Here's my experience from teaching (crappy little annoying TA that I am) at a Big Ten school:
A. There's the image and argument for student-athletes that we are offering them a degree and a university education in part because of their athletic interests and capabilities.
Most of us don't have a problem with that, if it were true.
But:
how many are actually graduating?
Of those who get a degree, how many are getting an education?
Think about what funked said concerning "diluting academic standards." Have you ever thought what the life of a Big College Sports Athlete is like?
They're not like other students. They're forced to train a ridiculous amount of time. That training prohibits them from taking many classes. That training also cuts into the study time. Even if they were bright students, they'd have to do something miraculous to keep up with their coursework.
From the Athletic Department's point of view, the student athlete should train as much as possible. Every hour spent studying or in class is an hour taken away from training, and thus damaging to the student-athlete's professional edge. But student-athletes need certain grades for their scholarships.
So, here are some of the things I have personally seen that the Athletic Departments do to "help" the student-athlete, robbing him or her of an education:
1. The Athletic Department's "academic advisors" (*cough* *cough*), send email surveys to instructors posing as general advisors, ostensibly asking for more information about the courses the instructors teach. Yet every single question tries to get at "how hard is the course, really".
2. The Athletic Department reaches an "understanding" with certain professors in big survey courses. The professors get nice season tickets. For some reason, student-athletes are then steered to that professor's course.
3. Using similar "carrot and stick" tactics, the AD will effect grade changes outright.
I could go on. This university isn't under any investigation for NCAA violations, and probably won't be. This is business as usual for the athletic department -- screwing students out of the one thing they give in compensation for four or five years of slavery.
B. The argument that Big College Sports funds the smaller, less profitable athletic teams is beside the point. They could give all their profits to the homeless and I'd still yell that they're exploiting student-athletes.
C. The argument that Big College Sports gives students an education in sports is right on. THat's what they learn. And if that's the case, why attach a University's name to it? Minor leagues would do the same thing and pay the athletes.
D. The anticipation of a professional contract is likewise silly. The overwhelming number of student-athletes, even just the ones in the Big Sports, don't go on to professional play. Again, if preprofessional training is what we're giving them, make it the minor leagues. Just because most Big College Sports student-athletes don't know they're getting screwed up the butt doesn't mean it's not happening.
E. Big College Sports help the universities in more ways than just ticket sales, merchandising and TV contracts. In many parts of the country, the local sports team is the university. Boosters undoubtedly support the general funds of universities; likewise, a state university with a popular sports team will get a better treatment at the hands of state legislators. But in the current system, with very few exceptions, universities sacrifice their academic integrity for a good sports team. Worse, most of the local sports fans cheer them on. That's shameful.
So yeah, I love sports, and I teach in a department where (outside of a few professors on the take) we try to uphold some sort of academic standards. I don't persecute student athletes, but many of them are physically (not mentally) incapable of coming to class prepared. If we're going to give athletic scholarships to students, we need to let them be students first, and athletes second.
