sorry, i wasn’t thinking :smack:
As an outside party just interested in the discussion I find a problem with that. The discussion is about school wide athletic programs. Quoting one statistic about one sport when there are probably about 40-50 schlorship sports in each school does nothing to prove any over all point about college athletes. And especially with football such statistics can be misleading. How many were injured and could not return? How many left early to go pro?
Sorry. I asked and you took the bullet for me.
Well, let’s go back and look at what your opinion was, shall we?
Hmmm… not football players, not basketball players, but MAJOR COLLEGE ATHLETES.
People like you are dangerous because you think that the two are synonymous. They aren’t.
There are dozens of sports that graduate their athletes at significantly higher rates than the overall student body. Yet I don’t see anyone howling for those programs to get more funding.
The easy thing to do is to cry foul at athletes and then use revenue sports as the reason why athletics should be removed from education. It’s also the uneducated and prejudiced thing to do.
Here’s an idea. Why don’t we look at some numbers of sports that you think don’t exist?
Take a look at these numbers and then keep talking about how athletes don’t graduate.
You know there are other sports besides football, right?
Oh, for your edification, here is a PDF report of the national graduation rates for the same period.
If you use the NCAA style of calculation (GSR - Graduation Success Rate), it is pretty clean. They came up with it in response to the Federal one that ignored transfer students.
I posted numbers where the overall rate is OK, but when you get into the big profit making sports of mens football and basketball, we find that the graduation rates SUCK. A significant number are NOT student athletes in the basketball and football programs at most schools. That might be balanced out by the fencing team, but it is a key point regardless. Given the high profile of football and basketball, that is also where the image of the dumb jock comes from.
Universities build lots of buildings that hide costs, ostensibly to provide more classroom space, but you and I know better (or at least you should know better). We had an initiative to expand the student union building at my school, which I voted against. Guess what? It didn’t matter what I voted, they were bound and determined to build it anyway. No way they were going to throw away the sunk cost of the architect and all the ancillary planning. And the kicker is that the building is already underutilized.
I used to think that the Edifice Complex was a satirical thing that Laurence Peter invented in The Peter Principle. I should have known better. For some reason schools at every level have this “Build or Die” attitude. Why would a stadium be any less useful than two or three other buildings that are superfluous to the learning process and do little but consume resources best used elsewhere while raising student fees 100% every four years?
Build the stadiums, I say. At least they will be used every week for football and other sports.
When did college football/basketball become less a college extracurricular activity, and more about building big-time programs? I realize it was probably the first day they saw the ticket receipts and happy generous alumni, but that’s not what I’m asking.
When did colleges start basically recruiting ringers to play sports? Folks who would never normally get into these colleges, but were brought in solely based on athletic talent, where academic talent was all but ignored?
I didn’t want to hijack, so I just started a thread with this question, which I feel is at the root of this discussion.
I know I am not expressing myself well. I just have a problem with that info in this thread. It is a thread about the cost of college athletics. All athletics. That includes the ones that don’t have any hope to sustain themselves financially. Then people start talking about how the atheletes aren’t really students anyway. In the context of this thread you can’t trot in stats for the football team only. In this context we are talking about the cost of overall athletic programs not just football. The graduation rates of all atheletes may be important to this discussion. Picking one sport is not.
And I don’t disagree with you about the stats as given. I did go to a school with a big and (sometimes) successful athletic program.
:rolleyes: Obviously since I only posted the statistics for football I believe football is “the only college sport that exists.” If you got all pissy about my original post because you think I was talking about all sports, you should probably go back and read the rest of the thread.
It might not be obvious to you, but those of us who are fully awake realize that nobody is talking about paying college tennis players or rowers or tiddlywinks players. People are talking about paying football and basketball players, since those are the sports programs that produce revenue.
Tell me, exactly why are lacrosse or rowing graduation rates relevant?
We were talking about whether or not they’re “student athletes” in the context of whether or not they should be paid. Obviously if they aren’t producing revenue they aren’t going to be paid, which is why football and basketball graduation rates are the only relevant numbers.
At my Alma Mater there was a student riot and the stadium was burned. The school asked the state for money to rebuild the stadium and were told ‘no’ because it was an athletic facility. So they built a small building (that now holds the campus IT department), attached a football stadium to the side of the IT building and got their funding for a “dual use facility.” 
Not a college team but back in 1990 something, the Chicago White Sox said they needed a new stadium…and they did. Then the owners threatened to move the team if the state didn’t pay for one.
At the time, I still followed sports (mainly “my” White Sox) and I said, “If it were up to me, I’d say ‘See ya later!’” This BS about holding taxpayers hostage doesn’t get off the ground with me.
The PR people talked about how it created jobs etc. and I wasn’t sold for a minute. Sure, the players make money but you can’t tell me the hot dog vendors are retiring on easy street after working summers only.
Then I caught a news broadcast where an economist weighed in. He called it “Broken window economics.” If a window gets broken, the guys at the Home Depot sell a window. And the truck that brought it there…that gave a truck driver a job. And the guys down at the window factory, it helped them. The guys who get the silica sand out of the ground, the guys who mine for iron ore to make steel or bauxite for aluminum, etc. all the way down the line.
But it’s the guy with the broken window who pays them all.
As for college sports…well, they’re sports. I can see some benefit for PE guys, journalism students, etc. Like pro teams, I suspect they’re white elephants/money pits/call them what you will.
As for why I no longer follow sports…back in 1994 I was living nowhere near Illinois. It was really hard to follow the Sox but I could catch scores on ESPN, the occasional game of the week, look at box scores in the paper…and the Sox were doing well.
Sez Wikipedia:
After the boycott of 1904, the World Series was played faithfully every year despite World War I, the global influenza pandemic of 1918-19, the Great Depression of the 1930s, America’s involvement in World War II, and even an earthquake in the host city of the 1989 World Series. However, it would not be played in 1994 because of money.
[snip]
The World Series would not be played for the first time in 90 years.
I couldn’t believe that after all the trouble I’d taken to follow them, the season was just cancelled, and all over money.
I decided, ‘This is a GAME. Many of these players and all of these owners will make more in a year than I’ll make in 40. They can go to hell.’ Now, I think I’d rather watch a little league game where the players love the game instead of the money.
No, you posted the statistics for football because you want to tar all athletes with that brush. If you got all defensive about this you should either limit your statement or go back and read the rest of the thread
It might not be obvious to you, but those of us who are fully awake realize that you can’t talk about paying one without talking about paying them all.
Because some idiot was whining about how most athletes don’t see class as anything but an inconvenience between games, that’s why.
[QUOTE=Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]
No, you posted the statistics for football because you want to tar all athletes with that brush. If you got all defensive about this you should either limit your statement or go back and read the rest of the thread
Let’s see the quote you original linked to was “The NCAA is obsessed with protecting the idea that major college athletes are “student-athletes”. Sure, some of them are, but for most class is just something they have to do in order to keep playing.”
Seems to me it is very clear that “major college athletes” refers to men’s basket/foot ball. A point that I and many others have made repeatedly. Your argument that all athletes are being trashed on is a red herring.
That’s because you seem to agree.
“Major college athletes” means, to me, athletes at a major college. “Major” defining “college.”
How does it mean anything else to you? “Revenue sport athletes” or “football and basketball players” might give you a leg to stand on. But right now it just sounds like you and RNATB are backpedaling because you’ve been called out on a prejudice.
No, it sounds like you took a sentence out of context and jumped on it, and don’t feel like admitting it.
Wow. Who pissed in your cheerios? Feel free to keeping harping on a silly point (after all YOUR way has to be the right way, it is simply impossible for the phrase to mean anything BUT what you think). I’ll be over here listening to those who actually have cogent arguments.
Nah.
I’m perfectly willing to confine the discussion to sports where corruption runs rampant, and I’m also perfectly willing to concede that the way I read the words is not the meaning you wanted them to convey. I have absoultely no problem doing either of those things.
But, given the fact that Bronto Boy seems to find sport to be of lesser or no intrinsic value to an institution of higher learning, and given that RNATB has made a couple of sweeping statements, and, given that, in my personal experience and the anecdotal experience of many others in my position, it gets pretty damn tiring hearing a Modern American Literature professor or a psych major moaning about how easy I have it when I’m carrying a full course load in addition to traveling all over to represent the school.
And it’s damn irritating to hear the Simulated Games Club decry all athletes as knuckle-draggers and athletics as useless when they can’t get four people together to play a game, much less draw a whole campus together to watch one.
It is exceptionally off-putting to hear the Robotics Club whine about how much money is spent on athletics and how wasteful that is, when they’re so fully funded that they can take trips to whatever conference they want.
And it’s supremely annoying that GE or General Dynamics can fly a photonics or robotics or hard-science major all over the world and put him up in whatever hotel he wants and wine him and dine him for the express purpose of enticing him to take a job with them, but if an alumnus hands me a can of pop, I’m out for three weeks while the NCAA analyzes just how damaging my “improper benefit” was, even though, fourteen years and (multiple national titles) after my last collegiate race, I still haven’t made a thin dime off rowing.
So if you want to know who pissed in my cheerios, it’s people like I imagined you to be. If, because of ambiguous syntax and my own experience, I snapped at the wrong people, then I apologize.
But I ask you to go back and look at the reason for my thin skin and think again as to whether I have a point.
Works for me.
You seem to have a bit of chip on your shoulder. Not sure if the swipe at the MLA professor or psych major is a backhanded nip at me but let me know if it is and I’ll be happy to comment.
Why don’t you try reading post #72? My beef is (1) about the amount of money going into it NOT the existence of sports and (2) the presentation by athletics departments that they are revenue generating. This report shows that this is far from the case for most univerisities…even without including the cost of facilities. Add that in and I’d be surprised if ANY athletics dept. runs in the black.
That said, I have no problem spending some money on athletics. Cross country, soccer, rowing, club sports, intramurals etc. The costs for these are peanuts compared to the major sports and for the most part the athletes involved are really students and the scholarships they get often aren’t full rides. But let’s keep things in perspective. Classroom instruction and research should be the two priorities of university spending. The report in the OP shows that universities are spending HUGE amounts of money and it is very much a zero sum game. This is money that cannot be spent on better libraries, classrooms, more professors, etc. Hell, I’d object no matter what the money was spent on (glee club, competitive eating, etc.).
But I disagree about spending money on the robotics club and/or recruiting people to join in the educational/research aspects of a university. I don’t know the specifics but these seem to be in line with the mission of the universitty.
Fair enough, then.
Wow Happy Scrappy, you really need to put on your big-girl panties and get a grip. Perhaps spend some time with Oprah or a good self-help book? Seriously, some of your inner demons are peaking through.
For example:
Where the fuck did that come from? Did I dress funny too? Do you have some past issues you’d care to share with the group? Here, have a nice cup of chamomile; we’ll listen.
First off, people rarely make the distinction between Ivy League schools and ivy league schools. I have no idea where you got the idea that I was suggesting that eight, and only eight schools in the entire country are worth going to. The Chicagos, Amhersts, Swarthmores, Stanfords (and so on, sorry if I didn’t mention anyone’s particular school) are all in the same tier, and it generally makes no sense to try and distinguish between a particular nickname. The only reason I brought up Columbia was to point out the irony relevant to this thread that it’s known for academics but referred to for sport. Heck, I even included a rolleyes.
That said, I daresay that it’s a bit preposterous to suggest that in general the talent, ambition, and background of the typical MIT grad student is at least a *bit *more substantial than the typical SUNY New Paltz student. Of course there are exceptions, and Of course great things come from New Paltz, and Of course it really comes down to individual students, their situations, and schools’ individual programs. But the nature of selectivity and admissions rates of upper tier schools renders your sentiment inane.
You can call me an intellectual snob, sure (I’m in good company here on the Dope). But a plain reading suggested choosing a school known for athletics over a school known for academics. A plain reading didn’t suggest the two schools were equal – villa referred to one by its athletic relevance and the other by its academics. I believe there was an intentional setup there when it turned out that the schools were equal, but I stand by the thought that it would be buffoonish to choose a lower-tier school over an upper tier school so you can watch people play games. (Oh, do keep your panties on… of course there are top tier schools with strong athletic programs, of course there are other reasons to choose between schools, of course it wasn’t the overriding, totally determining factor (I even acknowledged such), and of course I’m speaking in generalities.)
Thanks for asking about my feelings! I fenced, and though our captain was indeed smarter, stronger, faster, and better looking (how did you know?!), I was comfortable enough with my genetic lot to keep my inner monkey happy. I was also friends/acquaintances with a few football players (and even a couple people on crew), primarily through study groups. Sure, there were variances in ability, but since I don’t remember anyone not being able to pull their weight academically, I can’t say I harbor any resentment or bitterness.
Perhaps it was just my experience, but I don’t think anyone I knew ever lost site of the fact that it was organized recess—running around poking each other with sticks, chasing after an inflated bladder, splashing about in the water, or capturing a flag or two. Not that there wasn’t a lot of in-game competition or earnestness in practice, just that there was a good sense of perspective. I was glad our coach was of as high a caliber as our professors, and was probably paid accordingly. I was also glad our debate team had the budget to fly me all over the country and the world. You’re right that college is a lot more than books and lectures, but I don’t think anyone made the suggestions that that’s all it should be.
I think one of the issues underlying the OP is that some schools’ administrations lose that perspective. That by paying gajillions of dollars to a coach to get their name in the papers, or by substantially lowering their academic standards to fill teams with ringers, they are drifting from the essence of what it means to be an institution of higher education.
Now, the content and import of the report is debatable. That is, one of the things it seems to be doing is challenging the conventional wisdom that a five million dollar coach will bring in close to that (I don’t think anyone here is suggesting it needs to turn a profit to be worth it).
Do you disagree with the financial analysis? Pointing to flaws in the report’s fiscal assumptions and methodology would make much better fodder than whining about robotics professors getting thicker dimes than you.
Another challengeable premise in the OP is that athletic programs funding is preposterously far beyond academic programs. I don’t think anyone’s put forward the idea that athletics shouldn’t be funded at all. Rather, that their funding shouldn’t be orders of magnitude beyond academics/research to the detriment of said academics. If the financial analysis is off, that there is a rational financial basis for paying out the nose for programs, then this becomes moot. But if conventional wisdom is wrong and they are a money pit, what then? Where is the line?
Shouldn’t the money go into a better façade for a campus building? Into groundskeeping? Into new artwork for the library? Oh wait… those don’t necessarily bring in money either. Rather, they ostensibly increase the reputation and stature of the college—similar to having a winning sports program. So the line is somewhat vague, no? Should it all be scrapped down to Spartan levels and any extra cash goes to more books and robotics professors? Egad no.
This question is typically dodged by saying that the programs pretty much pay for themselves. The OP is suggesting that conventional wisdom is wrong and so the question should be directly addressed. I think the social maladjustment you refer to comes from disproportionately focusing on the physical development, school spirit, campus identity, and pride that comes from having a winning football team rather than the caliber of faculty and research output.
The other major issue that’s come up is the question of admissions. I was fortunate enough to go to a school that (in my experience) didn’t drop its admissions standards to get good players, so I never ran into the “dumb jock” syndrome that you seem to have faced. This too is conventional wisdom (that some schools do), and challengeable at that.
I think it’s perfectly reasonable to suggest that it doesn’t take place anywhere, or that the standards are not lowered such that there is no detriment to other student’s classroom experience. I guess you could even argue that admitting dumb jocks is the same as admitting otherwise disadvantaged students. But since you’d be bucking conventional wisdom, if you can’t come up with a cite at least come up with some rational arguments as to why this is the case, rather than merely getting worked up into a tizzy. I don’t have the background to agree or disagree, but I’d be interested in the general viewpoint.