13 comments

• Comment Link Friday, 10 May 2013 23:36 posted by Dave Snyder

  I wish they addressed the impact of sport on Title IX. About 60-80 scholarships are issued to teams that regularly field 11 players. What this means is due to the current interpretation of Title IX, at approximately 60% female enrollment at most college campuses, the shortfall is transferred to male athletes in other sports, causing gymnastics to go the way of the dodo. Wrestling, track and field and swimming teams are also on the way out.
  
  I agree totally that college football needs to become a semi-pro league where facilities and names of a college can be represented. Perhaps with the payments a football player would make would be used for tuition and going to school. Nothing would prevent these athletes from pursuing these interests while competing. And best of all, gender equity would not have to include the 80 full ride scholarships issued to football players.

• Comment Link Monday, 06 May 2013 11:23 posted by Laura

  I saw about half of this debate last night, and just sat there completely stunned. I'm from Alabama. But I have always been on the fence about football. I'm not an avid football watcher or a major fan of a team. In fact, I rarely watch more than maybe 2 games a season. I went to a small college that doesn't even have football team, one of the reasons due to the fact that it was originally an all-girls school.
  
  While I don't really care about the sport nor really watch it, I still understand its existence and how it is a major part of schools across America. Football is an old sport and any great grandparent or grandparent call tell you that. I know I'm from a southern state, and that somehow my state is practically the epitome of American football (15 national champions later for the crimson tide), but I feel like too much emphasis is on the sport.
  
  However, I don't think it should be banned. Every sport has its dangers and fatalities. Never heard of the Olympic Games? Gymnastics is a very dangerous sport. Perhaps that should be banned as well. Wrestling is a very dangerous sport as all, maybe that should be banned too. The list goes on. I feel like Malcolm Gladwell's argument is a weak one. What he fails to understand is that these college boys don't go out for the teams because they're forced, they go because they want to play. They know the consequences of the sport and the possible fatalities. There is a much more dangerous thing they could engaged themselves in and it's called going to war. I don't think any Canadian should be able to tell us Americans what our college men should and shouldn't be doing. I don't get it. Why is some writer concerned about the well-being of any football player's head? Just for a side note, but Malcolm doesn't look like he's played a single sport in his life. What is he to say? He isn't a doctor or in sports medicine.
  
  Buss Bissinger acted like an anger jerk the whole debate and took this far too seriously. However, I do agree that coaches are paid too much. I think too much money goes into the sport. And personally, when the sport becomes almost more important than the academia of the school, I almost begin to lose respect for the institution, and just might not see it as a respectable place of learning. I think that finances for the sport and the coach need to be reevaluated and reexamined. I will disagree with Buzz on one thing. I know for a fact that the president of UAB at one point made more than the former president of the United States. Now that's something to talk about! Buzz kept talking about football scholarships almost like they're the only student who receive them. Hello, I received academic scholarships! Buzz practically said that all sports should be banned. Hello, sports are connected to staying healthy. Something that he doesn't appear to be embracing.
  
  I loved what Jason Whitlock said. He had a really good point. Football is a tradition across America, and it is a big deal to alumni everywhere. At my alma mater, we don't have football, but we do have our own tradition (the oldest homecoming tradition in the nation) and it is a big deal to both students and alumni.

• Comment Link Friday, 03 May 2013 09:38 posted by Bill Morgan

  I saw this debate on PBS on May 2 and was appalled that both Jason Whitlock and Tim Green allowed the debate to concentrate on two things..Repeated head injuries to PROFESSIONAL football players, Andre Waters (one of my favorite players), Junior Seau, and Dave Duerson, and allowing Malcolm Gladwell and Buzz Bisinger to repeat over and over again about the 4000 times that players got their heads banged. College football..even at the highest level is dramatically different than professional football, speed and size to name a few things, and as commentators repeatedly state..Basketball is a contact sport..Football is a collision sport. Rules have been changed to make it safer for players, helmets have been improved dramatically, and if the kids want to play and the Universities want to support it..So what???Dramatic changes need to be made in compensation of coaches, numbers of games and contact practices, and the entire governing body, but why ban college football????Why not ban medical experiments on dogs??? or Ban WAR???..
  
  PS I resent the fact that players brains were compared to those of a 67 year old man
  
  I'm 67 and seem to have all my faculties..except I am far behind in technology .and also am a Penn State graduate and would dispute the facts brought up by Mr Bissinger about SATs and Grade point averages..Check out the SAT scores of Penn State applicants now vs when I took them in 1963..I was a star at 1150, early admission and would never have a chance getting in to main campus with those SATs today

• Comment Link Thursday, 02 May 2013 16:01 posted by Edna Bambrick

  This was a sham set-up. They put two intelligent people up to argue for banning college football because it causes brain injuries against two ex football players that are clearly suffering from brain injuries.
  
  Of course Gladwell and Bissinger would win. Maybe next they can debate Ali on the long term consequences of boxing.

• Comment Link Wednesday, 10 April 2013 09:23 posted by James

  The Ivy League participates in NCAA Division 1 with football in the FCS (formerly D1AA).
  
  http://www.ivyleaguesports.com/landing/index
  
  Most of the money for highly paid coaches (Saban et al) comes from private sources (CBS, donors).
  
  While I agree the outcome will be different at NYU compared to Tuscaloosa, AL, I assume the debates are held in NYC for easy access to discussants and other debate participants.

• Comment Link Tuesday, 26 February 2013 20:52 posted by Tim Naylor

  While a worthy debate, Gladwell and Bissinger, completely miss the point. What does football have to do with higher education? It's as relevant as Shaq telling me to stay in school or Stephen Hawkings giving me pointers on my baby hook. Neither took a focused on refuting the main arguments made for college ball: it brings in money, gives students an opportunity they'd otherwise never have, and makes better leaders.
  
  If money were a justification then why not cut loose all non-revenue producing departments, such as economics, poli sci, marine biology, law, anthropology, essentially the entire university save the student union coffee shop. In terms of educational opportunity, you can easily point out that not only is one football scholarship given up is another seat for a non-athletic scholarship but also a seat for a more academically inclined student, given the lower standards and achievements of athletes. With regard to leaders, one can easily point out only one president played D1 football and that was Ford. The rest were mostly Ivy League (re: D3 schools). Both missed a real opportunity here.

• Comment Link Friday, 11 January 2013 20:02 posted by Talcott

  Matteo suggests below that these debates be held in places like Omaha, Cedar Rapids, Colorado Springs. Matteo, there's a good reason debates like these are more likely to be found on the coasts: that's where their audience is easily found. Most people I've met while traveling throughout the heartland certainly won't be going to something like an IQ2 debate, and will be proud to say so. Jus' Sayin'
  
  I suggest just enjoying the debates themselves, rather than worrying about the audience results. The stats aren't trustworthy, since audience members with an agenda can cook the numbers by voting against their preference at the beginning, and regardless of the quality of the debate, switch at the end. No way to know how many do this, but I figure the more emotional the topic, the more it's done.

• Comment Link Monday, 07 January 2013 10:46 posted by gerald van wilgen

  There was a repeat yesterday on WHYY. Great show, those guys got whooped pretty bad. Here's my question:
  
  Isn't the purpose of doing sports while in school, Mens sana in corpore sano?

• Comment Link Friday, 24 August 2012 22:22 posted by David W

  The argument is to BAN COLLEGE FOOTBALL, not ban Football. Simply get colleges and universities out of the BUSINESS of training professional football players for the NFL. Like baseball, set up a separate farm team system for football players, Few college baseball players turn go major league. The baseball teams pay for their own system. Basketball is already being affected this way with one and out and we should take it further. No reason that we should subsidize the NBA so we should take similar steps in basketball. When football coaches are paid more than ANY OTHER TEACHER in school, and the football/basketball program has more money than the science/math/english department, then the educational priorities are wrong. The scholarship program is "pay for play" but the play is truly dangerous. Colleges should be held liable for long term damages/disabilities for football players.

• Comment Link Monday, 20 August 2012 17:31 posted by Matteo

  When will IQ2 do the honest thing and carry these events around the country? Do they think we won't notice that these 'debates' are held in NYC at NYU with a exhaustingly predictable NYC / NYU audience worldview? (*yawn...sorry...couldn't help myself*) Talk about a 'juiced' audience and a 'juiced' outcome. C'mon IQ2, hold the same topic debates in Omaha, Cedar Rapids, Raleigh, Colorado Springs, etc. and see if you have similar audiences and similar results. Your approach is too insular. Too parochial. Get off the coasts. You'd have a breath-of-fresh-air in the types of questions and outcomes from your audiences. Then, maybe...more people might tune in! - Jus' Sayin'