<p>[Should</a> college football be banned? The next Slate/Intelligence Squared debate is on May 8 in New York City. - Slate Magazine](<a href=“http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/intelligence_squared/2012/04/should_college_football_be_banned_the_next_slate_intelligence_squared_debate_is_on_may_8_in_new_york_city_.html]Should”>Should college football be banned? The next Slate/Intelligence Squared debate is on May 8 in New York City.)</p>
<p>Silly…what authority would ban it? Certainly not the NCAA, so who?</p>
<p>Followed by the “should college drinking be banned” debate, followed by the “should unrealistic consortium debate topics be banned” debate.</p>
<p>[The</a> next Slate/Intelligence Squared debate is May 8: Why Buzz Bissinger thinks college football should be banned. - Slate Magazine](<a href=“http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/intelligence_squared/2012/05/the_next_slate_intelligence_squared_debate_is_may_8_why_buzz_bissinger_thinks_college_football_should_be_banned_.html]The”>The next Slate/Intelligence Squared debate is May 8: Why Buzz Bissinger thinks college football should be banned.)</p>
<p>[The</a> next Slate/Intelligence Squared debate is May 8: Why Tim Green thinks college football should not be banned. - Slate Magazine](<a href=“http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/intelligence_squared/2012/05/the_next_slate_intelligence_squared_debate_is_may_8_why_tim_green_thinks_college_football_should_not_be_banned_.html]The”>The next Slate/Intelligence Squared debate is May 8: Why Tim Green thinks college football should not be banned.)</p>
<p>[The</a> next Slate/Intelligence Squared debate is May 8: Why Jason Whitlock thinks we should give college football another chance. - Slate Magazine](<a href=“http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/intelligence_squared/2012/05/the_next_slate_intelligence_squared_debate_is_may_8_why_jason_whitlock_thinks_we_should_give_college_football_another_chance_.html]The”>The next Slate/Intelligence Squared debate is May 8: Why Jason Whitlock thinks we should give college football another chance.)</p>
<p>[The</a> next Slate/Intelligence Squared debate is May 8: Why Malcolm Gladwell thinks we should ban college football. - Slate Magazine](<a href=“http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/intelligence_squared/2012/04/the_next_slate_intelligence_squared_debate_is_may_8_why_malcolm_gladwell_thinks_we_should_ban_college_football_.html]The”>The next Slate/Intelligence Squared debate is May 8: Why Malcolm Gladwell thinks we should ban college football.)</p>
<p>I think mountain-climbing, hiking, and swimming should be banned. Lots of deaths</p>
<p>I think adolescence should be banned. Leads to lots of mountain-climbing, hiking, swimming and football playing.</p>
<p><em>facepalm</em></p>
<p>Want to know what banning college football will do? Force a lot of players to simply go pro without the benefits of a college education. Dumb, dumb, dumb.</p>
<p>Honestly…do the people who think of these debates understand that this is a free country? This isn’t some country that could put its foot down and declare, “no more college football.” Even threats to stop fed aid would be ridiculous.</p>
<p>There are people everywhere who no longer feel being free to do stupid or different or just obnoxious things is a good thing. Yikes.</p>
<p>See the video of the debate here:
[FORA.tv</a> - Ban College Football](<a href=“http://fora.tv/2012/05/08/Ban_College_Football]FORA.tv”>http://fora.tv/2012/05/08/Ban_College_Football)</p>
<p>It’s sad that colleges often use their athletes purely for financial or selfish gain. Banning it completely isn’t the answer.</p>
<p>From jym626:
</p>
<p>LOL!</p>
<p>Why stop there? Let’s get to the root cause – kids that turn into full blown adolescents! Let’s ban kids!</p>
<p>Face palm is right. Why can’t people understand that debating questions that do not stand a chance in hell of happening is a way of bringing up issues that a civilized society should be thinking about? Geez people not everything lives in the here and now. I assume that this is a way to start a discussion of the role that college athletics plays in our culture, in our educational institutions, etc. And this is an important debate that should be happening. Do we really want our colleges running what is essentially a minor league system for the NFL? How do we ensure that the student/athlete balance is maintained with the emphasis on the student? Why do we run this minor league for football and not baseball? Why not musical theater? Why do we put so much money effort and resources towards what it is the education and training of a small number of
students, many of whom do not finish their education? Would that money be better put towards the physics department? At first glance this may sound silly, but it is a way of starting a discussion that has deeper meaning. It’s called the liberal arts.</p>
<p>lololu: Most big time FB programs are the sole source of funding for the rest of the college’s athletic program. you’re assuming that funding FB takes away money from Physics? Your understanding of big time college FB and BBall is error prone. You should know that w/o FB, at many schools you get no women’s VB, women’s hoops, rifle team, gymnastics, swim, field hockey, track, etc. If you see there is any value in collegiate athletics then one shouldn’t object as a whole the concept of the money that FB brings to a college. Are there things that need to change? Sure. But very few big programs divert funds away from academics into football. They generate big $ and reputation and better student applicants who are interested in the excitement.</p>
<p>But taking a meat cleaver into the surgical theater isn’t the solution IMHO.</p>
<p>To ask why collegiate baseball isn’t as important a feeder as NCAA Div I football is to the NFL is irrelevant. They developed over time, based on their individual histories and needs.</p>
<p>T2 you missed my point. It is not that football should be banned, but it is silly to complain about even having the discussion. You have raised that point that football programs cover the cost of other athletic programs. That may be, I don’t know. But that is one point in a discussion, not a fact that should shut down discussion all together. I think it is fairly clear that the role that big time athletics plays in our education system is something that we should debate – no matter what the outcome is. </p>
<p>Seventy years ago people complained about debating if public schools should be integrated because “it was never going to happen.” Well, we did debate the issue, in the media, in the courts, in our schools, and in our homes. And we came to the conclusion that separate but equal was not consistent with the values we as a society as whole wanted to aspire to. So guess what? It happened.</p>
<p>Point taken. It just seems the “debate” is sensationalized to the point of irrelevance. If something constructive can come of it – then good.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I really don’t understand the problem. It’s not taking away from academics and it does draw in talent. It’s not like the deans and professors are the ones running the program- that is left to the athletic people. Plus, you always have the choice to go to colleges that doesn’t have athletics. </p>
<p>Also, as someone who has a family member who is a D1 athlete (with a mostly full scholarship because of her athletics) and is going to a CC top school (which she could NOT afford without that scholarship), I don’t see anything wrong with allowing sports, even huge sports like football, at a school. </p>
<p>I think these types of debates, about whether or not to “allow” it, takes away from debates that actually need to happen. Debates about safety and the like.</p>
<p>Furthermore, the football programs and the like give great hands-on experience to those majoring in things like sports medicine and physical therapy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just think of it as marketing. No one would come to a discussion titled “The effects on cultural norms and values of intercollegiate activities of a physical nature and their corrallary activites.” So you give it a sexy title and people show up.</p>
<p>My husband is a philosopher and I have seen his colleagues almost come to blows over the propostion “Snow is white, if and only if snow is white.” It is not the actual idea that snow is white that is in debate, but what those words and concepts signify and what that means for the way humans interact and the way the human mind works.</p>
<p>roman, the debates about safety, etc need to take place as well, but they presuppose that the larger question has already been settled. And it is a debate that we as a whole should discuss. Is this the best way to achieve the benefits of physical competiion for the society as a whole? Why do we tie certain athletic endeavours to our education system and not others? What does it say about our culture as a whole? Just by posing the question does not dictate an answer. The question “Should football be banned” can be answered in any number of ways, and to dismiss the debate because you support one answer or another is not productive for individuals, institutions, or society as a whole.</p>
<p>lololu, I think you’re giving football far too much of a philosophical significance. </p>
<p>Here’s a thought… some people just like football. Frankly, who CARES what that says about our society?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I disagree. I don’t believe in banning anything if it can’t hurt anyone outside of the person who is participating in that act. I really think it should be answered with a resounding “no” and I can’t think of an instance where there would be a different answer to that question.</p>
<p>^ That should be WILLINGLY participating in the act. Forced segregation, like you mentioned upstream, was not willingly done by the participants, as they were minor children without a say.</p>