What's So Bad About College Sports?
by Hilary Lee on Jan 21, 2012 3:58 PM CST
in All
Email
PrintI have this morning ritual on the weekends. I get up, I make coffee, and I read the New York Times. It's something I've done since I was in high school, and something I probably will do until I die or the world has ended in a fiery Mayan prophesied apocalypse.
So today when I pulled up the New York Times I noticed an article in their Education Life section entitled, "How Big-Time Sports Ate College Life." I rolled my eyes. You see, before even clicking on the article, I had a feeling I knew what was waiting for me inside. And I was right. Amidst recaps of recent college athletics scandals (including the tragedy that occurred at our very own Penn State, which we'e discussed at length in our recent potluck), the article quotes some cantankerous academics who are jealous about the position of, oh I don't know, the medieval art history department vis-a-vis major college football. And of course the story wouldn't be complete without references to a few new studies, one that purports to show that male college students at Oregon drank and partied more while studying slightly less when the Ducks football program was doing well, and another which inversely charted the number of electronic article downloads from campus libraries to the length of participation of the school's basketball team in March Madness.
Well you know what? I've had enough.
I am so tired of the articles that malign college sports as a corrupting force on our sacred institutions of higher learning. As a cancer whose size (as calculated by athletics budgets) somehow acts to warp the priorities of students and seemingly will cause the end of the world if we don't get it under control.
I've had enough of all this, because, frankly, it's wrong.
Here's a news flash to all the hand wringers out there: college students will drink regardless of the status of college athletics at their institutions. They will party. They will cut class. They will, at times, take their educations for granted. And even before we get to all that, high school students will make decisions about what institutions to attend for entirely superficial reasons.
How do I know this? Because I went to a Division III school for my undergraduate degree. A school that is often prized for its academics -- The University of Chicago.
And guess what? All of the above happened at the U of C. I did all that and more, and I wasn't the only one.
If the students aren't camping outside in frigid weather in service of college basketball, they'll be camping outside in frigid weather for equally silly reasons, say, because of the world's largest scavenger hunt. If they aren't picking a college based on its football program, they'll be picking it because their high school girlfriend/boyfriend is going there and lord knows that always works out for the best. If they aren't drinking because their school is participating in March Madness, they'll be drinking because some other school is participating in March Madness.
And yet, the world turns. Life goes on. People graduate. Some go on to do extraordinary things, others lead mediocre lives, contributing no appreciable return to society from their education. And that's fine. That's how it should be.
Now, that's not to say that I believe college athletics or its place within the general configuration of a university is perfect. It isn't. Clearly. But the thing is, even when we see the worst and looks as though things are spinning out of control, the saner heads in the room ultimately prevail. Joe Paterno and Graham Spainer were fired for what occurred at Penn State. And the university restructured the way the athletic department relates to the head of the school and the board of trustees. That's not to say I absolve certain parts of the student body at Penn State for reacting the way they did to news of JoePa's ouster. Or that I think we should have to have such horrific incidents to bring a bit of balance back to the world.
But what I am saying is that, on the whole, college sports are a good thing. Even the way they currently stand. College sports unite us. They knit university communities together, forging bonds that endure even long after graduation. The direct effect of this is of course is easy to see. The money generated by major college athletics, directly and indirectly, funds the universities they exist at. It's what pays for cutting edge medical research as well as esoteric scholarship. Further, studies have shown that college sports are good for the athletes that participate, across all levels, from Division I through III. I know that I was changed for the better as a person as a result of being an NCAA athlete, and I can't be the only one. And let's face it, college sports are just plain fun.
Maybe if people stopped worrying so much about the place of college athletics in the world today, we'd be able to focus on issues that actually merit real concern...
44 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I suppose many people have problems with collegiate sports due to:
1) The arbitrariness and double standards utilized by the NCAA compliance officials.
2) The fact that different conferences have different rules despite flying the same NCAA banner.
3) Regarding #3, the rules on oversigning.
4) The fact that no one does anything about oversigning.
5) The joke that is the BCS and the fact that no one will simply say: it’s about money.
6) The number of bowl games.
Among other things. There’s also the why is [insert athlete here] driving a car nicer than mine or why does [insert LSU player] have 50 pairs of shoes despite having no visible means of employment…but that’s about it.
by mikjones24 on Jan 21, 2012 4:15 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
Those are all problems within college sports
And in reforming or changing those things, nobody is out there suggesting that we eliminate college sports entirely or that college sports itself is the reason for any of the above. Which is what is happening in articles like the one I mentioned in my post.
Off Tackle Empire - Ruling over the Big Ten since 2008.
Well said
I was lucky enough that my enrollment at UW coincided with a good deal of athletic success but it wasn’t Ron Dayne’s yardage or Dick Bennett’s soul-crushing D that led to all my many academic misadventures. There were plenty of missed classes or ill-prepared exams that were simply due to me being 20 years old.
by wallrock on Jan 21, 2012 6:01 PM CST via Android app reply actions
Was it being 20 years old, or
where your parents picking up the tab and you just did not give a shit?
Dikaia Upotheke - Justice Our Foundation
Late response and all..
but I actually paid most of my tuition on my own. My parents paid for the first year as well for my freshman dorm and food card. I used savings bonds from my grandparents and other relatives throughout the years but otherwise I used my high school savings and worked throughout college. Lest I make myself sound overly responsible I still fucked around a lot and it cost me an extra year in school.
Well put
I went to Hillsdale College, and I have the same reaction to all of this. It’s college, and college kids do dumb stuff. College kids get drunk. College kids put off studying.
At Hillsdale, students are relativity indifferent to athletics but that doesn’t mean we wouldn’t go get rip-roaring drunk on weekends. Or that we wouldn’t put off studying for even more ridiculous pursuits than sports. Exactly like you said.
It’s foolishness.
"I believe in a good kick in the ass. This— I believe. " -- Walker Percy
I tweet about stuff sometimes @jackhitts.
One thing...
None of the money generated by college sports at any level goes to research. That’s easily checked. In fact, the money flow is usually the other way: most athletic departments get subsidized by their schools (cough, cough, Rutgers, cough). You can look at the budgets come back when you’ve done your … ahem … homework.
That said, laying the problems of higher education at the feet of athletics is trying to find a simple cause for a host of complicated problems. Young people do stupid stuff. Duh. Tuition is going up as costs rise and state support shrinks. And on and on. The relationship between athletics and the core mission of a school is an issue that merits real concern. But it’s not the only one, and it’s probably not the most important one.
Actually the top isn't true
I have a book here in my apartment that shows that the claim that most athletic departments operate in the red / are a drain on university budgets is false. It’s called the Economics of College Sports or something like that. Let me see if I can find it and give you an exact quote…
Off Tackle Empire - Ruling over the Big Ten since 2008.
The trouble is in the accounting
Different departments count different things as athletic department expenses. For example, Rutgers counts concessions at their football games towards part of the dining budget, rather than towards the athletic department like most schools. Some schools count scholarship money as an athletic department expense, others don’t.
Either way, as I say below, athletic department revenue even before expenses is such a small part of a research university that it’s overall effect is negligible.
Another example...
…the parking revenue at Minnesota from games does not go to the athletic dept. It stays within Parking and Transportation services. If they got the parking revenue as well (which wouldn’t exist without the teams) then the budget at MN (which runs barely black , depending on how you run the #’s) would be in much better shape.
Thanks for writing this, Hilary
I read that article this morning and had a similar reaction. If you really want to make yourself sick, read the comments section on that story. Full of “that’s why I went/sent my child to a small liberal arts college.” Because Lord knows college kids only do stupid stuff when there’s a football team to cheer on.
Look no further than college hockey
Due to operational costs, it’s very hard for schools to add men and women’s hockey as DI varsity sports. Penn State is actually bucking the trend. Almost all schools that have added hockey in the last 10 years have been smaller DII and DIII schools… which makes no sense.
Schools like Nebraska-Omaha have cut successful wrestling and football programs and have sunk an inordinate amount of the Athletic Dept budget into maintaining an ice hockey program. Why? Because with the right coach, even small schools can be competitive with the top programs very quickly. And that creates an immense amount of brand for the university. The amount of buzz that can be generated about the school is virtually unachievable through any other means for the price tag.
So… obviously DI sports are providing a benefit to the universities beyond the entertainment value to students and alumni.
I hear what you are saying but....
Who is going to attend UNO or give money to the general scholarship fund because they have a somewhat successful ice hockey team?
You'd be surprised
I graduated from Northwestern in 1993. When I applied they accepted roughly 15-20% of applicants. After the Rose Bowl year of 1995, that number dropped under 10% and has stayed down. When I went NU was usually ranked 18-25 in the country academically. Most of the time now it’s 8-15. The branding caused by successful sports brings awareness/sense of community to more people. Maybe that change causes more applications. There is (mostly) no such thing as bad publicity.
Sure.
There seems to me to be a little bit of a difference between football at school that plays in/adjacent to a leading media market and college hockey in Omaha.
NU football and the Rose bowl gave the University major national coverage on both national and regional sports networks and affiliates. It became as much a common interest story as a sports story.
When is the last time you saw UNO hockey highlights on Sportscenter, or the home pages of ESPN, CBS or Fox Sports?
I get your point. One of my college roommates (a journalism major) took a sports journalism class in college…he was assigned a book (the title of which escapes me) that purported to show that donations to Universities in general dropped when the schools football team was good. This book IIRC was written in the 80’s so some segments of that model may be outdated/incorrect.
It's probably somewhere in between, right?
I agree with the idea that people, in general, are not going to support UNO just because they have a good hockey team. The general scholarship funds are not increasing, and if there was a way to measure the average student’s knowledge of the hockey team, it would probably be less amazing than it should be…
With that said, the amount of buzz for the city’s embracing of a growing school that is changing from a commuter city college to an actual destination state University has some links to hockey. It is truly something different to compete with the major players in a historic sport (UND, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Michigan State… etc.) and now that students have an outlet that isn’t Div II football, the success is such a big boon to the school. Kids are actually embracing the UNO identity and you see UNO shirts/caps around town… This is a big deal for a place where it’s Nebraska Football and everything else. So while it’s not super provable, I think that the domino effect of having success in a sport (like NC_Buckeye was saying) that is traditionally a bigger school thing, has given UNO an identity that makes people want to attend which will only encourage local boosters to give more money and hopefully work to attract graduates to local companies. That’s the hope at least.
Still, I cannot argue with the idea that there is a direct correlation. It’s more that it seems to be a smaller piece of the whole. The hockey program is finally operating in the black, and has around 12-13k fans for each game. I was at the Minnesota Duluth game last weekend and over 16k fans soldout the arena, which was awesome, and you could tell there was a good buzz around the sport. Also, it’s probably taking care of everything else in the athletic department (something the football team wasn’t). If you took hockey away, a lot of campus pride would be gone and that would change the dynamic of the growth the university is embracing.
Always check the words with the red squiggly line. They mean you probably screwed up.
Author @ Off Tackle Empire
Next step, Twitter... @KennardHusker
by KennardHusker on Jan 23, 2012 4:57 PM CST up reply actions
I've gone back and forth on this issue
The part about encouraging college students to drink and skip class is (as you say) completely bogus. The financial aspect has a lot of tricky questions, but the fundamental point is that the sports which receive most of the complaints (football and basketball) are profitable at nearly every major school. To play devil’s advocate with the liberals, the quickest way to make athletic departments profitable as a whole would be to repeal Title IX.
This writer, like many others, doesn’t realize how small a part the athletic department plays in the overall finances of the university. As an example, look at Ohio State. Their athletic department budget was $126 million dollars, the second largest in the country. However, their overall budget was $5.1 billion, so athletics make up just over two percent of their costs. The calls for “let’s take the AD money and put it somewhere else” is a false idea.
Ultimately, she provides a false choice between college sports and college education. The true choice is between college sports and larger professional sports. Would the author prefer that the money spent on college sports go instead to the pockets of billionaires? Would she rather that high schooler watch the NFL and say “I should drop out of school and focus on football” or “If I want to play football in college, I have to graduate.”? “Ohio State? They have a great football team” instead of “Ohio State? Who’s that? I’m a big fan of the Columbus Buckeyes though”? When I was in high school, I had no idea what UPenn, but I’d definitely heard of the Philadelphia Eagles.
Also, the Penn State fiasco can never be given as an example of successful management of an athletic department.
Idiotic
More ignorant “academics” howling about sports because they think something they do is so much more important. Several Big Ten athletic departments are self sufficient and I support this trend. Even better, because athletic departments pay the tuition of all the student athletes on scholarship and contribute to the school’s general fund, they are putting millions back into the institutions they support. When Iowa’s philosophy department or soon to be non-accredited journalism program brings in a fraction of the attention and finances the athletic department does I will start to care.
Someone also mentioned Title IX as the counter argument to this and I think it is a good point. I don’t support cutting women’s programs, or men’s programs for that matter, but in terms of debating the role of athletics within the University we tend to forget that football and basketball being so large gives athletic opportunities to so many other people. Iowa students, teachers, and locals all got two new Olympic size indoor swimming pools paid for by the athletic department (I am sure that part of the rec center was paid for by athletics but it may well be more since I am not sure what the total breakdown was). You can also thank the AD if you have ever used the gym at the tennis complex which is open to everyone and paid for entirely by the athletic department.
Bottom line, the athletic department, and I am speaking of Iowa but I am sure people with more knowledge of other institutions can comment on other examples, contributes more to the University and the community than any other individual department except the hospital and medical schools. There are actual issues people could be spending their time on and it makes me sick that we have to defend college athletics from ignorant and half assed reporting.
http://victorypolka.blogspot.com/
More ignorant "academics" howling about sports because they think something they do is so much more important.
I am sorry, but it is more important. I am willing to bet that any one of Iowa’s science departments brings in more money to the University than the athletic department.
I like to watch Iowa Athletics as much as anyone, but I won’t pretend that they are an important part of the University mission.
College sports unite us. They knit university communities together, forging bonds that endure even long after graduation.
If this were true, then how have Max Planck Institute, Oxford, and University of Stockholm survived?
College sports do not pay for medical research. Tax dollars do. The overhead a University gets from one large NIH grant is more than most athletic departments generate in a decade.
Parsimony methods are the easiest ones to explain - Felsenstein
by Lycurgus on Jan 22, 2012 9:52 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Disagree
If this were true, then how have Max Planck Institute, Oxford, and University of Stockholm survived?
First, you chose elite international institutions where there are well-ingrained cultural differences to consider. Second, simply because some insititutions are successful at forging bonds without sports doesn’t mean that sports aren’t effective at forging bonds. One does not exclude the other.
I value my degree from Northwestern, but it is largely because of sports that I i) stay in touch with former classmates, ii) have an easy opportunity to meet new people from Northwestern who I might not have otherwise interacted with (creating business networking opportunities and networking opportunities for current students), iii) stay apprised of what is happening at the school and iv) donate money for both athletic and academic purposes. It is a common anchor that has the opportunity to appeal to drama student, engineering student, and economics major alike, and as Hillary says, there is something good about that.
I agree
No doubt he UIHC and supporting departments are more important than the AD. My argument, and perhaps I was too hyperbolic in trying to make it, is that there are several positive benefits provided by the athletic department.
My irritation stems from years of listening to liberal arts professors complain about the prevalence of sports on university campuses while they spend their days teaching medieval literature. How many people talk about Iowa’s communication department as a reason for ping to school there?
Teaching and learning are important, but I have a problem with people who sa I did something wrong because athletics played a role in my decision to get my degree at Iowa. Yes there are things more important in life than sports, but it is disingenuous in the extreme to write crap like this pretending athletics, even in their current state, are a blight on our institutions.
http://victorypolka.blogspot.com/
by KC_HAWKEYE on Jan 24, 2012 12:15 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I do not necessarily consider major college athletics a blight.
I do think that, too often, they divert attention away from the important mission of a university, which is to educate. As Buckeye R points out, the fact that people think AD departments fund academics demonstrates the limited perspective that is engendered with so much focus on athletics.
I don’t begrudge you your reasoning for choosing Iowa and I am not one to rail endlessly against major college sports. However, having taught classes at a major University, I can say that the goals of the AD do sometimes clash with those of the academic side of campus.
Parsimony methods are the easiest ones to explain - Felsenstein
What are your thoughts about...
…the idea that sports are a “front door” to a university? There are certainly folks who support the teams who aren’t alums and whose interaction with the school would likely be nil if they didn’t have the sports teams as that gateway. Whether that interaction is tangible (i.e. results in $$$ to academic portions of the school versus athletics) is probably hard to quantify. But would you consider the additional interaction to be negative or a distraction?
I think that that is largely bad
I understand that athletics brings community interest to a university, but, too often, that interest never goes further than the sports field. Universities offer many great opportunities for community interest and involvement; I don’t think the success of the football team, for instance, should influence how people view the university as an academic institution. Again, I can point to many schools which lack major athletic programs and still enjoy high regard and large endowments.
One example that irks me: A veteran sports reporter from Cedar Rapids, who had years of experience covering Iowa, was interviewing Marcus Coker, then an astro-physics major at Iowa. The reporter asked Coker if Iowa even had an astro-physics department. Now, nevermind the ridiculousness of asking a kid majoring in a field if there even existed such a department at his school, the astro-physics department at Iowa was long the home of the University’s most preeminent faculty member, Dr. James Van Allen. Van Allen was probably the most important American involved in the development of the US space program. When the man died (in 2006), newspapers around the state ran front page articles eulogizing the man. This reporter, who had covered Iowa sports for years, had no idea about one of the most prominent aspects of the academic side of the university. I found that upsetting.
Parsimony methods are the easiest ones to explain - Felsenstein
Fair enough.
I disagree but my thoughts are opinion based rather than numbers based. For instance, I think it’s better that people pay attention to the university who might otherwise ignore it. Some (heck, many) of those folks might indeed notice it at only a sports level. But others will build deeper connections. For some, that will lead to them applying to the school. For others, it may lead to non-academic donations. And that’s a good thing in my mind.
But I do understand concern over how big a role sports can play in how an academic institution is viewed. I guess that I tend to view that interaction as positive. Admittedly that view is colored by my attendance at a DIII school where successful sports (and arts) programs were the only thing that brought “townies” to the school and were a great “front door” in the regard. I’ve also never taught in a large university setting and have a strong affinity for college sports in general.
I went to a DIII school as well and I have a strong affinity for college sports.
I just think that sometimes our preoccupation with major college athletics becomes something of hindrance to the academic goals of an institution.
I think that the European system is something to think about. You could have local semi-pro club teams in football, basketball, etc. that pay college age athletes to play and allow universities to be centers of education, rather than minor league programs for semi-professional athletes.
Parsimony methods are the easiest ones to explain - Felsenstein
Actually KC,
Teaching, research and learning are more important than sports. Try running a hospital and a med school without a chemistry department. Or a biology department. Or a college of nursing. And on and on and on.
My wife does medical research at UIHC. What the Holden Cancer Center does in an hour is more important than what Kirk Ferentz has done in his entire career. Unless, of course, he’s come up with a cure for a disease I missed. But I read the DI and I don’t think I saw the story.
I get it. You like your toy. But it’s still a toy.
by patrickdolan on Jan 23, 2012 9:54 PM CST up reply actions
Not when your toy is attracting attention all over the world
Moreover, when your athletic programs are the conduit to allowing people to get to college who may have otherwise not been able to attend, it’s a benefit. Or a sports program that attracts people who are great at more than just sports. My real life example is Norman Borlaug – University of Minnesota Wrestler and Nobel Peace Prize winner. Had athletics not been offered at the University of Minnesota, there’s a good chance none of his research would’ve been realized, allowing millions worldwide to continue to die of starvation.
When we get the Pig, the Jug and the Axe, we'll have one hell of a picnic
I though UofC was where fun went to die?
At least that was the slogan they used when I visited campus during high school.
Schadenfreude ist die schoenste Freude
It's more tongue in cheek than anything else
We have many slogans. Most revolve around the concept of our souls being crushed and lives being horrible…
Off Tackle Empire - Ruling over the Big Ten since 2008.
Ha!
True story about UofC. In high school, I was determined to move from Omaha to Chicago (didn’t end up doing it though) and visited the campus with my dad. We were in one of the last tour groups of the day and this Humanities Major (because everyone felt like a Humanities Major) is telling us about how much work they do and how no one really sees the light of day when I speak up and ask what they do for fun. Expecting a joke because this was a PR moment, he stopped and thought about it and said, “Well, we’re not really here to have fun. I drink a lot when I’m not studying.” After a half-hearted smile, I looked at my dad and decided UofC might not be my school of choice.
Always check the words with the red squiggly line. They mean you probably screwed up.
Author @ Off Tackle Empire
Next step, Twitter... @KennardHusker
by KennardHusker on Jan 23, 2012 5:01 PM CST up reply actions
I knew they were joking
The real reasons I didn’t really apply there was distance from home and the fact that I thought it was in a bit of a crummy neighborhood.
Schadenfreude ist die schoenste Freude
The problem with college sports is that it has nothing to do with college
Dikaia Upotheke - Justice Our Foundation
While that's a good sound bite
it makes no real sense as an actual substantive point.
Off Tackle Empire - Ruling over the Big Ten since 2008.
by Hilary Lee on Jan 23, 2012 9:59 AM CST up reply actions 2 recs
Having played at a school that was in the 2012 BCS...
I was no more a part of the university and its non-athletic activities than the staff at the local Safeway, the on-campus ARCO or the near-by Hyatt. I had to schedule around practice, defy coaches advice on courses and demand study-time on road trips. At least drama majors and other student performers could attend orientation, go home for the holidays and attend graduation. Your move HL..
Dikaia Upotheke - Justice Our Foundation
It still doesn't prove the original statement
Yes, being a Division I athlete is a lot of work. It’s even work at the Div III level, where I had to deal with pretty much everything you mentioned above, from picking classes that worked with my practice schedule, to training trips during holiday break, to carving out study time on weekends while being away for meets. The swimmers at my University used to have a saying, “There’s four S’s in life: swimming, studying, sleep, and a social life… you can only ever have three at one time. You start out swimming, sleeping, and studying. Then you miss your friends who aren’t on the team and you go to swimming, studying, and having a social life. Then you get tired. But you still have two-a-days. So by the end of the season you’re cutting class and swimming, sleeping, and having a social life.”
And all that was true. But that doesn’t mean that college sports had nothing to do with college. You’re part of the University because you’re a student there. You also happen to be an athlete. Just like some people also happen to do theatre. Or debate. Or whatever. Just because athletics are one of, if not the most, demanding of possible activities you can take up as a student doesn’t mean that they have no relation to college.
Off Tackle Empire - Ruling over the Big Ten since 2008.
Exactly. And athletics are not the only demanding extra-curricular out there either.
As you might have guessed by my tag, I’m in bands all over the place at Purdue. It’s a huge time commitment, and something I have to consider when scheduling, or give up break time to for bowl games and home basketball games, or work studying around. Athletes aren’t the only ones who do that.
And further, your argument that the time commitment of athletics means that you’re not a part of the university is absurd. I can’t think of an organization that is MORE woven into campus culture than band, and I spend 20+ hours a week on it.
"Hey Jay, what time is it?"
"9:30"
"AND IU STILL SUCKS!"
by Boiler Bandsman on Jan 25, 2012 9:42 AM CST up reply actions
If you do not..
1. live in dorms with the student body
2. eat with the student body
3. take classes with the student body
4. study in the library with the student body
5. graduate with the same rate as the student body
…how are you part of the student body
Dikaia Upotheke - Justice Our Foundation
Then perhaps the issue is with your athletic department, because of those only 1 and 2 even partially hold at Purdue.
"Hey Jay, what time is it?"
"9:30"
"AND IU STILL SUCKS!"
by Boiler Bandsman on Jan 25, 2012 6:48 PM CST up reply actions
Except
1. Thousands of students don’t live on campus at any major school
2. Thousands don’t eat in the dining halls, either
3. Athletes take classes with “regular” students
4. Thousands of students never study in the library
5. Athletes often graduate at a higher rate than regular students
All good points and:
1. Athletic dorms are on campus, and regular students do not have access to them and the training tables/meals
2. State school graduation rates are ~50%. for minorities it is ~33%. In the SEC graduation rates for f-ball and b-ball (sans Vandy) are averaging 30%
3. And while some of us might have had a class or two with TP, Juice, T-Maz or D-rod, its a blue moon event…
Dikaia Upotheke - Justice Our Foundation
BS
Who the hell has athletic dorms? They may have groups of athletes living together, but I’ve never heard of such a thing as a segregated building or area of a building only for athletes.
Graduation rates are a misnomer, because they lump people who drop out of school with those who leave early – including go play professionally. While some people truly drop out, there’s also a section that could make more in the NFL than they ever could with a Phys Ed degree.
Lastly, Big Ten schools are big, so simple statistics state that your chances of having a class with a handful of notable athletes versus the 15,000+ other people on campus is already slim. Add in the fact that there’s plenty of athletes who don’t broadcast that they’re athletes, your chances are even smaller.
When we get the Pig, the Jug and the Axe, we'll have one hell of a picnic
Really?
I was an RA in the dorms at Minnesota and I had plenty of scholarship athletes living on my floors, so you’re way off. Also, scholarships don’t cover off-campus housing, so athletes are actually encouraged to live on campus, in the dorms or in the university run apartments.
Moreover, you could make the same type of wild assumption with any group in any university. Where does this put theatre and arts students or kids in the business schools? I’d say they’re both exclusive in the same way as athletes
When we get the Pig, the Jug and the Axe, we'll have one hell of a picnic
This is a non-issue
1) Everybody does stupid shit in college, because it’s the time to do it and you’re in an environment that accepts it better than real life
2) Athletes, while also being students and doing stupid shit, are watched closer than other students
3) Athletics are the front of every university that wasn’t already branded before athletics became important, and is the easiest way people in the real world relate to your university.
With those three points combined, you have to take the good with the bad. I’m sure if Math Team or Quiz Bowl was as popular as Football and Basketball, I cannot fathom how the same issues would not apply.
When we get the Pig, the Jug and the Axe, we'll have one hell of a picnic
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
