Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

College Offers Athletic Scholarships To Gamers

Soulskill posted about 5 months ago | from the prospective-students-zerg-the-admissions-office dept.

Education 102

New submitter MdotCpDeltaT writes: Robert Morris University will be the first school in the country to offer athletic scholarships to students who play the video game League of Legends. It's a move that seems to stretch the definition of sports and athletes. Associate athletic director Kurt Melcher said, "It's a team sport. There's strategy involved. You have to know your role in the game. Obviously it's not cardiovascular in any way, but it's mental. There are elements that go into it that are just like any other sport."The article says, "Though the gaming scholarships are primarily designed to attract what the school calls an 'underserved male' population, they are open to all, and Melcher said some women have inquired about the program. Even if the awards end up going mostly to males, he added, it should not upset the school's scholarship gender balance, which already has strong participation in women's sports."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Why LoL? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47313927)

Why not some other team-based game?
There's hundreds.

Re:Why LoL? (1)

TheCarp (96830) | about 5 months ago | (#47313973)

You could ask the same thing about ball games.
Perhaps because from the plethora of options, they have to choose. More interesting would be to not limit the game at all but have a list of team games, all of which a team would need to be able to compete in.... like a video decathlon.

Not only need to be good at the games but good at switching between them from round to round, which itself could be difficult.

Re:Why LoL? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47314047)

a violent criminal was arrested in my area. they finally caught him. and guess what? he was black! this time i didnt bother trying to act surprised. i mean when something was true the last 20 times it just stops being a shock to you.

they already received their reparations in the form of the criminal justice system alone.

Re:Why LoL? (1)

Rei (128717) | about 5 months ago | (#47314053)

Why even limit it to team sports? At least if the Olympics is anything to go by, there's more "legitimate" individuals sports than team sports [yellowfinbi.com] . So why not also have scholarships for single-player video games?

That is, to say, I look forward to getting a scholarship in Kerbal Space Program. ;)

Re:Why LoL? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 5 months ago | (#47314153)

Honestly, you could probably do a lot worse than offering scholarships (possibly even automatic admits) to people who finished Robot Odyssey [wikipedia.org] . Kiddie game, or looks like one; but widely reputed to either turn you into a hardcore programming geek for life, or beat you up and take your lunch money, self-worth, and sense of hope.

Re:Why LoL? (1)

TheCarp (96830) | about 5 months ago | (#47314695)

> Why even limit it to team sports?

I guess it doesn't have to be; but I do think the ability to work together in teams is worth fostering. My own sport was wrestling, which is very much individual, its just you and your oponenent in the circle. All your "Team" can do is yell out encouragement and advice.

> I look forward to getting a scholarship in Kerbal Space Program.

Kerbal would make for some interesting competitions. I actually was thinking it would be fun to do rally races ala the Iron Butt. You know.... Launch on Day X, you have a window of Y days in Z months to do a jool flyby (points subtracted for each day late), Another similar defined window for eve, and then one for return to kerbin...... then.... release a bunch of extra points..... get a photo of your team landed on Duna's Poles for 10,000 points.... some can even be really ridiculous.... 1 million points for showing a circular orbit of the sun with a apoapse under 10 km

Re:Why LoL? (1)

Talderas (1212466) | about 5 months ago | (#47315097)

There is a very limited number of games which fall under the e-sport mantle. An athletic scholarship isn't one because you play some sport, it's a scholarship because you're playing some sport for the college. Your performance is a way for the college to get their name and recognition out there. If they're going to offer a scholarship for a game, any time you're playing it it will be branded as part of the college and it's going to need a sufficient audience to justify it.

Re:Why LoL? (1)

Unknown1337 (2697703) | about 5 months ago | (#47315481)

One step closer to VGHS! I don't know if it should be called an athletic scholarship, but I'm all for it.

Re:Why LoL? (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 5 months ago | (#47319169)

It's not limited to team sports per se, historically the scholarships go to the profitable sports which just happen to be team sports. Find out which sports sell the most tickets and those will be the ones with scholarships.

Re:Why LoL? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47314603)

I did once think an interesting team challenge would be a self powered CTF/deathmatch.
A team of 10 say, would compete against another - how many you dedicate to powering the machine, and how many play would be up to each team.

Would you power one higher spec machine, with 9 on the exercise bikes you built for the task?
3 atom based boxes with tiny screens?

The whole setup, and powering all covered within the team - so you'd need a nerd or two, some exercise freaks, and gamers...
That'd be a challenge!

Re:Why LoL? (2)

Thanshin (1188877) | about 5 months ago | (#47314063)

Melcher is associate athletic director at Robert Morris University, a Chicago-based university that gives out 1,400 athletic and activity scholarships across its 10 Illinois campuses as a way of recruiting and retaining students. But it occurred to him that one sport, rapidly growing in popularity, was missing from the scholarship roster.

Seeing it as a way of making the university more attractive, picking the most popular makes sense.

If you open Twitch at any given time, unless the finals of some important championship are being played at that very moment, the top of the list is League of Legends.

Chess (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47314093)

There are chess scholarships [chess-class.com] .

Re:Why LoL? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 5 months ago | (#47314135)

Why not some other team-based game? There's hundreds.

Presumably based on its audience popularity. LoL, by all reports, is very high indeed in the ranks of 'people actually watch streams of this stuff'. If a sport doesn't have a long, stuffy, history to justify it's existence, it probably has to be popular.

Re:Why LoL? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47314187)

Different games are popular in different places.
In Sweden Dota and Starcraft are televised, LoL is not.

Re:Why LoL? (3, Interesting)

Joe Gillian (3683399) | about 5 months ago | (#47314279)

It's probably because of League's "mass-market" appeal. League of Legends runs on Adobe Air, and will run on pretty much any given set of hardware no matter how outdated it is. In contrast, most of League's competitors require a somewhat powerful computer to run or aren't free - Starcraft 2 is still $60 as far as I know (I never bought it) and requires significantly more resources to run, as does DOTA2. They also purposely market their game as "casual friendly", and it definitely works - many of the people I know who used to talk about how much time they spent playing Angry Birds are now playing League.

I'd also be willing to bet a significant sum of money that this scholarship was not an original idea by the school. Riot Games essentially depends on popularity to make money - they do so by giving away the game itself, and then charging money to buy characters in the game to remain competitive. They tend to go for things that create headlines, things like starting their own tournament league (which they did several years ago). They also advertise the game heavily, especially on Twitch (where they're usually the #1 most streamed game, although there have been accusations of Riot using bots to inflate their viewer count over DOTA2).

With all that taken into account, it's not hard to see why LoL got picked.

Re:Why LoL? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47314741)

Not following LoL much. Dota2 also generates a lot of interest. the community funded price money for this years international will exceed $10.000.000 in a few days (VALVE only provided the initial 1.6 million).

Re:Why LoL? (1)

Salgat (1098063) | about 5 months ago | (#47316445)

That's fine, but the number of LoL players vastly outnumbers DOTA2 (67 million players play LoL at least on a monthly basis).

Re:Why LoL? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47317151)

Competitive e-sports will eventually go where the money is; the number of monthly players doesn't matter.

The 10 million prize pool puts competitive LoL to utter shame. The "athletes" aren't going to over look that.

Re:Why LoL? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47318003)

It's probably because of League's "mass-market" appeal. League of Legends runs on Adobe Air, and will run on pretty much any given set of hardware no matter how outdated it is. In contrast, most of League's competitors require a somewhat powerful computer to run or aren't free - Starcraft 2 is still $60 as far as I know (I never bought it) and requires significantly more resources to run, as does DOTA2.

The chat client uses Adobe Air, but the game itself is a native C++ application.

Re:Why LoL? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47314805)

Why not?

Re:Why LoL? (1)

Salgat (1098063) | about 5 months ago | (#47316403)

Probably has to do with the fact that it's both the most played game in the world and has the strongest international eSports following.

Re:Why LoL? (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 5 months ago | (#47319143)

Most sports scholarships started because there was actual income from the sports themselves. Thus take some of that income to the college to pay for the income earner's education. To use the same process for a fictitious sport which has zero income is bizarre. Treat gaming teams the same as intramural sports, in that the college provides the facilities, you can use the school's name, but no scholarships or kickbacks or easy "math for gamerz" classes.

Re: Why LoL? (1)

loufoque (1400831) | about 5 months ago | (#47322981)

It contributes to the school's reputation.

Great (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47313935)

Great, I just wish they would extend it to a game that is actually interesting to watch.

Re:Great (2)

Thanshin (1188877) | about 5 months ago | (#47314245)

Great, I just wish they would extend it to a game that is actually interesting to watch.

You've never heard of twitch, haven't you?

Unless you're one of those people who define "interesting" as "interesting for me, personally, and I don't care about the opinion of the other millions of spectators."

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47314931)

I've heard of twitch. I also know that they cook their numbers. (Or possible a third party is using viewbots.)
I happen to live in a relatively small country, the viewer numbers twitch report exceed the target audience, and that is for streams that happens in the middle of the night when one wouldn't even expect there to be any viewers form my area at all.

As for the definition of interesting. "Everyone else is doing it" has never been a good argument.

Re:Great (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | about 5 months ago | (#47316011)

As for the definition of interesting. "Everyone else is doing it" has never been a good argument.

Ok, so you are actually one of those people. Thank you for the clarification.

I hope you enjoy those very interesting things that only appeal to you and the few people that share your superior interests.

Re: Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47317025)

Fuck off, you're on Slashdot, dude.

Here's a clue: the characters in "Big Bang Theory" would NEVER watch the show.

Shouldn't you be off doing something popular?

Kids these days (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47313965)

I liked it better when people at least pretended to make sense.

Beware what lies in the Nest (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47314007)

Technology has been impinging on far too many aspects of our lives, and one place where you have to be careful is the automated home. Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but I prefer physical controls over virtual ones. This is especially true when it comes to turning off the lights in the kitchen.

My home doesn't need automation. If there was a robot that would straighten out my office and vacuum rugs and dust and re-arrange the bookshelves, then I'd be all in. As long as the device wasn't hooked to the Internet to be reprogrammed by some misanthropic engineer who would find it amusing to have the robot trash the house.

There is no such robot and none on the horizon, nor any free lunches, not even at Google.

Opinions The Internet is part of the problem. In the case of home automation, it is particularly frightening. You know that once an automation system is established and can be operated remotely online, then someone will hack the system and make a lot of people miserable.

Ever since Google bought Nest, this is the first thing I think of.

This week at Google I/O, the company might brag about Nest, and show some fakakta Web interface to turn off lights you may have left on. These devices will be hooked to Google Central so your habits can be studied. Thus you can be delivered targeted advertising.

You all know what targeted advertising is, right? It's those genius ads that show up all over the place trying to sell you a product you already bought. Yeah, those ads.

I have toyed with various attempts at home automation since before the X10 standard. It's always been about spending dollars to save pennies. The Nest Thermostat is a classic example. It is indeed a cool product that is nothing more than a remotely programmable on-off switch that costs $250. If China decided to produce the same thing, it would be $20.

The idea is that you can program it and it can learn and it can maximize energy and save money and save the environment and on and on. It's also cool looking and shows that you are a conspicuous consumer for owning one. Only geeks will program them to any extreme and the real amount of money saved will be nil. At the end of the day it's just another over-priced, cool-looking gizmo for bored geeks who will claim they actually "love" the device.

This is just the beginning for Google, though. The real target is the full home automation market, which does indeed exist. It targets large unmanageable McMansions found in the suburbs of Dallas and Atlanta. You know, the palatial multi-story homes built in a subdivision on postage stamp sized lots. You generally fly over them while landing at the airport and wonder who in their right minds would buy a place like this.

Answer: home automation suckers.

Home automation has been around since 1975 yet has never become a mass market phenomenon. Frankly, this is because it is a pain in the arse. Companies like Google, whose executives live in a dream world of their own creation, tend to drift into thinking that everyone wants this crap.

My home automation is more average and typical of the American public. It consists of yelling, "Hey, it's freezing in here, can someone turn on the heater?" That usually results in the other end of the transaction yelling, "Get up and turn it on yourself!"

This is real voice command and generally better understood than anything Google will develop. Other commands include. "Can't anyone turn off any lights in this house?" "Who left the water boiling on the stove?" "The dog needs food!" and the classic, "Did anyone get the mail?"

This is real home automation.

The real problem with all this Nest malarkey will come once these systems are on the net-the so-called "Internet of things." Once they start getting hacked there will be no stopping it. Nobody will be bothering to update the devices to block unwanted access-until they come home in the middle of summer with all the heaters on full blast, the lights flashing on and off, and the coffee pot on fire.

This is exactly where this all leads. And it only evolves to this because people are too lazy to get up and turn off some lights or set a thermostat.

Re:Beware what lies in the Nest (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47314103)

Wrong thread?

First mistake: LoL not SCII (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47314013)

I just want to point out that Starcraft II is a game built upon the fundamental rules of military history and strategy; its solutions and outcomes rather closely model thousands of years of human land battles. MarineKing really can teach viewers about the military concepts of mass, maneuver, observation, surprise, initiative, the choice of raiding or persisting in the enemy's territory, and so on.

League of Legends and its infinite DOTA clones are spell-casting twitch games, with a physically limited grade-school level of strategy and combat being merely a series of counter-spells. These games have little to no relation to the real world and do not generate useful information for spectators.

I just wanted all of you to know that there is an actual reason why Starcraft is the superior game and spectator sport. This is what permits myself and others to say with authority, "LoL sucks."

Re:First mistake: LoL not SCII (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47314111)

Wipe the cheetos from your beard. The fact that you argue so passionately about the superiority of video games is laughable. Consider getting laid.

Re:First mistake: LoL not SCII (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47314157)

nerd raaaaaaaaaageeeeeee!

Re:First mistake: LoL not SCII (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47314595)

do you take yourself seriously?

Re:First mistake: LoL not SCII (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47314609)

This is totally amazing, I can see why it is modded +1 Funny (currently). It must be a parody of those angry nerd stereotypes on YouTube, right?

$19,000 — half the cost tuition and room and (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 5 months ago | (#47314055)

That is the issue so basically if you want to play there you have to pay the other half? per year? and why can't you rent on your own and save?

But 38,000 + books and other fees an year is why student loans are so big now days.

Even people in this for 4 years are looking at about 76000 + books and other fees that can be like 100K with loan fees and interest.

Re:$19,000 — half the cost tuition and room (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47314107)

This is the main reason. Many mid-tier colleges are seeing enrollment numbers drop. This gets them in the news when people are thinking about college applications next year, and provides a way to bring in additional revenue (an unfilled seat is basically lost revenue since most costs are fixed).

Re:$19,000 — half the cost tuition and room (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | about 5 months ago | (#47314131)

This is completely off topic but, being in Europe, I've often wondered why would people study in the US when they could get the same education in Europe for under a tenth of the price. I can understand language being a barrier but... a hundreds of thousands of dollars barrier?

There are certainly many reasons not to do it, but it's a loan I suppose some people take decades to pay so...

Re:$19,000 — half the cost tuition and room (1)

alen (225700) | about 5 months ago | (#47314249)

last i read only a minority of people in europe go to college, unlike the USA

Re:$19,000 — half the cost tuition and room (1)

AnOnyxMouseCoward (3693517) | about 5 months ago | (#47315035)

High tuition seems to have very little to do with the number of students but everything to do with services/administration bloating and the policy of "you get a loan! you get a loan!" policy from the US government. One would think with more students, you would achieve better economy of scale and so be able to charge less per student.

Looking at this: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/... [yahoo.com] , it seems countries can have a high percentage of college-educated people without charging them a lifetime of debt.

Re:$19,000 — half the cost tuition and room (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | about 5 months ago | (#47316019)

Nope. Other than Spain and Canada, which are way beyond, the US and the rest of Europe countries are all in a 10% wide span.

You can have updated info by searching "college and university education mismatch oecd"

Re:$19,000 — half the cost tuition and room (3, Interesting)

Kelbear (870538) | about 5 months ago | (#47314915)

I think international enrollment may very well start to be a thing.

But I would point out that in Europe, there's people crossing countries on a daily basis just commuting to work, while in the US, there are families who haven't left the country except for brief vacations, or not at all. Living in the US is all they know, and all they want, and the parents are already twisted up inside about having their kids leave home, to consider sending them halfway around the world adds to their stress.

For many years college has been seen as the indispensable class gateway to access the middle-class life. No introductory price could be high enough to offset the prosperity the graduates would see on in their career. This vision changed VERY suddenly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]

The cost of college grew at a lightning pace since the time the parents had gone to college, the kids had never dealt in financial matters, and the intangible debts accrued were a problem for the future when the kids would already be enjoying a successful career that would allow them to pay it down...except that with the recent financial crisis and recent-graduate employment rates falling off a cliff as recently laid-off middle-age workers are taking up entry-level positions, the young graduates found themselves with significant debt but without the middle-class career path they'd counted on to help pay down that debt. I think that international enrollment will indeed grow in response to this problem unless something else is done to address it. It's just that this problem had hit so suddenly that the culture of choosing colleges hasn't shifted quickly enough to keep up. Colleges transformed from a gold mines to minefields in a short time span. We're seeing the opinions shifting now though.

It's important to bear in mind that the massive spike in tuition is at least, a progressive pricing structure (though it has its flaws and gaps). US colleges defend their pricing by saying that the ridiculously high tuition is the list price that gets charged to the more affluent families, and that inflated price helps allow for tuition discounts to the less affluent families to get into the college.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money... [npr.org]

There is some nuance to that pricing structure. TL;DR, if a student goes to a reputable STEM college to major in STEM, then that high tuition is funding the salaries of famous professors and their projects that make your STEM college reputable (and your degree as well). If a student goes to that college to major in art history, they're probably going to get a very bad deal out of it.

Re:$19,000 — half the cost tuition and room (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47315001)

Not everyone pays 100k for their college education. My bachelor's cost me $40,000 total(of which I owe $2,000 more), and that included all expenses(food, rent, books, etc). The tuition of my masters degree costs $34,000, since it's from a more prestigious school, but I won't be paying much of that out of my own pocket. I expect to get loans for, at most, 7,500 of that. Once I have my masters I'll easily be able to pay that off in a year or two.

The people who accrue 100k in loans for tuition are insane or stupid, in my opinion. There are plenty of cheap schools in the US that offer the same quality of education you can receive elsewhere.

It's also worth noting(source below) that the average student loan debt is something like $24k. People at the $100k range are outliers, not the norm. Most college students aren't the most frugal

http://www.asa.org/policy/resources/stats/

Re:$19,000 — half the cost tuition and room (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47315765)

Because apart from a few top tier schools the education isn't as good. Look at a list of the best colleges in the world and the US crushes everybody else. Sure there are bad colleges here as well, but we have a disproportionate number of quality institutions of higher learning. Most foreign exchange students come here because the college education you get in the US is better than what they have available to them back home.

http://www.ulinks.com/topuniversities.htm The US has 17 of the top 20 schools in the world and you have to get to the 50th best before the rest of the world starts to be competitive.

Sure, European colleges are cheap or free, but you're not guaranteed a spot the way that you are in the US. Literally anybody can go to college here, as long as they can find funds to pay.

Re:$19,000 — half the cost tuition and room (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47314175)

My total student loans (books, food, rent, tuition, entertainment, travel, new computers, etc) at a Swedish top university was about $50k for a 5-year programme. Or about 1.5 years of tuition at this rate...

Re:$19,000 — half the cost tuition and room (1)

alen (225700) | about 5 months ago | (#47314267)

don't go to college far from home, go to your state school and live with mom and dad

you're crazy if you think society should pay for 4 years of your living expenses

Re:$19,000 — half the cost tuition and room (1)

tepples (727027) | about 5 months ago | (#47314283)

Unless your state school happens to be out of cycling distance from where your parents currently live.

Re:$19,000 — half the cost tuition and room (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47314635)

Unless your state school happens to be out of cycling distance from where your parents currently live.

Live in the dorms. That's what I did. My total college expenses (including living expenses) ended up being only ~$30,000 for all four years.

society should have more tech and trades schools (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 5 months ago | (#47314313)

society should have more tech and trades schools as well community colleges with HS level costs and 100% transfer.

Re:$19,000 — half the cost tuition and room (2)

nitehawk214 (222219) | about 5 months ago | (#47314433)

I think you are not aware of how amazingly vast most of the United States are. Unless you live in a major city, you are going to need to move to go to a university.

Re:$19,000 — half the cost tuition and room (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47314657)

I think you are not aware of how amazingly vast most of the United States are. Unless you live in a major city, you are going to need to move to go to a university.

I lived in a small village. There were 2,500 residents plus about that again in students attending our local 4-year university. The same island had 5 other universities plus some junior colleges and trade techs. Different parts of the country invest differently.

Hooray (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47314085)

They found something even more pathetic than athletic scholarships.

Re:Hooray (3, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 5 months ago | (#47314177)

More pathetic? I suspect that LoL scholarship admits will cost far less, not require some grandiose jerkoff who calls himself 'The Coach' at 500K/yr or more, require no facilities more expensive than a few new video cards, and probably involve less "Well, yeah, the star quarterback is probably a narcissistic serial rapist; but what's more important? Winning The Game or a few unimportant people who were probably dressed slutty anyway" decisionmaking among theoretically responsible adults...

Re:Hooray (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 5 months ago | (#47314341)

Do they make the players pay for team shirts?

Sign hear to add it to your student loans.

Re:Hooray (1)

nitehawk214 (222219) | about 5 months ago | (#47314447)

Do they make the players pay for team shirts?

Sign hear to add it to your student loans.

Because the school paying for team shirts is the same as building a fucking stadium and all the infrastructure for Football.

Re:Hooray (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47315049)

Have you seen the stadiums used for e-sports? It's the same ones that are used for other sports. As it happens, a person in the audience takes equally much room regardless of what he is watching.
LoL might not require as much room to play on but that only means that you can squeeze in some extra chairs on the floor.

Title IX (1)

dcw3 (649211) | about 5 months ago | (#47314087)

This will likely have mostly male applicants, and put pressure on the school to attract and spend more on females in other areas. They'll either have to shut down other male dominated sports, or find more funding to balance the equation for the women.

Re:Title IX (4, Informative)

Thanshin (1188877) | about 5 months ago | (#47314155)

They could make a scholarship for pole dancing.

No. I'm not kidding.
Yes, such thing already exists.
No, I don't know if there's a male counterpart, nor am I willing to investigate that facet of the topic.

Re:Title IX (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 5 months ago | (#47314355)

and give up the tips?

labor laws will not let them do that.

Re:Title IX (1)

Elky Elk (1179921) | about 5 months ago | (#47315941)

I'm pretty sure half the population of Poland are males, and I'm sure they like dancing too.

Re:Title IX (1)

Snufu (1049644) | about 5 months ago | (#47318821)

Scholarships are cheaper for males, because they bring their own poles.

Re:Title IX (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 5 months ago | (#47314193)

Given that videogaming is cheaper than just about anything except pick-up frisbee on the quad, (maybe $4K over the course of undergrad if the school is buying the hardware and keeping it fresh, and likely substantially less insurance exposure than any more active sport), if the Title IX metric is monetary, they'll need to free up very little extra funding for parity on the women's sports side. If the metric is participation, what a handy excuse to axe some comparatively expensive and not terribly popular men's sport...

Re:Title IX (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | about 5 months ago | (#47314243)

Given that videogaming is cheaper than just about anything except pick-up frisbee on the quad, (maybe $4K over the course of undergrad if the school is buying the hardware and keeping it fresh, and likely substantially less insurance exposure than any more active sport), if the Title IX metric is monetary, they'll need to free up very little extra funding for parity on the women's sports side. If the metric is participation, what a handy excuse to axe some comparatively expensive and not terribly popular men's sport...

IIRC, monetary parity is not required, equal support is. So if you pay to send the men's BB team on a trip you need to pay for the women's team trips as well; although they may cost less.

Re:Title IX (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | about 5 months ago | (#47314231)

This will likely have mostly male applicants, and put pressure on the school to attract and spend more on females in other areas. They'll either have to shut down other male dominated sports, or find more funding to balance the equation for the women.

Nopt necessarily. Numeric parity is not required, availability is acceptable as well provided all other criteria are met. It could also be an attempt to increase mail participation since Title IX cuts both ways.

Re:Title IX (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 5 months ago | (#47317711)

It could also be an attempt to increase mail participation since Title IX cuts both ways.

I find myself confused. I thought the subject was athletic scholarships, not the US Postal Service.

Re:Title IX (1)

aestrivex (1398161) | about 5 months ago | (#47328057)

If availability is all thats required why can't a League of Legends team be coed? Just because team siren was awful doesn't mean that female players can't or won't play League of Legends professionally and/or on competitive teams at a high level. Considering how much effort has been put into making female players into placekickers in college football, in league of legends the admittance of female players should be a trivial non-issue.

Re:Title IX (1)

MacTO (1161105) | about 5 months ago | (#47314327)

Some universities have a disproportionate number of women, so it is quite likely that the only gender related issue with a this scholarship is that it will probably attract applicants to programs that are male dominated.

Re:Title IX (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47315839)

Some? Most colleges in the US have a disproportionate number of women enrolled and graduating. Last I checked women received 2 degrees for every 1 degree that was earned by men.

And thanks to feminist propaganda it's downright uncomfortable being a man at college. I remember having to sit through the feminist propaganda lectures on equal rights where they cherry picked all the things they could find to justify their hatred of men. It got so bad that there were women that were uncomfortable enough to push back against it. Now, imagine being in a class where you're already outnumbered by about 2:1.

Re:Title IX (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47314685)

This will likely have mostly male applicants, and put pressure on the school to attract and spend more on females in other areas. They'll either have to shut down other male dominated sports, or find more funding to balance the equation for the women.

Did you at least RTFS? It says that the school "already has strong participation in women's sports".

Re:Title IX (1)

ottothecow (600101) | about 5 months ago | (#47315643)

I don't think Title IX applies here.

Last time I checked, video games were not a gendered sport...Since it isn't going to be a "Mens Only" team, availability will be considered equal. It may attract more men (although the only person I see posting about LoL on my facebook is a woman--the male MOBA players all seem to prefer DOTA2), but if it is being offered and competed in a coed league, then it is Title IX neutral.

Athletics? (1)

rossdee (243626) | about 5 months ago | (#47314091)

Video gaming might be a sport, (in a similar way to which chess is a sport) but its not athletic

Re:Athletics? (1)

schwit1 (797399) | about 5 months ago | (#47314213)

The Olympics jumped the shark long ago when they added more and more events that are 100% choreographed and the winner is determined by judges. These are not sports or games, they are ballet.

Re:Athletics? (2)

Thanshin (1188877) | about 5 months ago | (#47314591)

Please leave soccer alone, at least during the World Cup.

Re:Athletics? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47314919)

You mean like diving, which has been in the Olympics since 1904? Or gymnastics, which has been in every modern Olympics, starting in 1896? Or figure skating, which has been in every Winter Olympics, and 2 Summer Olympics before that?

Or do you just mean sports you don't like and don't understand?

Re:Athletics? (1)

Minwee (522556) | about 5 months ago | (#47317237)

You mean like diving

Like he said, please leave soccer out of this.

Re:Athletics? (1)

HornyBastard (666805) | about 5 months ago | (#47314253)

I once saw people competing in a hot-dog eating contest being referred to as athletes. That was about a decade ago, and the last time I watched ESPN.

Re:Athletics? (1)

ThatsDrDangerToYou (3480047) | about 5 months ago | (#47314823)

I once saw people competing in a hot-dog eating contest being referred to as athletes. That was about a decade ago, and the last time I watched ESPN.

There is hope for me still in the pro's!

Re: Athletics? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47317163)

Toning up so youhave a buff, streamlined stomach and digestive tract is no easy task. Practice learning to suppress the gag reflex, and optimize your swallowing skills are at least as physically taxing as golf or tennis.

Re: Athletics? (2)

Minwee (522556) | about 5 months ago | (#47317255)

Practice learning to suppress the gag reflex, and optimize your swallowing skills are at least as physically taxing as golf or tennis.

And yet it's still a very popular field of study starting somewhere around High School.

Why is gender an issue here? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47314097)

Who cares whether it's used by males or females? It's open to everyone and the skill requirement can obviously be measured independently from the sex. Why the hell does everything have to be genderfied these days? It should not play any role in a debate like this.

Re:Why is gender an issue here? (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 5 months ago | (#47314291)

Title IX, mostly. (Which, at the risk of bringing down the MRAs on my head, didn't exactly make it through the house and senate by substantial margins, and across the desk of notorious liberal Richard Nixon; because the treatment of women in college athletics, or even college generally, was exactly peachy-keen...)

Given the relatively chickenshit amount of money a few 'cyberathletes' are going to cost, compared to existing sports, I'm not overwhelmingly convinced that it will make much of a difference.

(Note, I'm against athletic scholarships entirely, and the degree of emphasis that the more competitive tiers of college athletics as a whole get, so I'm unconvinced as to why it would be a good use of money to pay gamers, as much as I'm unconvinced by the virtues of paying rowers, football players, or anyone else. If having some athletic offerings is good for work/life balance, exercise, and whatnot, all well and good, I certainly participated when I was in school; but once you get to the realm of paid atheletes, just drop the "Oh, just a 'student athlete', not a real employee or anything" bullshit and just cut them a paycheck, rather than dicking around with scholarships based on academically irrelevant criteria.)

Re:Why is gender an issue here? (1)

PPH (736903) | about 5 months ago | (#47314831)

Whoo, hoo! Co-ed locker rooms!

Bad for the educational system at a time when both (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 5 months ago | (#47314105)

Bad for the educational system at a time when both sides and more are at issue.

We have big ncaa student athlete issues (and at least some of the player should be in some kind of minor ledge system) also some of the students are not college material and should be some kind of tech / trades program. Also when you are doing team stuff 40-60 hours a week you don't have time for classes.

On the other side we have issues with skill gaps, cost , big blocks of time, college credit transfer issues (some student athletes are year to year) , and so on in the over all college system.

Re:Bad for the educational system at a time when b (1)

ottothecow (600101) | about 5 months ago | (#47315811)

To be fair, the school in question here is not the kind where student athletes likely have a large skill gap compared to the other students. It is a glorified step up form a community college.

Unlike the under-qualified athletes who get scholarships to schools with strong academics, this is a school where they can probably keep up just fine. I don't mean to sound disparaging (and since I live nearby, I have met good people who went there), but it is not a good school.

I mean, look at their wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Morris_University_(Illinois) [wikipedia.org] . When was the last time you saw a university wikipedia page that didn't once mention Academics? Notable Alumni? Literally the only meaningful section is about sports.

Re:Bad for the educational system at a time when b (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 5 months ago | (#47316043)

There are other sports schools and the said thing is HR will take the some from a well known sports school over some one who was more real skills and or went to tech / trade school.

I was talking in general about educational system where the non student athletes have skill gaps in there classes with to much theory vs real skills.

after the courts rule on ncaa student athlete issu (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 5 months ago | (#47314125)

and after the courts rule on ncaa student athlete issues the fail out may force schools to rethink stuff even things like this.

Playing at the pleasure of the publisher (1)

tepples (727027) | about 5 months ago | (#47314309)

So what does the school plan to do with the student athletes once the game's publisher shuts down the multiplayer servers? Or if the publisher brings legal action against the school for allowing matches to be televised in violation of the game's copyright?

Re:Playing at the pleasure of the publisher (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 5 months ago | (#47314423)

That is why for any kind of gameing to hit NFL, NBA, NHL levels that there needs to be an players union, games that have 100% off line play / off line LAN play, and maybe even some cases an ban on people who work for the place who makes the game and or run the league from being able to play in the league.

Sponsorship rules as well.

Ability to start your own (1)

tepples (727027) | about 5 months ago | (#47314827)

It's even worse with video games. In a traditional sport, if players or clubs grow tired of one league, they can start their own league to play the same game, and no publisher has veto power over anyone forming a new league with the proverbial blackjack and sex therapists [orain.org] . This is why college has both NCAA and NAIA, why pro baseball had both NL and AL, why pro American football had both NFL and AFL before they merged soon after what is now known as the first Super Bowl, and why pro basketball had the NBL, the BAA, and the ABA. It's also why the ruling in favor of The Tetris Company in Tetris v. Xio is so detrimental to Tetris creator and The Tetris Company co-founder Alexey Pajitnov's dream of seeing Tetris become an internationally competitive sport.

Re:Playing at the pleasure of the publisher (1)

Krishnoid (984597) | about 5 months ago | (#47318801)

Buy some hardware and provide scholarships in Software Engineering in MMORPG design and implementation?

Re:Playing at the pleasure of the publisher (1)

aestrivex (1398161) | about 5 months ago | (#47328101)

While this is an issue in esports, potentially, Riot is not dumb enough to do this. They -- and a lot of other companies -- realize that the emergence of esports is tremendously profitable for their game in the long run.

LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47314311)

Not League of Legends, LOL as in laughing out loud.

Newspeak (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47314407)

"athletic"

For Demacia! (1)

Garen (246649) | about 5 months ago | (#47314531)

The pursuit of a worthy opponent on the battlefield is, to a true warrior, the reason to rise each morning.

Re:For Demacia! (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | about 5 months ago | (#47314699)

The pursuit of a worthy opponent on the battlefield is, to a true warrior, the reason to rise each morning.

The promise of one is the validation of his existence.

Cheerleaders! (1)

Tokolosh (1256448) | about 5 months ago | (#47314681)

Finally, an opportunity for ladies of the non-bimbo persuasion.

Great... More wasteful spending at Colleges (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47314953)

Was there ever a time when College was about education and not the extra-circular activities that seem to not be extra-circular? If so, can we get back to that?

This is NOT a scholarship... (1)

HerculesMO (693085) | about 5 months ago | (#47315381)

This is a marketing gimmick.

Scholarship money is heavily designed to give the student the idea of a "price break" when making a choice in school. Now this school is adding a bullshit scholarship to play video games to lure a lot of students there with the idea that "Oh, I can play video games and get paid!"

No, you're not getting paid for it. You are getting a coupon for the university so they get your business, rather than you choosing another university that might be a better fit, or cheaper for you.

I'm 100% for it! (1)

bussdriver (620565) | about 5 months ago | (#47316173)

These kinds of scholarships are completely marketing BS anyway. Give them out for any reason whatsoever. Like car insurance, I get a "discount" for just about anything.. but only 1, I can't stack them (since they have such a long list the sales person can choose from to make you feel special.)

Sports have no place in college. period. It is simply embarrassing the way we irrationally defend them. Just say you do it because you like the sport and want an excuse to get young men to play and prep for the pro sport (ok, and a few women for the few successful sports they have... and no! we do not need equality; it is bad enough we do this crap for the men.)

So if you want to equate video games with sports; go right ahead. They are equally meaningless recreational activities with no academic purpose whatsoever. Teamwork and thinking on the spot-- just a rationalization to pull something of merit out of it-- it has nothing to do with why sports programs exist. (if that is the excuse then tons of things are equivalent, including being in a GANG. probably more thought goes on in a criminal gang...)

In the USA, your state college funding is actually influenced by how well a college football team does. seriously! (not by ticket sales, it's the legislature doing it.)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?