or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Are college athletics good or bad?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Are college athletics good or bad? - Page 7

post #91 of 240
Thread Starter 
on point #2, i guess that's where the compromise is. the biggest problem i see is the schools that you're describing who continue to blow money into athletics incorrectly.
post #92 of 240
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennglock View Post
Jesus man, not every athletic department is going to be a major feeder to the professional ranks. It is actually possible to have a good experience playing on a team that's not making waves in the BCS, or even your own division. The proper measure of a "shitty" athletic program is probably whether students are willing to participate in it. So Im guessing plenty of your peers would disagree with your assessment.
that's a dumb guess, because very few people are into the programs. some people are, but a small college like this...yeah, a tremendous majority don't even know what kind of sports we participate in. same can be said for plenty of other small schools. and considering how we only just started cutting these programs (or moving into a club situation like the other guy described), it's a huge blemish because they're cutting majors and letting go of teachers because we've carried bullshit athletics for far too long. it's not as big of a deal for bigger schools, and they're fine. if you're LSU, ohio, or whatever, go ahead and fund athletics if you must. i can overlook that. but for every giant university like that, tons more are full of shit with the athletic bullshit.
post #93 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjakapeanut View Post
in the eyes of the students -- the ones paying money -- they're going for the education. i understand what you're saying, what the univeristy is trying to do -- in regards to research and making money. i understand that. but the average student isn't interested in that. their goal is to get an education. that's the point i'm making here. i think if you ask 100 students why they went to school, most will tell you they went for the education and experience,

Now I'm probably going to open up a can of worms here, but I'll say it anyways. You say that students aren't interested in research, but instead in receiving a quality education. How do you define a quality education? Who would provide this quality education? I think that the research ability of a university is strongly related to the level of education that is provided. Why do people go to schools like M.I.T. or Harvard, etc.? Likely to receive a good education you could assume. So why is it that these schools have reputations for providing a quality education? Likely because of the professors/instructors that teach there. I don't think it is coincidence that these "quality" teachers are also likely to be widely considered as top researches in their respective fields. My point here is that you probably can't separate out education from research. Now, you probably are correct that the average student doesn't care about research and how the university provides quality instruction to them, but that doesn't mean the mechanics behind it are unimportant. I don't particularly care how my car runs, but I do care that it runs.

Now, of course, everything I just said isn't absolute law or anything. I'm sure there are small college that don't produce research in any meaningful sense that provide an excellent education. Likewise there are researches out there who are horrible teachers and could care less about student learning. But both of these groups are probably marginal at best. With all this said your argument is turning into less of one about athletics affecting school budgets and more of a big university vs. small school comparison.
post #94 of 240
Thread Starter 
yeah, that's a new can of worms. and i'm not afraid to admit that i probably have no business in that debate. i'm ill informed. all i can say is that the problem i see with regard to athletics and such...is that small universities, in many circumstances, shouldn't take part. yet they do.
post #95 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjakapeanut View Post
in the eyes of the students -- the ones paying money -- they're going for the education...

Can I just chip in, ad hoc rescue? And that tuition usually covers far less than half of the actual price of undergraduate attendance?

Carry on
post #96 of 240



- B
post #97 of 240
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post
Can I just chip in, ad hoc rescue? And that tuition usually covers far less than half of the actual price of undergraduate attendance?

Carry on

we kind of veered off topic
post #98 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by voxsartoria View Post



- B

Well this was taken when she was in High School... I think.
post #99 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjakapeanut View Post
see the only flaw with that problem is that the athletics actually don't help improve educational quality. they hurt it. so that's where we're differing in opinion.

You're wrong. The end.
post #100 of 240
I don't have time to look it up for you but you can google it. I know there was a recent story involving Rutger's University and their program.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prada_Ferragamo View Post
So what if they have a decline in male students, they can have in increase in female students. I want to see this proven statistic.
post #101 of 240
this took me 10 seconds to find, it's not the article about football and population but it is another article of why universities invest in their athletic programs.
http://www.thesportjournal.org/artic...c-universities
I'm not going to post on this site, I don't think the OP has done anything unreasonable and I can't believe how people act on this thread. I don't know why people can't discuss this rationally.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prada_Ferragamo View Post
So what if they have a decline in male students, they can have in increase in female students. I want to see this proven statistic.
post #102 of 240
Somewhat relevant article from the Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/sp...ewanted=1&_r=1

Quote:
All but 14 of the 120 athletic programs in the Football Bowl Subdivision "” the highest level of college sports "” lost money in the 2008-9 academic year, down from 25 profitable programs the year before, according to the N.C.A.A.

American attitude towards "higher education" these days is a complete joke.
post #103 of 240
Anyway, admissions for American colleges often take a very holistic approach by looking at extracurricular activities. Sports being a major one. It's simply viewed as an integral part of the total educational experience.

This whole thread just reeks of . Why fund anything not explicitly tied to the quality of academics?
post #104 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjakapeanut View Post
in the eyes of the students -- the ones paying money -- they're going for the education. i understand what you're saying, what the univeristy is trying to do -- in regards to research and making money. i understand that. but the average student isn't interested in that. their goal is to get an education[This is highly debatable. Most students likely just want a degree so they can get a job. Learning is secondary to that]. that's the point i'm making here. i think if you ask 100 students why they went to school, most will tell you they went for the education and experience. [And what's a huge part of that experience? Sports. So schools are just meetings students' desires.] you guys are missing my argument, probably because i'm framing it poorly. [No, you're just routinely wrong in so many ways.] for every university that you guys bring up that's making money (and it's debatable that they are [not true]), there are many more (like mine) who have shitty athletic programs that shouldn't exist [Some figures for what your school spends would be nice, rather than you talking out of your ass with some normative statements.]. these programs don't attract students, either. or donations. [Not true] BIG football schools like LSU, alabama, ohio state....students go their for the football. but these smaller schools....no one gives a shit about these tiny programs. [Not true at all] i understand the research argument, but it pretty much doesn't apply to these tiny universities [not true, please stop talking about shit you clearly know nothing about], because you...well, atleast in my example, you wouldn't go to my school. you'd go to LSU. big daddy. that's where the research and athletics arguments work [Not true].
Guys guys, rjp-nut's made up his mind. We should just accept his beliefs. Underlined sections are pure lulz.
post #105 of 240
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by v.freeman View Post
Somewhat relevant article from the Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/sp...ewanted=1&_r=1



American attitude towards "higher education" these days is a complete joke.

the thing that people don't get is that just the highest division. aka what you'd expect to make the most $$$.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Chat
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Are college athletics good or bad?