NCAA, NBA and College Education

Rumors persist that the NBA would like to make potential players go to college for two years before entering the NBA Draft. NCAA coaches would prefer this as well, as many coaches, like Coach K, have criticized the "one-and-done" rule because it makes it harder to plan and recruit for their programs.

The basketball (and financial) reasons are obvious. When players go to college, NBA teams have a better opportunity to scout and evaluate, and players enter the NBA with more name recognition. At the college level, more stars mean more awareness and television viewers for games and potentially more merchandise sales.

For the athlete, however, the benefits are less obvious. In today's L.A. Times, "General Electric Co. Chief Executive Jeff Immelt lamented the state of education in the U.S., complaining that his company has to go outside the country for the best people."

Sure, the educational requirements for a future NBA player differ from those of a future engineer or manager. However, if the education system fails to do its prime job - educate the future work force - why burden it with educating future NBA millionaires? If the curriculum fails those who it is intended to reach, how is it supposed to improve the life of or educate those with only marginal interest?

A recent Washington Post article is even more damning:

"Only 31 percent of college graduates can read a complex book and extrapolate from it. That's not saying much for the remainder."While more Americans are graduating from college, and more than ever are applying for admission, far fewer are leaving higher education with the skills needed to comprehend routine data, such as reading a table about the relationship between blood pressure and physical activity, according to the federal study conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics.

If only 31% of graduates develop this skill, what are the chances that a player develops these skills in a 1 or 2-year stay?

I am not anti-education. However, I prefer that universities use their resources to educate students, not provide a minor league sports franchise for billionaire owners. I think it is disgraceful that many men's basketball and football coaches make more money than their university's president. I think is is shameful that a coach like Steve Sarkisian, an assistant coach, was the fourth highest paid employee of his university before departing for a head coaching job.

Parents, coaches and the media worry about young children and their misplaced values. However, if you see these things, are their values misplaced? If you want to make money, you're better off becoming a football coach than a university president! And, somehow we criticize children? What does this say about our values?

I understand that college sports help colleges market themselves and there is the "Doug Flutie Effect" and some (very few) college programs even make money. But, are any of these three the most important part of a university? Should marketing, increasing applicants and making money drive the university's decisions?