I have a friend who might be one of the six native Texans who hates football.
That friend and I met at SMU, which happens to be the one and only college whose football program received the “death penalty” (i.e., prohibited from fielding a team for a season) from the NCAA, something the school only recently recovered from, some two decades later. He posted his thoughts on the sanctions handed down to the University of Southern California by the NCAA as compared to SMU, but everything boiled down to his belief that college should be about academics rather than sports. I was going to answer him directly, but the response became so long it seemed like a good post.
Before I get to that, allow me to provide a little more contextual information, just in case someone needs it.
While Southern California did not receive “death”, they did receive the following penalties: a loss of thirty athletic scholarships over the next three years, forfeiture of 14 wins, including those of their 2004 championship season (although since the championship itself is not an NCAA event, the idiocy of forfeiting wins is only underscored here), four years’ probation and, the hardest of all, a two-year ban from bowl play.
Why is the bowl ban the worst of the sanctions? Well, whether we like it or not, college football is 1) a business and 2) the equivalent of the minors for the NFL.
As far as the first reason, no bowls mean no bowl revenue. As USC is one of the most successful teams in a prominent conference, the potential loss would be well into eight-digit figures.
The second reason could make talented recruits choose to go elsewhere. For star athletes, one of the biggest tools to being drafted by a NFL team is exposure, and not being seen during the most prominent time of the season could be hard to take, even if it is, as Coach Lane Kiffin claims, “the best place in the country to play football”.
Hence, while the penalties are not to the extreme that SMU dealt with (USC does not have to start over with recruiting, for example), on their face they are comparable.
Anyhow, as an admitted nerd and fan of academics (if not academia) as well as sports, I wanted to show that the two things are not mutually exclusive, even on college campuses.
———-
For Chevrolet, Corvette is a loss leader. That is to say that neither Chevy nor their dealers make much money off of the sales of the iconic sports car. However, many who purchase the Corvette quite often go back to their Chevy dealers for other vehicles. Further, the Corvette also is a very appealing car to most, so people who see it might take a look at the Chevrolet brand when they otherwise wouldn’t have. Hence, the Corvette serves a dual purpose as a marketing tool and loyalty hook.
For most colleges, college athletics are a net money loser. The only sports that are profitable for some colleges are men’s basketball and football. If the argument is college football should go because too many colleges sink too much money into it, then the argument could be made that all sports should go.
Why do so many colleges spend money trying to establish or maintain competitive football programs? A successful football team can bring in revenue from alumni and fans buying tickets and purchasing paraphernalia (you don’t have to be anywhere near Ann Arbor or Columbus to see Michigan and Ohio State shirts or decals), as well as potential students who see the school’s athletic success as a reason to consider and attend the school. In short, college football is the university’s version of the Corvette, even if some of the programs are more like Geo Metros.
Yet there seems to be a basic assumption that money spent on athletics (and more specifically, football) would otherwise be spent on academics. For schools looking to build athletic programs, that could very easily be the case. Donations, on the other hand, are based on the desires of others, and someone who loves football may not be willing to give as much or anything at all for any other reason, or even any other sport.
Furthermore, it is not impossible for a university to be excellent in both academics and athletics. The schools of the Big Ten Conference, along with (former Big Ten member) the University of Chicago form the academically-focused Committee on Institutional Cooperation.
Would it be nice if degrees and academic studies could be marketed like touchdowns and bone-crushing hits? I’d like to think so. But I know that sports in general are easier to sell, more relevant and, let’s face it, more fun to most people.
While a university should be focused on academics (why call it a university otherwise?), it is too simple — and frankly, unfair — to say that should be its only focus. Just ask Myron Rolle.
When you don’t care enough to give your very best
June 13th, 2010 | No Comments »I distrust so-called “public interest” groups. Whether they are social or environmental “progressive” organizations or moral or religious “traditional” associations, all of them have some qualm with society how it stands, and believe it’s their job to make others see things their way.
Yet if, say, the Parents’ Television Council somehow convinced networks not to show sex, violence and other attributes they deem dangers to “our children”, there is no way the PTC would disappear. They have to keep finding objectionable content, otherwise their group serves no purpose, supporters will cease to fund them, and everyone within the PTC would be out of a job.
That brings me to a news story out of Los Angeles, as broadcast by KABC-TV. Though you can likely make an educated guess as to what I think, I still would rather my opinion not bias your own, so please watch the clip first (you may also want to look at the accompanying pictures), then come back to read the rest of this post.
(more…)