A madness that suits U.S. universities

[Cheesesteak]

A madness that suits U.S. universities

By Albert R. Hunt - Bloomberg News - Sunday, April 1, 2007

The finals of the National Collegiate Athletic Association men's basketball tournament are the culmination of a phenomenon strange to people elsewhere. Sixty-five college teams participated in the tournament, which brought in some $1 billion in revenue. Another $2.4 billion is wagered in omnipresent basketball pools each year, and the diversion costs employers, by some estimates, more than $3 billion because of distracted workers.

"March Madness has become very much a part of the lexicon of this country," says Scott Rosner, a professor and associate director of the Sports Business Initiative at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

"For three weeks people across the country look to it as a tremendous diversion." Sports mania affects many countries around the world; sometimes it's a good thing, other times not. China invested huge resources and political capital to win the right to hold the 2008 Summer Olympics. Russia is trying to do likewise with the Winter Games in 2014.

Commerce in many countries comes to a halt during World Cup soccer matches; a dozen years ago, South Africa's victory in the Rugby World Cup was credited with playing a role in racial reconciliation. Even the laid-back Scandinavians get excited about their winter sports.

What is different in America is a craze that's university-centered.

College basketball and football are among the half-dozen most popular spectator sports in America.

"What distinguishes us from everyplace else is the extent to which competitive sports are imbedded in our institutions of higher learning," says William Bowen, a former president of Princeton University who has studied and written about college sports and educational values.

This is a bad thing "when college sports cuts itself off from the university life," says Bowen. "Some teams have their own culture." There are major universities where the jocks, as they're known, live in athletic dormitories with amenities few other students enjoy. They eat, sleep and socialize with few non-athletes.

At dozens of these schools there are dual academic standards; kids who can run fast or shoot basketballs well but aren't so hot at chemistry or history are given preferable treatment on admissions and courses. Many, especially African-Americans, don't graduate.

This culture is reinforced by wealthy alumni, some of whose allegiance to their alma mater seems to rest more on the football or basketball teams than any intellectual discipline. The billionaire oilman T. Boone Pickens a year ago gave $165 million to his alma mater, Oklahoma State University, to be used only for athletics.

Pickens has given other money to the school, though not nearly as much as the athletic grant. It would seem that Oklahoma State, which has half the volumes in its library as its instate rival, the University of Oklahoma, could have used more of that largess for books or professors.

When teams win they bring in more bucks, which makes winning the sine qua non of a program's success. "Plenty of colleges have sold their souls to win," says Rosner. "There are strong incentives to cheat as the chances of getting caught are fairly slim."

Yet the biggest college athletic boosters cringe at the thought of paying these young men and women up front, letting them share in some of the booty that goes to coaches and others. That, they decry, is antithetical to the notion of a student-athlete or an amateur.

That is nonsense, as is the claim that winning athletic programs enhance a school's academic and financial success. One economist found that colleges that score successes in football and basketball reap a windfall in applications and donations but usually only for several years.

"Individual institutions that decide to invest more money in their sports programs in the hope of raising more funds or improving their applicant pools may be throwing good money after bad, and would be wiser to spend the money in other ways," the Knight Foundation Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics reported several years ago.

No one has done better research on the role of intercollegiate athletics in America than the Knight Foundation. (My wife is a board member). There are more reforms needed: greater transparency, stricter scrutiny and tougher punishment of schools that cheat, and a rational stipend system for the athletes.

Those purists, however, who think sports ought to be professionalized and taken out of university life are whistling in the dark. There have been commissions dating back to a 1929 Carnegie Foundation report on this subject, and it's simply too ingrained in the American system to change. It's a lot easier for alums to rally around the basketball or football team than the classics department.

Moreover, there are virtues for the academy. One of the reasons American higher education is the envy of the world is its diversity. Having basketball as well as piano players makes for a more stimulating place. And sports at America's hundreds of smaller colleges, as well as at the elite Ivy League schools, really do feature student athletes and add to the culture of the institution.

That is also true for some of the big-time athletic programs - Duke University basketball, for example - that have enjoyed considerable success without violating the integrity of the institution.

Success lifts campus life. Georgetown University, which returned to the Final Four of the basketball tournament this year for the first time in 22 years, is celebrating a renaissance of school spirit and enthusiasm, dampened slightly by The New York Times revelation last week that one former basketball player was admitted with insufficient academic credentials.

Amid this principled posturing, I have several confessions: I have been a Georgetown basketball season-ticket holder for more than a quarter century, and have focused much more on athletic than academic achievements.

[smupony94]

SMU is rich

[couch 'em]

I was admitted to SMU on the basis of my understanding of math and science. I wasn't expected to be skilled at football. If someone gets into SMU on the basis of their ability in football, why should they be expected to be skilled at math and science?

[The XtC]

[quote="couch 'em"]I was admitted to SMU on the basis of my understanding of math and science. I wasn't expected to be skilled at football. If someone gets into SMU on the basis of their ability in football, why should they be expected to be skilled at math and science?[/quote]

Because we're a university and our mission is educating our students? Maybe?

[smu diamond m]

I was admitted to SMU on the basis of my understanding of math and science. I wasn't expected to be skilled at football. If someone gets into SMU on the basis of their ability in football, why should they be expected to be skilled at math and science?

Because we're a university and our mission is educating our students? Maybe?

Educating them in what? Education is hugely broad. A football player isn't necessarily a math/science type of guy. Maybe they like engineering. Maybe they like Business. Maybe Biology. Chemistry. But maybe, just maybe, they like kinesiology. Or Sports Training. Both are legitimate fields with vast amounts of things that could be taught. You don't have to proof Stoke's theorem to be educated.

EDIT: fixed my spelling mistake

[The XtC]

[quote="smu diamond m"][quote="The XtC"][quote="couch 'em"]I was admitted to SMU on the basis of my understanding of math and science. I wasn't expected to be skilled at football. If someone gets into SMU on the basis of their ability in football, why should they be expected to be skilled at math and science?[/quote]

Because we're a university and our mission is educating our students? Maybe?[/quote]
Educating them in what? Education is hugely broad. A football player isn't necessarily a math/science type of guy. Maybe they like engineering. Maybe they like Business. Maybe Biology. Chemistry. But maybe, just maybe, they like kinestheology. Or Sports Training. Both are legitimate fields with vast amounts of things that could be taught. You don't have to proof Stoke's theorem to be educated.[/quote]

I've heard this argument many times before, and it has a bit of merit, but it's not as simple as some want to make it. There are people at SMU who are dancers, or musicians, or aspiring actors, and they dont need Stoke's Theorem for their chosen professions, either. But to get a college degree and an SMU diploma, they have to pass at least basic math and english, a basic science class (Biology, chemistry, or physics) and a couple of history and sociology classes. It's not their primary interest, but it's part of a college education. You cant hide from that. And I might point out that if you want a degree in Kinesiology (I'm sort of assuming that's what you meant by kines theology) or Sports training, you're going to need a little bit more than the basic sciences, and that requires more than a little bit of math. You cant simply ignore the foundations. If you want to promote a physical education major, I'd be all for that, but those students would still need to pass basic math, english, science, history, etc.

on a personal note, dont lecture me on the validity of kinesiology or sports medicine. I'm a doctor, and fairly well aquainted with both fields.

[smu diamond m]

I was admitted to SMU on the basis of my understanding of math and science. I wasn't expected to be skilled at football. If someone gets into SMU on the basis of their ability in football, why should they be expected to be skilled at math and science?

Because we're a university and our mission is educating our students? Maybe?

Educating them in what? Education is hugely broad. A football player isn't necessarily a math/science type of guy. Maybe they like engineering. Maybe they like Business. Maybe Biology. Chemistry. But maybe, just maybe, they like kinestheology. Or Sports Training. Both are legitimate fields with vast amounts of things that could be taught. You don't have to proof Stoke's theorem to be educated.

I've heard this argument many times before, and it has a bit of merit, but it's not as simple as some want to make it. There are people at SMU who are dancers, or musicians, or aspiring actors, and they dont need Stoke's Theorem for their chosen professions, either. But to get a college degree and an SMU diploma, they have to pass at least basic math and english, a basic science class (Biology, chemistry, or physics) and a couple of history and sociology classes. It's not their primary interest, but it's part of a college education. You cant hide from that. And I might point out that if you want a degree in Kinesiology (I'm sort of assuming that's what you meant by kines theology) or Sports training, you're going to need a little bit more than the basic sciences, and that requires more than a little bit of math. You cant simply ignore the foundations. If you want to promote a physical education major, I'd be all for that, but those students would still need to pass basic math, english, science, history, etc.

on a personal note, dont lecture me on the validity of kinesiology or sports medicine. I'm a doctor, and fairly well aquainted with both fields.

I assumed Kinesiology was spelled like kinesthetics. nope!

I wasn't lecturing, nor was that pointed directly at you. My point wasn't that you don't need a math/science background, it was that you don't need to be an expert. That's why we have Calculus for Business majors, right? Because they don't need it all. I was just pointing out that educating somebody doesn't necessarily entail them learning in-depth math and science. We agree on that.

[couch 'em]

Again, I call for a major in Football. Students would learn basic biology as it relates to football, learn basic finance to understand contracts, learn skills like motivational speaking and education in case they go into coaching, learn football from the broader perspective than their position. It is no different than Dance as a major.

[abezontar]

I agree with that, and think we should add basketball, soccer etc. They would be available to all students, so that anyone interested in becoming a coach/have a sports career of some type could take the classes. Obviously first priority for spots would go to athletes.

[smu diamond m]

I agree with that, and think we should add basketball, soccer etc. They would be available to all students, so that anyone interested in becoming a coach/have a sports career of some type could take the classes. Obviously first priority for spots would go to athletes.

I'd bet a dollar that is against NCAA sanctions.

[The XtC]

Actually, no, its not. All schools are able to set up their own curriculum. If a university wanted to establish a degree in "Football" and give out diplomas for it, they could. It's just that no one has gone that far, yet. Most schools that have PE Majors include courses in "Coaching Football" or "Athletic Training" or "Principles and Theory of Weight Training for Athletic Performance" but those are single 3-hour courses, not a whole degree. A university can do that, if they wish.

Does SMU still offer a degree in Video Games?

(Before the engineers get mad at me, I know the video game degree was actually a pretty strenous program that involved a great deal of computer science and engineering. I'm just using it as an example to prove the points I've been making.)

[abezontar]

If I ever have money I am going to endow such a department.