see how they deal with concussions (if at all). A fourth thing would be to make it clear that it's ok to tell a coach or team staff member that you don't feel good or that you are hurt, without being made to feel like a pussy and if the coach or coaches still don't do anything, then there needs to be some serious repercussions for ignoring the problem.

It seems to me that about 80% of the problem is the over all attitude towards injuries to begin with and 20% lack of solid universal procedures to handle head injuries.

Most D1 athletic departments lose money, some lose quite a lot of money. For example, the latest numbers show Rutgers subsidizing the athletic department with nearly 30 million dollars. The big boys, ie tOSU, Texas, USC, break even, but most schools funnel millions from their general fund into athletic departments.

rutgers-football-fails-profit-test-as-students-pay-1-000.html

edit: And in this economic environment departments are most definitely under the gun if they don't bring in enrollment.

People should be free to make money engaging in a business if they can. I'm not going to read an article about basketball, but I assume a good bit of the argument is devoted to "poor kids aren't mature enough to handle the money." That's life. I'm going to guess that the 19-year old GED who opens a restaurant could probably benefit from having a few years of experience under his belt, not to mention some courses in how to run a business. He needs neither to form a company and go into business. I'm not sure I really see a difference here.

Not to mention - we're not talking about the ideal. We're talking about what you should be free to choose to do on your own, accepting the risks involved.

Ehhhh. Most of the D1 schools that lose money do because football and basketball subsidize other sports. The profits for those two are enormous at the big boys, and even the midrangers are typically in the black for football.

And we haven't even started talking about the impact to the local economies of the (mostly) small towns where the big-time teams play. One home football game can generate $5M-$10M in local revenue.

Ha! That's rich.

Sure he does now, and I'm just fine with that.

Pffft. Logic has long been abandoned in this thread, so why so concerned with it now? *shurg*

Just to keep everything clear...the Rutgers example is one of the scenarios Arles is referring to: debt service on bond payments for the football stadium expansion. Obviously it's associated with the football program, but over time it is an asset for the university. Remove that and the program has been anywhere from $1MM in the red to $2MM in the black over the past few years.

Are you kidding me? You have offered no substantive response other than that Michigan and Texas make a lot of money, which tells us little, if anything, about this policy debate.

The fact that Michigan and Texas make money--even lots of it--playing football tells us nothing about whether a taxpayer-funded institution best fulfills its societal goal by continuing to fund them. The fact that you--despite how highly you may value your own opinion--are "fine" with institutions violating antitrust laws tells us nothing about whether society benefits from not enforcing them. The fact that you simply disregard--"Ha! That's Rich!"--a major tax policy that subsidizes a sport you happen to like tells us nothing about whether society benefits from continuing to provide it.

The question is not whether certain schools should eliminate their football programs. The question is whether, in the interest of improving society--whether to improve education, to reduce injuries, to increase fairness to football players or whatever reasons may exist--we should completely ban it at the level at which schools complete today. Nothing you have offered in this thread makes any legitimate against that proposition.

Where are you getting this money from? 112,000 people are paying $70 a piece to watch a Michigan football game. You think even 1/1000th of that group is going to toss out $70 for helping underprivileged kids? No. The money will go elsewhere to some other form of entertainment.

Fundamentally, this is the discussion to be had imo.

Should underage kids be allowed to participate in the activity? And this is both a legal debate and a public/private debate.

Legally, we may see a day where under 18 kids cannot participate in organized football. And as much as I'm a football fan, with 2 sons that have also played, I don't know that I'd have a super big problem with it. To ban adults from playing organized football...silly to even contemplate.

Public vs private...I can understand the desire to not allow public universities to participate. Again, thats the collective voice and that can/should be left to our best data & experts' analysis on the relative safety. For the rest of the (non-public) colleges...they shouldn't even go down that path, imho.

I guess I can't ever see a reason that we should protect ourselves from ourselves as adults...so long as we are not directly harming others who are not willing participants. But as we learn more & more, we certainly don't need to ignore child safety & the analysis of it. Intuitively, it would seem that there is risk for kids playing football but I haven't seen any studies that are thoroughly specific to such a topic.

For the record, I like sports. I watch college football every Saturday during the fall. But I'm not going to let my own enjoyment color my view of whether it is beneficial to society to maintain our current setup.

Would a lot of these kids even have an opportunity at a college education without football and other sports?

He expects to collect that through new taxes so he can tell you how to live better. :)

Sorry lcjjdnh...just poking at you.

The flaw in that argument is that a lot of schools (Texas is a big example) have a separate legal entity for their athletic department. There is no taxpayer money used for UT athletics.

Getting rid of it would certainly reduce my chances of encountering an annoying inyourface fanboy at work or wherever I am. At least he wouldn't be so inyourface about say...his college math club.

I skeptical of benefits that can't be quantified. Is there any proof whatsoever that the tens of millions spent by Rutgers is a positive? The admin says it is, but they can't offer any proof.

SD is right about big time football subsidizing other sports. I'm not arguing that football should be banned, but just that, especially in an era of declining public funding for academics, it's crazy for millions to be siphoned off for support of athletics. It's especially crazy when you step down to mid-major conferences. Miami(OH) subsidizes athletics with almost 20 millions dollars. My alma mater, Morehead State, which doesn't even have scholarship football, spends almost 10 million on athletics.

The problem, IMO, is that big time athletics doesn't belong with colleges. Players should be paid in minor leagues, and college athletics should be forced to balance the books each year.