I find the idea of Kentucky winning the national championship profoundly depressing. Part of the attraction of rooting for your alma mater is the idea that, at least theoretically, you have some form a shared experience with the student athletes who are playing. If the only way to win is to bring in a bunch of hoops Hessians that everyone knows are taking whatever random classes they need to stay eligible for one year, then go to the pros, with no intention of graduating, I'm not sure what the point is.

Frankly, I'm getting buyers remorse about the whole idea if staying in Division I for football and basketball. I'm not sure now that we shouldn't have used the stadium crossroads to drop down in those sports. We still could have stayed in Division I, I believe, in the non-revenue sports where we excel, most of which do not really require Pac-12 membership to qualify for national championship consideration.

If competing at the highest level means having large numbers of athletes who are students in name only, I'm not sure I wouldn't be just as happy trying to win the Amos Alonzo Stagg Bowl as the Rose Bowl, or competing for a Division II title in basketball.

Anybody else agree with me? I realize the die has probably been cast at this point, for financial/facility reasons, but it is bothering me this morning.

Part of the problem is that it has been a very long time since either college football or basketball have met your "shared experience" test. We're going on 2 generations since Spencer Haywood tested the draft eligibility rules of professional basketball and opened the floodgates to early entry. Given the evolution of the college game as a pit stop on the way to fame and fortune, football and basketball at the college level are now de facto minor leagues. And isn't it interesting that only the "money sports" athletes are being exploited. Clearly that is because there is money gushing in that they aren't being allowed a share of while other sports that demand heavy time/training commitments (e.g., crew, swimming), often for only a partial scholarship (or none at all) seem not to be in the discussion. This strikes me as classic American opportunism: if there's money to be had, how do I get my share?

this article from today's NYT should make your blood boil. Basically higher "education" is perverted when it comes to sports.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/07/education/colleges-increasing-spending-on-sports-faster-than-on-academics-report-finds.html?ref=us&_r=0

D-III athletes, no scholarships, have shared experiences with their fellow students. Buying talent is part of the problem. Lowered entrance requirements is another part of the problem. Universities being in the "entertainment" business is a huge part of the problem. If all athletes had to meet "normal" entrance criteria, a huge part of the mercenary athlete problem would disappear.

UrsaMajor;842301558 said:

---

this article from today's NYT should make your blood boil. Basically higher "education" is perverted when it comes to sports.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/07/education/colleges-increasing-spending-on-sports-faster-than-on-academics-report-finds.html?ref=us&_r=0

---

The last point in the article, by the author of the report, is probably the most revealing. She speculates that Division II and III colleges are beefing up sports programs as a way of attracting students, implying that colleges with good sports programs are more attractive to all students. My point is, if colleges have to do that to get tuition and therefore survive, perhaps the problem is too many colleges, too many faculty members that need to be supported, versus the demand for college educations that exist.

I think it's more complicated, Jeff. There are still plenty of students out there, but colleges are competing for ratings--because ratings are ego-boosting and they drive donations. One of the most important metrics in ratings is acceptance rate. The lower your acceptance rate, the more highly you're rated. So it's not the need for students so much as the need for applicants. Some schools even send out application packets randomly to high school seniors--just so they beef up their applications and their rejections.

Jeff82;842301565 said:

---

The last point in the article, by the author of the report, is probably the most revealing. She speculates that Division II and III colleges are beefing up sports programs as a way of attracting students, implying that colleges with good sports programs are more attractive to all students. My point is, if colleges have to do that to get tuition and therefore survive, perhaps the problem is too many colleges, too many faculty members that need to be supported, versus the demand for college educations that exist.

---

"...perhaps the problem is too many colleges, too many faculty members that need to be supported..."

And I would bloated administrations, some of which is in the Athletic Departments...

There is also the dichotomy of universities operating profit centers (football, men's basketball) alongside cost centers (academic departments). Some universities leverage their research strengths into profitable administration contracts (e.g., Lawrence Livermore), joint ventures with private enterprise or grant harvesters of government funds but most don't have that capacity. Given the emphasis on STEM education and the number of degree holders paying off their student loans with McJobs, I think the notion that there may be too many colleges trying to recruit too many students for degrees of questionable value may be valid. I find it interesting that some educators are advocating "technically focused" programs that look a lot like what we used to call vocational education.

Well certainly when it comes to the "money" sports.

59bear;842301618 said:

---

There is also the dichotomy of universities operating profit centers (football, men's basketball) alongside cost centers (academic departments). Some universities leverage their research strengths into profitable administration contracts (e.g., Lawrence Livermore), joint ventures with private enterprise or grant harvesters of government funds but most don't have that capacity. Given the emphasis on STEM education and the number of degree holders paying off their student loans with McJobs, I think the notion that there may be too many colleges trying to recruit too many students for degrees of questionable value may be valid. I find it interesting that some educators are advocating "technically focused" programs that look a lot like what we used to call vocational education.

---

Of course this is true, and the schools are complicit. In my opinion, if some one applies for a student loan and wants to major in Art History, it should be the school's responsibility to tell them, "OK, but most people who graduate with Art History degrees end up working in retail ... if they're lucky." Or if you're getting a law degree you should get to find out how many recent graduates from that school actually managed to get a job as a lawyer -- and of those, how many are working at their parents firm? If it's a second-rate law school, I guarantee you the answers to those questions are, respectively, "not very many" and "a shockingly large percentage", but there's not a single school that would admit to that.

No one would ever dream of loaning you a million dollars for a $200,000 dollar house. Why don't student loans have similar standards?

Jeff82;842301529 said:

---

Frankly, I'm getting buyers remorse about the whole idea if staying in Division I for football and basketball. I'm not sure now that we shouldn't have used the stadium crossroads to drop down in those sports. We still could have stayed in Division I, I believe, in the non-revenue sports where we excel, most of which do not really require Pac-12 membership to qualify for national championship consideration.

---

I don't want to agree with you, but I admit to being worried that you're right. However I don't think the statement quoted above is correct. I believe the non-revenue sports would be hard-pressed to maintain their current levels of success without the revenue from football and basketball. Some one who knows more about how all that works is welcome to correct me.

antipattern;842301640 said:

---

I don't want to agree with you, but I admit to being worried that you're right. However I don't think the statement quoted above is correct. I believe the non-revenue sports would be hard-pressed to maintain their current levels of success without the revenue from football and basketball. Some one who knows more about how all that works is welcome to correct me.

---

Golf is already self-supporting, as is Rugby, I believe. My guess is that there are sufficient wealthy alumni (Spieker, Fisher) to support men's and women's swimming and diving, men's and women's water polo, maybe softball and men's and women's tennis. Beyond that, it gets dicey. Obviously without scholarship-supported football, the need to support many women's sports on a scholarship basis goes away, which means field hockey, for example, probably goes to a club sport. Both gymnastics programs also probably struggle.

Swimming is self-supporting. No women's sports are because it is well-documented that donors give disproportionately to the husband's alma mater and not the wife's. Other sports are not self-supporting (other than rugby and golf as you pointed out). Women's softball is in the same place that baseball is: expensive and little support.

UrsaMajor;842301661 said:

---

Swimming is self-supporting. No women's sports are because it is well-documented that donors give disproportionately to the husband's alma mater and not the wife's. Other sports are not self-supporting (other than rugby and golf as you pointed out). Women's softball is in the same place that baseball is: expensive and little support.

---

Re: male vs female sports support. Since most donors are older and women's sports are relatively young, this well-documented (you say) phenomenon would not at all surprise me. Young folks don't have so much money to give. Wait 50 years to see if it levels out.

Jeff82;842301529 said:

---

I find the idea of Kentucky winning the national championship profoundly depressing. Part of the attraction of rooting for your alma mater is the idea that, at least theoretically, you have some form a shared experience with the student athletes who are playing. If the only way to win is to bring in a bunch of hoops Hessians that everyone knows are taking whatever random classes they need to stay eligible for one year, then go to the pros, with no intention of graduating, I'm not sure what the point is.

Frankly, I'm getting buyers remorse about the whole idea if staying in Division I for football and basketball. I'm not sure now that we shouldn't have used the stadium crossroads to drop down in those sports. We still could have stayed in Division I, I believe, in the non-revenue sports where we excel, most of which do not really require Pac-12 membership to qualify for national championship consideration.

If competing at the highest level means having large numbers of athletes who are students in name only, I'm not sure I wouldn't be just as happy trying to win the Amos Alonzo Stagg Bowl as the Rose Bowl, or competing for a Division II title in basketball.

Anybody else agree with me? I realize the die has probably been cast at this point, for financial/facility reasons, but it is bothering me this morning.

---

what is college sports?
It's a marketing tool for your school. People don't pay attention to scholastic academic competitions (we don't even hardly have any of those, though I'd like to see that we did), but they do pay attn to sports. And as they say, any marketing is good marketing.
I think this whole de-facto minor league concept is going to be VERY interesting to watch over the next 10 years. The current system is about to crumble, and betting on how it turns out is more interesting than betting on who is next season's #1. Changes are coming. Don't hold onto your old notions.

Jeff82;842301529 said:

---

I find the idea of Kentucky winning the national championship profoundly depressing. Part of the attraction of rooting for your alma mater is the idea that, at least theoretically, you have some form a shared experience with the student athletes who are playing. If the only way to win is to bring in a bunch of hoops Hessians that everyone knows are taking whatever random classes they need to stay eligible for one year, then go to the pros, with no intention of graduating, I'm not sure what the point is.

Frankly, I'm getting buyers remorse about the whole idea if staying in Division I for football and basketball. I'm not sure now that we shouldn't have used the stadium crossroads to drop down in those sports. We still could have stayed in Division I, I believe, in the non-revenue sports where we excel, most of which do not really require Pac-12 membership to qualify for national championship consideration.

If competing at the highest level means having large numbers of athletes who are students in name only, I'm not sure I wouldn't be just as happy trying to win the Amos Alonzo Stagg Bowl as the Rose Bowl, or competing for a Division II title in basketball.

Anybody else agree with me? I realize the die has probably been cast at this point, for financial/facility reasons, but it is bothering me this morning.

---

Division I revenue sports are professional minor leagues paid for by alumni. Talk about a stupid system.

Isn't crew fully endowed?

bluesaxe;842301881 said:

---

Division I revenue sports are professional minor leagues paid for by alumni. Talk about a stupid system.

---

Nailed it!! A better model might be for these two sports to align themselves as minor leagues with their professional counterparts. The Universities could license their mascots/names/songs and rent out their facilities for revenue. Student/Players would only be a random coincidence. Similar to a college student working any job. Students would be paid on industry terms and be responsible for keeping up academically. Scholarships and insurance could be provided by the minor league teams as an incentive for those players that value an education. No involvement by NCAA. Minimal involvement by University AD/Presidents/etc other than licensing and renting issues.

Alumni could then own shares of the minor league team to keep their memories alive (until they move/rebrand/fold). Alternatively, they could direct their disposable/donatable assets towards other assets that don't end up fattening the wallets of ESPN/Disney/Coaches/NBA/NFL/Others who are not giving anything to the Universities other than exposure).

Just a thought....

:rant

You're probably right, but it is worth noting that the difference in endowment for Amherst v. Smith or Williams v. Mt. Holyoke is significant (and significantly large).

The problem with your premise is that the "shared experience" has never really been there.

Sure, the differences have become more pronounced over the past 30/40 years, moving to much more of a minor-league to the pros for the Major sports. However, even during college sports beginnings at the turn of the 20th century, schools would bring in "ringers" that really had no business going to those schools except they were good at their sports. And this was a time when athletes didn't go on to have wealthy professional careers.

The fact is that people like sports. And they like their teams to win. It makes them feel superior. So, even back then, they let "Bubba" into school and had the smart kids write his papers for him while he helped bring victories on the field.

There's more money in it now. More fame, more access and more of a spotlight on it so I can see why it certainly felt closer to your ideal a half century ago, as there is very little pretense that it's anything other than a minor league.

But your ideal never existed.

Some of it is probably how explicit it now is. I've discussed the Cal teams of the late 60s with Steve Desimone, the Cal golf catch, who played hoops in that era, and has expressly told me that several of the players Jim Padgett recruited never should have been in college at all, let alone at Cal. And that's beyond Bob Presley, who has been widely acknowledged to have been a problem child.

The fact is, I've had interactions with recent Cal players, and most, in my judgment, were serious about getting degrees. That's not the case at Kentucky.

So if you're saying I'm wrong to feel the way I feel, I disagree. I don't want to win at all costs, because it would cheapen the experience for me.

concordtom;842301858 said:

---

Re: male vs female sports support. Since most donors are older and women's sports are relatively young, this well-documented (you say) phenomenon would not at all surprise me. Young folks don't have so much money to give. Wait 50 years to see if it levels out.

---

Most of us will be dead in 50 years.

Well, I certainly never said you were wrong to feel the way you do. Nor do I think so. Everybody is free to decide for themselves how much emphasis they believe should be placed on athletics/academics/etc.

I was only pointing out that, while everybody is talking about how things have changed, they don't really seem to be clear on what they've changed from.

Money has poured into football and basketball over recent decades at a much greater rate in the past and there's no question that it has drastically changed things.

It's just that it didn't change things from a system in which athletes were just students with the same academic requirements, or student experience, as the rest of the student population. That system has never existed.