Athletics should consider a business model

With the recent grumblings about how some University sports teams are not living up to their potential, I propose the following:

If you are a scholarship athlete, and you or your team has a win-loss record less than .500 for ACC play at the end of the season, you must pay back 50 percent of your subsidized education. This should also apply to the coaching staff for their salaries.

Let’s be honest, athletes receive this free money based on their athletic skills. If you do not give 100 percent on offense and defense, why do you think you should keep 100 percent of your “free money.”

For a non-athlete student receiving an academic scholarship, if he or she fails to maintain a high GPA, the student’s scholarship will be retracted. Why should an athlete be different just because he or she is a member of a sports team?

Many athletes receive a free education, which includes tuition, room, food, etc.  I don’t wish, want or hope they perform at their highest ability some of the time,  I expect them to do it every time, without exception. After watching some of the recent games — and the lackluster effort put forth as a team — it is apparent this is not the case.



Todd Jeffreys


sophomore, middle grades education

The shoes of a non-varsity athlete

Bona Jones makes several very good points about the need for the Wolfpack nation to support its athletes in her Monday column. I would, however, like to comment on several of the points she made about the club track team’s use of Paul Derr Track. I believe Russell Witham was justified when he asked “what are the odds that a group of students can align their schedules…between those hours?” The track is open to non-varsity students 8a.m. to 2 p.m. This is when the vast majority of classes are being held. While it is possible for individual students to find time during the middle of the day to work out, you have to admit that it is much harder for a group of students who do not have preferential class scheduling to find an agreeable time.

Bona, you need to remember that as a varsity athlete you get to pick your classes first, and therefore have a distinct advantage over the average student in scheduling classes around workouts. I can appreciate that you are making a substantial time commitment to team workouts as a varsity athlete, but at the same time you need to remember that there are many other (non-varsity) athletes here at N.C. State that are equally deserving of recognition. This recognition could come in the form of extended hours at the track, or perhaps a separate practice time for the club track team so that they aren’t forced to dodge physical education fitness walkers and joggers during practice. Russell’s column may have inappropriately expressed the frustration that a lot of Wolfpack fans have been feeling, but he was right to stick up for the average student and the lack of University support for the club track team. Bona, go to Carmichael gym anytime mid-day and just try to run a 6-minute mile around that track. Now, triple the number of PE classes, and you’ll get a picture of the difficulty the club team faces during the hours Paul Derr Track is “available.”

I realize that the varsity athletes’ grass may not be as green as Russell makes it out to be, but until you run a mile in the shoes of a non-varsity athlete at the University you have no idea the barriers we face.

John Zack Capets

junior, aerospace engineering

Adrian proposed a straw man argument

Apparently, the terms reductio ad absurdum and straw man argument mean nothing to you Mr. Adrian. Let me explain.

 A reductio ad absurdum is the argument that if you take a given idea to mean what it says and follow logical conclusions you come to something so absurd that the original argument should be considered invalid. Your reduction of thirdhand smoke to a suicide bomber is an outstanding example. Unfortunately, you concluded the science was undisputed and thought your reduction remained valid, instead of looking into how much TSNA is considered dangerous and how much smoking deposits.

Moving on, we come to your straw man arguments, which happened to be mined with falsities as well — LSD, murder and rape are not physically addictive. A straw man argument is when you attribute an idea to the opposition that is not claimed by them and then attack that argument. You provided stunning examples of straw man arguments in your article. Who claimed that addictiveness is a good reason to keep smoking legal? Perhaps there have been a few people to claim this, but most people against smoking bans focus on individual liberties and make no such claim. Further, the argument, “tobacco has traditionally been an important economic factor in N.C., so smoking should be kept legal,” does not logically lead to the conclusion that slavery should be reinstated. What an abuse of reason! And you attacked it as if those opposed to the ban supported it!

Jacob Burgdorf

senior, economics