Why are Athletics so important to most colleges?

OpiefromMayberry · February 9, 2007, 8:08pm

“My original question to spark the debate was “Why are athletics so important to most colleges.?” There are many aspects to this question and many have been explored on this thread. I was not limiting the discussion to any particular aspect of the question, but I was particularly interested in the “preferential treatment” issue.”

Yes, but you turned it to why atheletes get admission favors. You focused on the student athelete, not the institution. There was an implied rationale that atheletes couldn’t be scholars, that they lowered the intelligence of the student body… I disagreed .

"Look, there is plenty of evidence out there to support Ms. Stoll’s findings. "

Absolutely. However, after reading her, I’d still want to see the test itself. I read her responses, I got the vibe. I got the pitch. It wasn’t that I don’t support the concept of ethics. I just question her research that’s all. What parameters did she use? How did she adjust for soico economic issues?

“And a lot of the evidence comes directly from people involved in college sports. I won’t bother posting links because it’s not that hard to find and I suppose if someone doesn’t want to be persauded they would reject any number of articles offered as evidence.”

It’s not a matter of not wanting to be persauded, that’s a copout statement towards me on your part. It’s a matter of asking how she came about her conclusions? I’m alot more skeptical of “testing for” issues after NCLB. It’s brought several testing descrepancies to light about tests and the people whom make them up.

Without sample questions, I’m not going to take her word for it… Look at global warming you can find scienists to support either side and they can show you data that supports…can’t they? So who’s right? Wouldn’t you want to see the data?

: Why would the Atlanta Braves hire Ms. Stoll if they didn’t have a problem?"

I don’t know, do they have a problem?

“Why be so defensive of the athletic process as it now exists?”

I don’t I’m being defensive at all, I am asking questioning and countering some
of your arguements. Next are you going to call me unamerican?

" We all know that athletics on campus are not going away anytime soon, but if they need to be “cleaned up,” isn’t that a worthy effort. "

It’s been an ongoing effort for decades. It isn’t a new idea. The NCAA has standards. Maybe you should go to their website and look into what they require a student athelete to adhere to EVEN before they enter a school.
Spend a few minutes going over requirements for HS students for acedemics, visits offical and unoffical, work and others. Then look at their college student athelete requirements. People have been working on this issue a long time. The NCAA does a decent job in controlling above the “average college student” ethics of college sports atheletes. Now, it becomes an issue of should college atheletes be subject to school policies above and beyond the regular student body?

Should an athelete be kicked off a team and scholarship revoked for an alcohol violation? Would you do the same to an honors student? Or should the athelete have a harsher punishment? If you say yes, what if the athelete was an honors student? Do you kick half of him out?

Brandon_s_mom · February 9, 2007, 8:42pm

OpiefromMayberry, I applaud amd thank you for your defense of student athletes.

Sports have been a lifesaver for my S. His father abandoned him when B was 8 months old, and he was raised without a dad for 14 years (until I remarried almost 4 years ago). Frankly sports were exactly what he needed.

He played soccer, t-ball, Little League, basketball. Pop Warner, and in high school, Football (for all 4 years - gasp a knuckle-dragging football player) and lacrosse (guess he’s condemned to drinking beer with strippers when he goes to college).

Like your k, he is a NMF; he scored a 2330 on his SATs, and has won countless academic awards. He was captain of his HS football team, made the country all-star football team, and honorable mention for the district all-star football team.

He has spent a huge part of his life among athletes and coaches.

And guess what? He’s a non-violent non-drinker, non-smoker, and non-partier.

An awful lot depends on the values you as a parent instill in your children.

I’m not saying some athletes aren’t raised to the level of hero-worship. Hell, we live in Florida, where good football players are admired, and great ones are worshiped - we see it all of the time. But athletes and sports programs shouldn’t be painted with the same broad brush. In B’s case . . . well, who knows how he would have turned out if he didn’t have the sports outlet, along with some terrific coaches who were awesome father-figures and who taught him the time-honored values of competition, sportsmanship, and commitment?

Okay . . . rant off!

doubleplay · February 9, 2007, 8:58pm

A little off subject- but in answer to the youth sports issue-
In my experience, some of the MOST offensive parents in youth sports were those who had NOT participated in sports when they were young, or who had but didn’t make the cut later on. I call them the wanna-be’s. They seemed to be making up for something in themselves through their kids. Some of the most WONDERFUL parents/coaches were those who had already played college or professional leagues. They had very realistic and compassionate attitudes. Just my 2 cents.

Brandon_s_mom · February 9, 2007, 9:05pm

Touche, doubleplay. You are exactly right on who the most offensive parents were at those youth sports events. Ugh . . . those were some ugly moments!

cptofthehouse · February 9, 2007, 9:39pm

There are many things at college that contribute to low grade moral reasoning from the frat/sorority scene to the liberal slant that most colleges have a

EMM1 · February 9, 2007, 10:36pm

Question for Vango: Why do you think that many employers are particularly eager to hire varsity athletes but not, say, cello players.

OpiefromMayberry · February 9, 2007, 11:27pm

“Why do you think that many employers are particularly eager to hire varsity athletes but not, say, cello players.”

Cause they need a french horn?

To Brandon’s Mom,

Thank you for your kind remarks. Sports for many are such a great outlet a way to grow and develope as a person. Sports for the most part let us fail without consquence outside of a score. There aren’t many other things that allow us to lose and try again next week or next season. For most kids it builds in both humility and self confidence at the same time.

I participated in the all the aspects of soccer that I did to allow kids of all abilities to find a place to play. I had a idea in my head of what things should be and was fortunate for a long while to have others share the idea.

Doubleplay is correct some of the worst parents were those who never played or started to play later as adults (soccer). However on the flipside, I coached a few professional player’s kids and you’d never hear a peep. They understood.

And van actually sounds like a great kid. There’s some ideals going on there have have alot of merit. Ethics are important, but they come from home and the environment your raised in. It’s easy for someone to say someone lacks ethics if they don’t understand the culture the person comes from. I have been fortunate to experience alot as my kids did everything from arts, music and ball. I helped them with the things I was stronger with (arts, sports) and was smart enough to shut up and sit down for the other stuff. We tried to instill an appreciation for everything. After all, I am responsible for what I loose on the world. Hopefully in a few more years a family doctor and a equine vet.

Vango · February 10, 2007, 8:00am

Opie-
In reference to post 109:

<a href=“http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17037305/[/url]”>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17037305/</a>
"Nearly 20 cadets have admitted cheating
In a brief statement this week, the academy said that 19 cadets, so far, have admitted cheating on a Jan. 31 “fourth-class knowledge test,” a routine exam on military affairs given weekly to all 1,200 freshmen. Among the 28 cadets under suspicion of cheating are 19 intercollegiate athletes, the academy said. None of their names has been released.

Whitaker said the disproportionate number of varsity athletes is an issue in the investigation. But the 19 athletes play for four different teams, and at this point “it does not appear that there was any conspiracy by a particular group,” he said.

The 1992 cheating scandal at Annapolis also involved a large number of athletes. Of the 24 expelled, six were varsity football players. In the wake of the expulsions, some members of Congress questioned whether the recruitment and preferential treatment of academically lackluster athletes was a contributing factor."

So in answer to your question, no they were not all athletes, but it sure played a part.

Anyway - thru this entire discusssion, I never said all athletics are bad or even that we should get rid of them. A lot of people seem to have a knee-jerk reaction to the thread and don’t read the posts closely. Ultimately, what my argument boils down to is that because we as a society place so much value on sports (which is evidenced in athletes getting some preferential treatment in college) and the stakes are constantly rising, it is producing some negative effects - so it wouldn’t be a bad thing, as a society, to reevaluate the way things are done.

If you read the last Knight Commission report, they acknowledge many of the abuses occurring, and while, yes, some improvements have been made, there is still a long way to go.

Vango · February 10, 2007, 8:06am

EMM1-

I think part of the reason people may wish to hire varsity athletes is because we worship athletes in this society. It follows that if the “boss” is a sports fan and he’s interviewing an athlete, there may be a connection there that tips things in favor of that candidate. There are also plenty of people that want to hire really smart people, too. I also don’t believe cello playing comes up that often in a job interview, unless of course its for an orchestra.

cptofthehouse · February 10, 2007, 8:42am

Vango, as a nonathlete who did not pick her college on the basis or even a thought about sports, it was a surprise to me to find out how important sports are on many campuses and to many groups of students and former students. The bottom line is that athletics bring in the money, not just directly, but more valuably indirectly. It also brings the university and town communities together and buys favorable publicity (and, yes, negative, as well, but outweighted by the positive). It attracts students which brings up the app numbers and improves the yield. It brings diversity to the campus. In one fell swoop, athletics brings to the university things that would be very difficult to achieve through other means. The fact that athletes are rarer than the merit and arts type students is why schools often give them extra consideration and at schools where the sport is part of the name recognition of the school, scholarships. A supply and demand thing. It all comes down to the economics.

As for hiring, for certain types of jobs, a former athlete has the best track record. Sales, PR, etc, the experiece shows that they do better. Athletes are also the strongest alums as a group in terms of participation and fund raising. We can go into theories as to why this is, but it really doesn’t matter. When it comes to results, that is what stands, and what counts.

logosprincipal · February 10, 2007, 10:57am

The OP asked a question that I’ve also had, but I haven’t seen answered(other than Title IX). I understand why schools would support sports that are popular with the students and community, and I understand why they would also continue women’s sports that might not be as popular, but would be required under Title IX. What I don’t understand is why colleges continue to support sports (both men’s and women’s) that neither the students nor the community seem to care much about, other than those participating. Is there some NCAA requirement regarding these sports?

curious14 · February 10, 2007, 11:20am

Since no one seems to be disputing the point, I think we must all agree that colleges and universities do grant significant preferential treatment in admissions and/or financial aid to recruited athletes over more academically qualified students with EC’s requiring comparable amounts of dedication and time (including non-recruited athletes). I doubt any of you would argue that this is fair to the more qualified students who are displaced by the recruited athletes. What I don’t think most of you appreciate is how much damage this system does by misdirecting the efforts of academically marginal students, who would be far better off spending more time on academics and less time pursuing what is, for most, an irrational hope of getting an athletic scholarship, or the even more irrational hope of success in professional sports.

cptofthehouse · February 10, 2007, 11:26am

Logo, there are no requirements regarding those sports. Colleges do tend to support those sports that are popular with the students, community and alums. You would be surprised what some of those sports are. For many colleges those sports are the strongest draw they have for getting any kind of geographic or other diversity. The midsized/small catholic school here in our area is comprised almost entirely of kids from an hour away, with mostly commuters. Their Division 1 sports and scholarships bring athletes from all over the US and internationally. This is a stronger draw than their merit scholarships. It brings the most diversity to this college. It is surprising how many athletes comprise their college lists around their sport and the possibility of being able to continue to play. This is not a factor many schools can affford to ignore. Many colleges are now having trouble attracting males. Sports bring in those numbers, and for whatever reason, when you bring those athletic boys, the girls follow. Also a program entrenched in a school for many years enjoys the status that a lot of things that have been around. Unless someone provides the momentum to get rid of it, it sticks around. Title IX has cleaned out a number of men’s programs that may not have been as important to a school. As budgets are tightened, those athletic programs that are not bringing value to a school are being scrutinized and often discontinued. But when they do this, it can often adversely affect a school more severely than anticipated. I know that when Providence College shed its baseball and a few other men’s sports that I can’t even remember, it did have a negative impact on male apps which the school is still trying to resolve. They are putting in some new programs (business and environmental studies) for a number of reasons, but are also hoping to increase male interest in the school. It would have been a heck of a lot cheaper to have kept those teams. Providence is actually a pretty selective school for females here in the Northeast, but not for males, the way things are right now.

My son was an athlete in a sport that is not of great interest, certainly not a*great spectator sport. Few people know that his college, a top 25 school, is one of the top schools in Division 3 in that sport–I did not know until he went there. The alums of the school in that sport are extremely active to this day, and contribute heavily to the school. This is a college that is lacking in active alumni support and community cohesion among the alumni and students and the college is working very hard to improve in this area. You had better believe they treat the athletes in this not popular support very well. No scholarships allowed by NCAA rules, but there were some pretty hefty perks, many provided by the athlete alums. I didn’t see many plaques and programs sponsored by English major alums or other academics at the school with the exception of the big general awards by the handful of the truly rich. As a group, the athletes are extremely supportive of the school as alums, not just in money but in participation and recruiting. It’s hard to put a dollar value on this because you really can’t buy that kind of support.

Vango · February 10, 2007, 12:23pm

But doesn’t the fact that schools so heavily value sports lead to alumni dedication, etc? I have heard of dancer’s who complain of the really poor facilities available to them on campus - if a school valued that and provided excellent facilities, wouldn’t that correlate to an alumni’s interest in supporting the school? If you feel neglected by your school, you are not likely to become the most supportive alumni. On the other hand, I think there are a few studies out there that say that the alumni support that athletics brings does not actually manifest itself in the form of $'s.

Vango · February 10, 2007, 12:27pm

From the Knight Commission report:

<a href=“http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN4j3CQXJgFjGpvqRqCKO6AI-YRARXwN9X4_83FR9b_0A_YLc0NCIckdFALOxkFY!/delta/base64xml/L3dJdyEvUUd3QndNQSEvNElVRS82XzBfTFU!?CONTENT_URL=http://www.ncaa.org/databases/knight_commission/2001_report/2001_knight_report.html[/url]”>http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN4j3CQXJgFjGpvqRqCKO6AI-YRARXwN9X4_83FR9b_0A_YLc0NCIckdFALOxkFY!/delta/base64xml/L3dJdyEvUUd3QndNQSEvNElVRS82XzBfTFU!?CONTENT_URL=http://www.ncaa.org/databases/knight_commission/2001_report/2001_knight_report.html</a>

“Interestingly, repeated studies indicate that most contributions to colleges and universities come from those to whom athletic records have little import. Big athletic boosters, conversely, are far less likely to support other aspects of the universities’ life and mission, again according to these studies.”

EMM1 · February 10, 2007, 12:34pm

curious14–On the fairness issue, see post #20.

With regard to the rest of your post, I agree that poor city kids in particular see athletics as their primary method of paying for college because they don’t udnersand the system of need-based aid. In the abstract, they probably would be better off spending more time on their academics and getting a need-based package.

But with respect to the group of athletes of most interest to people on this list–the good to excellent but not outstanding students who are recruited at the Ivies, NESCAC and UAA-type schools-- frankly, you just don’t get it. Most of these kids love their sport and are internally driven to excel. Its just too hard to do it otherwise. If it helps them to get to a more selective college, that is just icing on the cake.

Admittedly, some–particularly in the less popular sports–do have the college admissions game on their mind. But how is that different from the kids who lard their resumes with other EC’s precisely for that reason? The only difference is that the process is more transparent in the case of athletes.

Vango · February 10, 2007, 12:34pm

Also, if so many kids want to play sports in college, why not just do away with athletic scholarships and other preferences and then the kids that want to play can still play and maybe they will end up at colleges that meet both their athletic needs and their academic needs?

The girl that got the lacrosse scholarship that I talked about in the first post is clearly not an academic match for that school. It bothers me that she is getting a scholarship that could have gone to someone economically disadvantaged (she is not) and who actually would benefit from the rigorous academic environment. This girl just has no intellectual spark, has taken the lowest academic track in hs and is currently only taking 3 classes as a senior, the minimum she needs to meet graduation requirements. BTW, she would not argue with this characterization of herself, in case anyone thinks I’m being harsh.

curmudgeon · February 10, 2007, 12:42pm

Well, I don’t agree with either statement . The first would be correct if you put “some” in front of schools and “some” in place of “significant”. The second statement is just wrong. Several of us will argue in favor of the athlete receiving a boost for the reasons already discussed over and over and over again.

If you don’t like the way a school handles athletes by all means go to another school. They are out there. It became quite obvious to me that Caltech gives exactly zero boost to athletes, and their record at women’s basketball last year attests to that . It is a wonderful and thoughtful position to take and I’m proud for them but it is a position that made CalTech a no go from the start for my kid (who was academically qualified). I am sure it may well have been equally positive to another qualified prospective.

Y’all just need to get over it. Sheesh. People value different things. What is so hard to understand about that?

EMM1 · February 10, 2007, 12:46pm

Vango–are we talking about what people on this list would consider an elite school for your lacrosse player? I’m actually pretty familiar with the minimum academic requirements for athletes at those schools, and a B- average with (say) 1800 SAT’s at those schools doesn’t make it according to the coaches that I have talked to (unless she is also a URM).

Bay · February 10, 2007, 12:50pm

The operative word here is “seem.” I think you would be surprised at the national and even international support for some sports that you think no one “seems” to care about.

Also, as another poster pointed out, the sports industry is huge. College athletics has both a “trickle down” effect, in that it encourages kids to engage in healthy exercise, and a “trickle up” effect, in that it can prepare athletes for the Olympics and professional sports, not to mention the concommitant businesses (jobs) created via apparell, gear, etc.

Why are Athletics so important to most colleges?

Related topics

CONNECT WITH US