Anyone else here not remotely care about football?

[livingminimal]

Originally Posted by rugbysecondrow

Colleges are a source of regional pride (UK, UNC, Illinois). Many couldn't afford to go to college, but they push their kids to attend.

I don't see any harm here.

Well, where I live, people take their USC vs UCLA rivalry very, very seriously without giving a remote ···· if their kid attends or not, if they even have kids.

Perhaps its the lack of professional football in los angeles that drives this, I have no idea, but I think respecting universities as academic institutions is a little more relevant than how their sports teams are doing. While sports can be an incredible source of revenue for the schools (especially the public ones) the academic component for student athletes can be a total joke.

[FlashUNC]

For years across the South, there were no pro sports team. At least not in football or basketball. College teams were all that were.

A lot of the deep allegiances you see to, say, SEC football teams or ACC basketball teams are driven by this. Much like generations of folks in the Northeast have rooted for the Yankees, Red Sox or Knicks and Celtics, families down in Mobile rooted for the Crimson Tide.

[rugbysecondrow]

Originally Posted by livingminimal

Well, where I live, people take their USC vs UCLA rivalry very, very seriously without giving a remote ï½·ï½·ï½·ï½· if their kid attends or not, if they even have kids.

Perhaps its the lack of professional football in los angeles that drives this, I have no idea, but I think respecting universities as academic institutions is a little more relevant than how their sports teams are doing. While sports can be an incredible source of revenue for the schools (especially the public ones) the academic component for student athletes can be a total joke.

Do people not respect academic institutions? Can't both the respect for acedemics and sports thrive? Duke has a great basketball team and is one of the greatest universities in the nation. Virginia Tech is a proud university with strong/proud football program as well as a well sought after engineering school.

[rugbysecondrow]

Originally Posted by FlashUNC

For years across the South, there were no pro sports team. At least not in football or basketball. College teams were all that were.

A lot of the deep allegiances you see to, say, SEC football teams or ACC basketball teams are driven by this. Much like generations of folks in the Northeast have rooted for the Yankees, Red Sox or Knicks and Celtics, families down in Mobile rooted for the Crimson Tide.

Agreed.

[avalonracing]

Originally Posted by Tony T

That applies to many sports.
(I guess you don't own a baseball cap )

Yes I do have hats... with the names of the bike teams I've been on... I just don't call them "baseball" caps.

[rugbysecondrow]

Originally Posted by avalonracing

Yes I do have hats... with the names of the bike teams I've been on... I just don't call them "baseball" caps.

Level with us Robb, you own a couple of these, right?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[livingminimal]

Originally Posted by rugbysecondrow

Do people not respect academic institutions?

Actually, in the context of which I speak, people do not have the first clue about anything involving the first function of the university, which is education.

I am not making this up. People treat these schools as though their sole purpose is to produce athletes and athletics.

I like college basketball, not a ton, but enough to sometimes pay attention to a game that's on and know a bit about who is doing well. but the last thing I am going to do is cover my car and my home with paraphernalia of schools I didn't attend in a sign of allegiance or solidarity to just their sports teams. I went to a local state school here in California, and DePaul for graduate school. Neither are athletic powerhouses, but it wouldn't make sense to me suddenly become a "UCLA basketball fan" and dedicate a bunch of energy to it. YMMV I guess, but it's something I'll never understand.

[PaMtbRider]

Football is so low on my radar I didn't even bother to look at this thread until today.

[avalonracing]

Originally Posted by rugbysecondrow

Level with us Robb, you own a couple of these, right?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Paul, put that back in your closet... that's your summer hat!

[echappist]

Originally Posted by rugbysecondrow

Colleges are a source of regional pride (UK, UNC, Illinois). Many couldn't afford to go to college, but they push their kids to attend.

I don't see any harm here.

There is harm when the highest paid employee of the state is the coach, and said coach gets a golden parachute deal even after getting fired. Why do we accept, without argument, that this is the correct thing to do? One particular situation comes to mind: that of Butch Davis at UNC, and how he got a golden parachute treatment even while the University was making financial cutbacks on faculty on staff.

And let's not forget the context in which all this is occurring: at a time when states are cutting back funding of state universities, which is one reason leading to the increased cost of education to which you alluded. So spending on the football and basketball teams are okay, but God forbids, we can't increase funding for the more fundamental purposes of the colleges. And before we forget, only the top 20 or so schools are profitable. Nobody outside North America does anything remotely similar, and we are to believe that our exceptionalism is correct despite evidence to the contrary?

[Elefantino]

The mayor of Oakland, presented with the possible loss of the football team because of an antiquated stadium, told the Raiders to pound sand.

The Raiders said they'd need to be given the land around the current stadium in order to begin to look at building a new one, partly taxpayer financed (of course), and she told the team to pound sand.

Now she has offered to lease the land to the Raiders at "a favorable rate." Privately, they have told HER to pound sand.

[rugbysecondrow]

I wonder how much donor support is tied to athletics, not just explicit dollars in the door.

Originally Posted by echappist

There is harm when the highest paid employee of the state is the coach, and said coach gets a golden parachute deal even after getting fired. Why do we accept, without argument, that this is the correct thing to do? One particular situation comes to mind: that of Butch Davis at UNC, and how he got a golden parachute treatment even while the University was making financial cutbacks on faculty on staff.

And let's not forget the context in which all this is occurring: at a time when states are cutting back funding of state universities, which is one reason leading to the increased cost of education to which you alluded. So spending on the football and basketball teams are okay, but God forbids, we can't increase funding for the more fundamental purposes of the colleges. And before we forget, only the top 20 or so schools are profitable. Nobody outside North America does anything remotely similar, and we are to believe that our exceptionalism is correct despite evidence to the contrary?

[echappist]

just to be certain, you are not rebutting my statement regarding situations such as that of Butch Davis (and he ain't the only one as similar things happened at Maryland) and are instead merely alleging the potential benefit, correct?

And even if your allegation were true, financial gain is not the sole purpose of colleges. Lots of things bring in money for colleges, yet colleges exercise judgment on whether to pursue these avenues. Most, if not all, colleges divested from investment in South Africa, and this is not done because said investments were losing money.

You may say that football attracts more donations, and while you have not provided any evidence showing that this is preferable to the alternative, I would concede that the football programs of certain schools do indeed generate revenue. However, as mentioned above, revenue generation isn't the sole purpose of colleges, and such outsized financial influences have negative effects on the student population. The apotheosis of players and coaches are linked to the revenue generation, effectively allowing them to be held unaccountable for their actions.

[verticaldoug]

For the large schools, the athletic departments are independent operators. They eat everything they produce. Notre Dame Athletic department does transfer some funds to the general fund, but that is the only one I know of.

The opposite is more likely true. The athletic department sucks donor dollars away from the general university funds.

[rugbysecondrow]

You wrote 3 paragraphs challenging the question without answering it.

It is a legitimate question. I don't have the desire to research this, or even search to find research, but I wonder if sports creates a connectedness with the alma mater, a way to have a continued conversation with alumni years after graduation. Do schools with sports have a higher percentage of giving than schools without? Do they provide a pivot point and a way to facilitate a conversation, whether personal or virtual, with alumni. Do sports entice applicants and student want to attend school A vs. school B?

Do I care about Butch Davis or what he makes? Not really. I do think some coaches are over paid. I also think that many universities see a value in the athletic programs, many alumni see value in athletic programs, so it hard for me to say whether it is right or wrong. I suspect that decision should be made on a school by school basis.

Originally Posted by echappist

just to be certain, you are not rebutting my statement regarding situations such as that of Butch Davis (and he ain't the only one as similar things happened at Maryland) and are instead merely alleging the potential benefit, correct?

And even if your allegation were true, financial gain is not the sole purpose of colleges. Lots of things bring in money for colleges, yet colleges exercise judgment on whether to pursue these avenues. Most, if not all, colleges divested from investment in South Africa, and this is not done because said investments were losing money.

You may say that football attracts more donations, and while you have not provided any evidence showing that this is preferable to the alternative, I would concede that the football programs of certain schools do indeed generate revenue. However, as mentioned above, revenue generation isn't the sole purpose of colleges, and such outsized financial influences have negative effects on the student population. The apotheosis of players and coaches are linked to the revenue generation, effectively allowing them to be held unaccountable for their actions.