Are college athletics good or bad?

Originally Posted by MrG

Click to expand...

You are aware that this is incorrect, right?

The point of teaching colleges is education, but the point of the university is far more diverse. Education is only one goal for the university; there are many, many others.

Also, you know a lot of athletics programs hire graduate assistants, right? This is basically education for people who wish to become coaches. Getting rid of those positions would effectively take away their ability to get an education in coaching.

would you agree that the main purpose of a university is to educate students?

Originally Posted by rjakapeanut

Click to expand...

would you agree that the main purpose of a university is to educate students?

I wouldn't, no. I would agree that one of the main purposes is to educate students, but it's not the main purpose.

Originally Posted by MrG

Click to expand...

I wouldn't, no. I would agree that one of the main purposes is to educate students, but it's not the main purpose.

what are the other purposes? experience? just the college experience, right? which is all encompassing of athletics etc. right?

Originally Posted by rjakapeanut

Click to expand...

what are the other purposes? experience? just the college experience, right? which is all encompassing of athletics etc. right?

Research, perhaps?

Originally Posted by MrG

Click to expand...

Research, perhaps?

i'm confused by what you mean by this.

i'm asserting that the main purpose of going to a college or university is to get an education. the secondary goals are to have a well rounded experience, which includes social networking, athletics, etc.

if you disagree, what do you think the main goals of the average student going off to a university are?

Originally Posted by MrG

Click to expand...

I think the emphasis on ability, rather than aesthetics, has really been the downfall of women's sports as a revenue-generating proposition.

No doubt. If all women's sports went the route of volleyball and only provided spandex as shorts, I would be more inclined to at least watch for 10 seconds before flipping the channel like I do now. I tell you, friend, there is nothing in sporting events quite as awesome as going to a college volleyball game and seeing all that ass in spandex. And for some reason, in volleyball, the girls seem to retain at least a little bit of femininity, as compared to the ladyboys who play women's basketball. Going to games might be a liiiiiiiiiiiittle creepy for someone your age, but for someone my age, I love it.

My favorite college sports team not only pays for itself, but also kicks in over $1 million to fund other sports.

I see nothing wrong with college sports. I also believe they help recruit students who will never step foot on the field of play.

Originally Posted by rjakapeanut

Click to expand...

i'm confused by what you mean by this.

i'm asserting that the main purpose of going to a college or university is to get an education. the secondary goals are to have a well rounded experience, which includes social networking, athletics, etc.

if you disagree, what do you think the main goals of the average student going off to a university are?

I was responding to the following question:

Originally Posted by rjakapeanut

Click to expand...

would you agree that the main purpose of a university is to educate students?

To that I said "no, I would not list educating students as the main purpose." Another main purpose is research.

That's a different question than the one you've posed in your last post. Moreover, the question you pose in your last post deviates from the argument you've been making throughout the thread, which is a variation on "athletics are bad because they take money from education, which is the reason universities exist in the first place." My point is that universities do not exist solely to provide education.

I'm sincerely not trying to be a dick, but I really think your end of this discussion would benefit greatly from taking some time to learn about why universities exist, how they tend to operate, and what makes them unique relative to other institutions of higher learning. The argumentation you've provided in this thread has really displayed a myopic and one-dimensional understanding of the notion of the university.

Originally Posted by kwilkinson

Click to expand...

No doubt. If all women's sports went the route of volleyball and only provided spandex as shorts, I would be more inclined to at least watch for 10 seconds before flipping the channel like I do now. I tell you, friend, there is nothing in sporting events quite as awesome as going to a college volleyball game and seeing all that ass in spandex. And for some reason, in volleyball, the girls seem to retain at least a little bit of femininity, as compared to the ladyboys who play women's basketball. Going to games might be a liiiiiiiiiiiittle creepy for someone your age, but for someone my age, I love it.

It's funny, I was talking to a friend about this today. I know I'm getting older because a lot of the college girls I see look like kids to me, and that makes them unattractive. This isn't the case with all of them, but some of them just look too young to think of in that context.

It's a little sad. I haz it, teh getting older.

Originally Posted by Dakota rube

Click to expand...

My favorite college sports team not only pays for itself, but also kicks in over $1 million to fund other sports.

I see nothing wrong with college sports. I also believe they help recruit students who will never step foot on the field of play.

Mine has given $8,000,000 to the university over the last two years to help ease the university's budget problems.

i never said they exist solely to provide education. i said that their main purpose -- and greatest purpose -- is to provide education. everything else is secondary, no matter how significant.

no matter how much money athletics "kicks in" for the university itself, that doesn't take away from the fact that the university would be better off in the first place if they weren't sinking money into athletics in the first place.

if you put in...i dont know, let me make up a number: if they put in 25mil, and get back 35mil for a profit of 10 mil for the university, it'd probably have been better in the first place to just put whatever they had into academics -- even if the loss of sports would result in less money from donors (so you dont really have the 25 mil to put in that you had with donations for sports), you're still probably better off.

especially considering how flawed the NCAA is as a whole and how it hurts more students than it helps.

wow, we're opening up a whole new can of worms with this discussion.

but i'm definitely learning stuff from you guys so i appreciate your patience.

PS: the elephant in the room here is that for every university like yours that supposedly kicks profit back to the school, there are countless others who actually have ****** athletic programs and are sinking money into them without getting anything back. like uh, my school does.

Originally Posted by rjakapeanut

Click to expand...

i'm confused by what you mean by this.

i'm asserting that the main purpose of going to a college or university is to get an education. the secondary goals are to have a well rounded experience, which includes social networking, athletics, etc.

if you disagree, what do you think the main goals of the average student going off to a university are?

MrG is 1000% correct. Universities are not in business solely to educate undergrads. In fact, I'd say that is not even their first goal (or second actually).

The overwhelming goal of a university is RESEARCH. They are institutes to do research, to collect money to do research, to sell research, etc.

It just so happens that the system allows for undergrads to be taught by associate professors, graduate students, and more and more, adjunct instructors quite readily due to the nature of the infrastructure and the fact that the university system wants to cultivate new researchers.

In most universities, undergraduate tuition covers the salaries of faculty at best. Your tuition money is a drop in the bucket compared to the research dollars that come in and cover support staff salaries, graduate student stipends, building maintenance, day to day operating expenses, etc.

As a result, if you go to a large research university, you have a range of options, but it is up to you: You can be proactive, get involved and seek out a world class education that will enrich your life greatly. . . . or you can be a lazy bum and coast through. The university is too busy on the big ROI things to hand you a silver platter with an amazing education.

RJPeanut is dumb.

Originally Posted by rjakapeanut

Click to expand...

i never said they exist solely to provide education. i said that their main purpose -- and greatest purpose -- is to provide education. everything else is secondary, no matter how significant.

no matter how much money athletics "kicks in" for the university itself, that doesn't take away from the fact that the university would be better off in the first place if they weren't sinking money into athletics in the first place.

if you put in...i dont know, let me make up a number: if they put in 25mil, and get back 35mil for a profit of 10 mil for the university, it'd probably have been better in the first place to just put whatever they had into academics -- even if the loss of sports would result in less money from donors (so you dont really have the 25 mil to put in that you had with donations for sports), you're still probably better off.

especially considering how flawed the NCAA is as a whole and how it hurts more students than it helps.

wow, we're opening up a whole new can of worms with this discussion.

but i'm definitely learning stuff from you guys so i appreciate your patience.

PS: the elephant in the room here is that for every university like yours that supposedly kicks profit back to the school, there are countless others who actually have ****** athletic programs and are sinking money into them without getting anything back. like uh, my school does.

Milpool's post below gives an excellent rundown on the notion of education vs. research, so I won't do it a disservice by trying to add to it.

The funding example you provide isn't how athletics contributions work, so that's a moot point. Universities don't fund athletics in the manner you describe.

The problem you propose in your postscript is solved by the idea I mentioned earlier. It's not that atletics is a drain as a whole, it's that the revenue-producing sports subsidize the non-revenue-producing sports, which leads to a net loss. However, if you make non-revenue-producing sports clubs sports, they don't cost as much, and the revenue-producers would likely operate in the black. One big problem with this, however, is Title IX, which forces revenue producers like football and men's basketball to, at a minimum, subsidize an equal number of schollies for women, whose sports seldom generate positive net revenue.

I'm not certain I agree with that approach, but I don't have a problem with universities funding athletics. For someone who does object to the practice, however, it's a legitimate potential solution.

Originally Posted by Milpool

Click to expand...

MrG is 1000% correct. Universities are not in business solely to educate undergrads. In fact, I'd say that is not even their first goal (or second actually).

The overwhelming goal of a university is RESEARCH. They are institutes to do research, to collect money to do research, to sell research, etc.

It just so happens that the system allows for undergrads to be taught by associate professors, graduate students, and more and more, adjunct instructors quite readily due to the nature of the infrastructure and the fact that the university system wants to cultivate new researchers.

In most universities, undergraduate tuition covers the salaries of faculty at best. Your tuition money is a drop in the bucket compared to the research dollars that come in and cover support staff salaries, graduate student stipends, building maintenance, day to day operating expenses, etc.

As a result, if you go to a large research university, you have a range of options, but it is up to you: You can be proactive, get involved and seek out a world class education that will enrich your life greatly. . . . or you can be a lazy bum and coast through. The university is too busy on the big ROI things to hand you a silver platter with an amazing education.

Couldn't have said it better m'self.

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.

you guys are missing my argument, probably because i'm framing it poorly.

for every university that you guys bring up that's making money (and it's debatable that they are), there are many more (like mine) who have ****** athletic programs that shouldn't exist. these programs don't attract students, either. or donations.

BIG football schools like LSU, alabama, ohio state....students go their for the football. but these smaller schools....no one gives a **** about these tiny programs.

i understand the research argument, but it pretty much doesn't apply to these tiny universities, 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.

Originally Posted by rjakapeanut

Click to expand...

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.

you guys are missing my argument, probably because i'm framing it poorly.

for every university that you guys bring up that's making money (and it's debatable that they are), there are many more (like mine) who have ****** athletic programs that shouldn't exist. these programs don't attract students, either. or donations.

BIG football schools like LSU, alabama, ohio state....students go their for the football. but these smaller schools....no one gives a **** about these tiny programs.

i understand the research argument, but it pretty much doesn't apply to these tiny universities, 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.

1) Big universities don't really have time to give a damn what you as an average student think. Average students are not the next big grant writing researchers. Your tuition, especially if you are in-state and a state U doesn't even come close to covering what it costs to educate you.

2) There are plenty of colleges that don't dick around about this stuff. Their goal is to educate, the professors are there to educate, professors must do research on their own time, and athletics are nonexistant or simply there as a way for all the students to blow off steam (e.g. club level or intramurals).

3) Get involved in your student government if you want to try to make a change. The better way is to go to the proper school though. Find one that fundamentally agrees with your goals.

Originally Posted by rjakapeanut

Click to expand...

PS: the elephant in the room here is that for every university like yours that supposedly kicks profit back to the school, there are countless others who actually have ****** athletic programs and are sinking money into them without getting anything back. like uh, my school does.

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 "******" athletic program is probably whether students are willing to participate in it. So Im guessing plenty of your peers would disagree with your assessment.