Pregnant Student Athletes Losing Scholarships

[MS256]

That's a pretty good story. The fact that he's from Dallas Skyline makes me think there's some self-interest on aggy's part (Skyline is consistently one of the best football schools in the country), but it certainly reads like they're just helping out a kid who committed to them. The fact that it's news shows clearly that they're under no obligation to do so.

I think it was a nice thing to do for a kid (regardless of motive) as was this one.

http://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/recruiting/alabama-honors-scholarship/comment-page-1/

If a school has the money and wants to help a kid I have no problem with it. I just don't think it should be a requirement.

[Slice of Life]

None of those equate getting hurt while playing the sport with becoming unable to compete due to irresponsible behavior off the field.

This. He didn't perform any action outside of his sport that jeopardized his ability to play the sport.

[Golfingdad]

None of those equate getting hurt while playing the sport with becoming unable to compete due to irresponsible behavior off the field.

This. He didn't perform any action outside of his sport that jeopardized his ability to play the sport.

I feel like you guys are just arguing for the sake of arguing and being contrarian.  Had I posted a story that explained how Texas A&M; chose to cancel the scholarship, why do I get the feeling that you guys would say something along the lines of "Hey, life isn't fair.  It's unfortunate, but, well, tough beans."

Another hypothetical:  College kid gets promise and handshake from local NFL team that he is going to be the number 1 pick in the draft next year ... then he snaps his knee in the last game of the season, or at the combine ... you think that they should still give him some money because he got hurt playing the sport they wanted him to play?

You guys have pointed out the differences in this story vs. our topic, of which there are several and I have never disputed that, however, you haven't acknowledged the similarities.  The school has a decision to make in regards to giving out a free education (or not) to somebody who will never be able to pay for that education.  Further, in this kids case, we know that they are under no obligation to do so.  In the pregnant girls case, I don't believe we have come to a conclusion one way or the other on that.  We haven't been able to determine if pregnancy falls under the "injury or illness" category, and we have no idea what other clauses may exist in her hypothetical scholarship contract.

[rehmwa]

I feel like you guys are just arguing for the sake of arguing and being contrarian.

no we're not

[Golfingdad]

no we're not

Touche.

[Slice of Life]

I feel like you guys are just arguing for the sake of arguing and being contrarian.  Had I posted a story that explained how Texas A&M; chose to cancel the scholarship, why do I get the feeling that you guys would say something along the lines of "Hey, life isn't fair.  It's unfortunate, but, well, tough beans."

Another hypothetical:  College kid gets promise and handshake from local NFL team that he is going to be the number 1 pick in the draft next year ... then he snaps his knee in the last game of the season, or at the combine ... you think that they should still give him some money because he got hurt playing the sport they wanted him to play?

You guys have pointed out the differences in this story vs. our topic, of which there are several and I have never disputed that, however, you haven't acknowledged the similarities.  The school has a decision to make in regards to giving out a free education (or not) to somebody who will never be able to pay for that education.  Further, in this kids case, we know that they are under no obligation to do so.  In the pregnant girls case, I don't believe we have come to a conclusion one way or the other on that.  We haven't been able to determine if pregnancy falls under the "injury or illness" category, and we have no idea what other clauses may exist in her hypothetical scholarship contract.

I absolutely would have. The school did not have to continue his scholarship, and would not have necessarily been "wrong" to do so. What they did was a good gesture, and I have no doubts that part of the reason is due to positive publicity for the school.

The hypothetical is completely different. Apples and oranges.

The better question would be: NFL team signs player to contract, and he snaps his knee in the preseason...should they have to pay his contract? Answer: Yes.

Whereas the opposite would be: NFL team signs player to contract, and he snaps his knee jumping off the hotel roof into the pool...should they have to pay his contract? Answer: No.

[Golfingdad]

I absolutely would have. The school did not have to continue his scholarship, and would not have necessarily been "wrong" to do so. What they did was a good gesture, and I have no doubts that part of the reason is due to positive publicity for the school.

OK then. Let's say, hypothetically, that a story comes out that a girl got pregnant while on scholarship and the school chose to keep her on the scholarship and let her continue to pursue her education.

Would you still say "The school did not have to continue his (her) scholarship, and would not have necessarily been "wrong" to do so. What they did was a good gesture, and I have no doubts that part of the reason is due to positive publicity for the school?"

I feel like you probably would ... and this is all I'm getting at.  This story (the real one) has some similarities to our topic.

The hypothetical is completely different. Apples and oranges.

The better question would be: NFL team signs player to contract, and he snaps his knee in the preseason...should they have to pay his contract? Answer: Yes.

No, no, no ... that is not correct.  The kid didn't sign any binding contract, nor did the school.  The only difference between my hypothetical and the actual story is the levels of play.  High school to college, vs. college to pros.

[David in FL]

I feel like you guys are just arguing for the sake of arguing and being contrarian.  Had I posted a story that explained how Texas A&M; chose to cancel the scholarship, why do I get the feeling that you guys would say something along the lines of "Hey, life isn't fair.  It's unfortunate, but, well, tough beans."

I don't know why you get that feeling.  I've been very consistent in this whole thing.  My issue was that the athlete in question chose to do something outside of her sport that she knew could result in her being unable to compete.  Period......  Had it been a question about a male athlete that broke his leg skateboarding, my answer would have been the same.

Another hypothetical:  College kid gets promise and handshake from local NFL team that he is going to be the number 1 pick in the draft next year ... then he snaps his knee in the last game of the season, or at the combine ... you think that they should still give him some money because he got hurt playing the sport they wanted him to play?

Absolutely irrelevant to the OP, but no.

You guys have pointed out the differences in this story vs. our topic, of which there are several and I have never disputed that, however, you haven't acknowledged the similarities.  The school has a decision to make in regards to giving out a free education (or not) to somebody who will never be able to pay for that education.  Further, in this kids case, we know that they are under no obligation to do so.

There are several similarities, but I don't feel that any of them are relevant to unique circumstance posed in the OP.  That was my only point.

We haven't been able to determine if pregnancy falls under the "injury or illness" category,

Irrelevant to me.  Either way, she did it to herself........well, with the help of some equally irresponsible guy.  His responsibilities to her and their child as a result of his actions is a completely different subject, but I'm sure you can guess my stance on that too.

Ultimately, I tend to always fall on the side of accepting personal responsibility for the consequences of my actions.  There have been any number of "you hit a house and break a window.......should you pay for the damages?" threads, and although I'm often in the minority, and there have even been lawyers and insurance agents explaining that I may or may not be legally responsible, I am consistent in my opinion that I would (and have) accepted responsibility for my actions.  That's just the way I was raised, and one of the core principles by which I live my life and raise my family.

[Golfingdad]

There are several similarities, but I don't feel that any of them are relevant to unique circumstance posed in the OP.  That was my only point.

Then why, when I first link to this story, was your only comment ... "They are COMPLETELY different?"

[David in FL]

Then why, when I first link to this story, was your only comment ... "They are COMPLETELY different?"

I meant from the perspective of the OP.

If that wasn't clear, I apologize for being too brief.

[Slice of Life]

OK then. Let's say, hypothetically, that a story comes out that a girl got pregnant while on scholarship and the school chose to keep her on the scholarship and let her continue to pursue her education.

Would you still say "The school did not have to continue his (her) scholarship, and would not have necessarily been "wrong" to do so. What they did was a good gesture, and I have no doubts that part of the reason is due to positive publicity for the school?"

I feel like you probably would ... and this is all I'm getting at.  This story (the real one) has some similarities to our topic.

Why wouldn't I? Should schools be obligated to continue giving scholarships to pregnant athletes? No. Would I be upset if they did? No. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

If I was an athletic director, I'd be more likely to continue the scholarship for the student who lost their ability to play through illness before I continued it for one who lost their ability to play due to poor decisions.

[dsc123]

I just heard something on the radio that made me think of this thread. Gary Williams said that the University of Maryland will now guarantee scholarships for life. Players don't lose scholarships for injuries and can continue work towards their degree after their athletic eligibility runs out.

[Moxie Dawn]

Firstly, I have not read this entire thread. Too long. But as a female, it's an interesting topic.

To the topic of getting pregnant as being "irresponsible," yeah, I'd agree to an extent, but plenty of male athletes are guilty of creating babies on scholarship. They just don't have to carry them. So for women, it all depends. If you're 9 months pregnant in April, you won't be playing fast pitch. But if you're two months pregnant? Why would that hold you back? If I were an AD/University president, I wouldn't penalize the sports team by having them retain a scholarship for an athlete that can't perform, but is that the only option? I don't have any doubt the university is capable of finding alumni who would endow a scholarship for the occasional wayward girl until she's back to 100%.

On the grand scale of irresponsibility, getting pregnant is certainly life-changing, but it's not illegal. I see male athletes guilty of DUI, assault, possession, etc., and the majority of them don't lose a scholarship over it. They sit a few games and it is forgotten.