Finally a University that is smart...

Excellent post. Has there ever been a study that compares alumni giving following a successful football season vs. an unsuccessful football season? I'd bet there is a decent correlation. As a Princeton student, I'd imagine that what would bring out the most school pride would be reclaiming the #1 spot in US News & World Report's rankings from Harvard. That's cuz my school is a bunch of nerds, and also because we're 1AA. For big 1-A schools, I'd imagine it would be a winning football team.

Whether you're still bitter about not being good at it or not, the fact is that America is the land of opportunity, freedom and football. When the OTC or Brooks-Hanson is worth $1.5 Billion (the estimated value of the Cowboys, a team who didn't even make the playoffs), then runners can start talking about how football deserves to be cut before track/xc.

Again, this school being D2 basically rules out the economics of football. But to the poster who mentioned the football players not being good enough for D1... last time I checked EVERY athlete at western was not a division 1 athlete, so by that logic shouldn't all D2 sports programs get cut?

So long WWU foosballers! Looks like you guys will be writing obscene remarks and drawing raunchy pictures at different school locker room stalls! I bet WWU's student athlete average GPA will go up by a full point as well!

This thread misses the most obvious conclusion everyone will eventually reach.

WHY DO COLLEGES HAVE ANY SPORTS AT ALL!!!!!

If people want to run, or play football, or gymnastics, etc. they should join or start a club. Why should the U.S. and State taxpayers as well as tuition paying students have some of their money go towards paying for some nitwit to compete for the school. Why should colleges be the minor leagues for professional sports? It's a big waste of money for something no one cares about.

Maybe because athletics is part of a well-rounded education. Of course things have moved far beyond that in the major sports. Once you try to decide what's a waste of money, then you start to get into difficult value judgments. If tuition and tax money should not go to college sports, maybe it shouldn't pay for business schools or law schools either. All the graduates of those institutions do is mismanage my money, chase ambulances, and generally try to rip off the rest of society.

At least the college athletes that go pro provide me with entertainment.

Comrade Obamski wrote:

If people want to run, or play football, or gymnastics, etc. they should join or start a club. Why should the U.S. and State taxpayers as well as tuition paying students have some of their money go towards paying for some nitwit to compete for the school. Why should colleges be the minor leagues for professional sports? It's a big waste of money for something no one cares about.

Not true. One reason Harvard offers more varsity sports than any other college is that Harvard discovered that alumni who were varsity athletes are among the largest doners to the school. Harvard's largest donations have come from former football athletes, followed by former Track & Field athletes.

Having sports at a college (but not spending mega bucks to compete for the national championship) provides a means for students to stay in good physical shape, control stress, learn to work as part of a team, to set and achieve goals...

After long hard hours of studying, students need a break and a way to relax/recharge. Sports is one of the healthiest options for this.

Isn't a bit hypocritical that runners runners would want someone elses program cut? Why not cut their budget instead? Let them do more with less.

a. Only a very small portion of the student body participates on the college sports teams. If it's so great for people, why not make everyone participate? Why do they get free tuition? Two semesters of P.E. don't count.

b. It's possible that alumni athletes donate more, but how much more? It's highly unlikely the "more" that they supposedly give compensates for the more that they take from the school in the form of tuition not paid, expenses incurred through travel, construction and maintenance of sports buildings and facilities, and staff hired to support sports teams.

C. People can exercise without the existence of expensive college sports teams. You see people doing it every day without college uniforms on.

d. The last thing a student needs is some silly sport with all its time demands to distract from his/her studies which will have the more consequencial effect on their lives.

I congratulate all schools that eliminate wasteful fluff in order to provide a more economical education for the vast majority of the student body who aren't on athletic teams.

At the college I attend, around 75% of students are in sports (the college has about 550 students). If the football team (with 90-100 players) were cut, that is up to a 19% decrease in student population. A lot of the student-athletes at the college (myself included) would have never gone to the school if there weren't athletics because they would have never known the college even existed. At some small colleges, sports are necessary because they help bring in numbers which helps bring in the $$.

a. Only a very small portion of the student body participates on the college sports teams. If it's so great for people, why not make everyone participate? Why do they get free tuition? Two semesters of P.E. don't count.

b. It's possible that alumni athletes donate more, but how much more? It's highly unlikely the "more" that they supposedly give compensates for the more that they take from the school in the form of tuition not paid, expenses incurred through travel, construction and maintenance of sports buildings and facilities, and staff hired to support sports teams.

C. People can exercise without the existence of expensive college sports teams. You see people doing it every day without college uniforms on.

d. The last thing a student needs is some silly sport with all its time demands to distract from his/her studies which will have the more consequencial effect on their lives.

I congratulate all schools that eliminate wasteful fluff in order to provide a more economical education for the vast majority of the student body who aren't on athletic teams.

a. I went to a small college where a little less than half the students participated in athletics. No free tuition, at least not for runners.

b. Do you think an alum who was an english or chem major gives back as much as the cost to the college? Also, the mission of the college should be to provide a good well-rounded education to students, not generate alumni contributions in order to make a profit.

c. There is value to participating in a team sport rather than exercising on your own. It teaches you to work with others and develop a sense of being part of a group working toward a goal.

d. Many say that participation in sports builds one's character in a way that helps you later in your professional life. Hardly silly.

Let me see if I can sum up the arguments...athletics CAN further the educational objectives of the institution, but more often than not it doesn't. Yes? No?

Absolutely, YES! Athletes probably learn more valuable life lessons on the field and with the team than they and other students do reading a book and taking a test. Anyone can read a book and take a test, doing so does not teach you to lead, follow, cope with adversity, work with a team, and generally get along with people, all of which are the most challenging aspects of anyone's career. Even being a sports fan offers students a bonding and networking experience with their fellow students, a sense of pride, and appreciation for others' hard work and talents. Please come out of your study cubicle and see the value of extracurriculars, including sports, that your college has to offer.

The "recognition" thing works if you're talking about a Penn State or probably any DI-A school. It's not going to work for D-II or D-III schools. WWU had football for reasons different than Penn State did.

I know that for some schools sports, and particularly football, are seen as ways of attracting more applicants, especially guys. My dad's alma mater, a small Catholic liberal arts school, had a football program while he was there in the late 40s. They were never all that successful and dropped the team sometime in the early to mid 50s. They brought football back in the late 80s, I think, and I know the stated reason was that there were many guys who'd played the sport in high school and would like to play in college but were certainly not good enough for a DI-A program. These guys would never apply to a school without football so the program was resurrected in order to attract applications from people like that.

At James Madison University the football team is successful at the D1-AA level. They won a national championship several years ago and were a semi-finalist this year. They draw comparatively large crowds for their level (they sell out, and I think the stadium is 15,000). Despite this they lose money. Lots of money. At JMU the money to support athletics comes from student activity fees. Sure, they generate some revenue and get some donations but the vast majority comes from fellow students. It is not working to attract more male students either, as JMU is approximately 60% female. It is a decent regional school with a good applicant pool but I doubt it is doing much to enhance its name brand recognition through football.

Mr. Met wrote:

cutting it's football

"its"

I'm only guessing here, but I'd bet that JMU's recognition factor is higher than comparable schools that haven't played for or won a DI-AA football championship recently.

It's a state school, so it's comparable to a Shippensburg (my alma mater,) also a decent state school that's like JMU in that it's right next to I-81 in the Cumberland Valley, but one that plays a mediocre brand of DII football. I'd bet that JMU is more widely recognized than Shippensburg and that their football program is part of the reason.

The big one wrote:

The 2007 NCAA Report found that 69 percent of Western student-athletes receive their degrees in six years or fewer. That was five percentage points higher than the average for student-athletes in the 10-team Great Northwest Athletic Conference (64 percent), and 14 points higher than the national average for NCAA II schools (55 percent).

Wow. DII athletes are a little on the slow side.

This is news?

Possibly, it is hard to quantify how that might translate into a larger, higher quality applicant pool and better job opportunities for graduates. Maybe that balances it out. In my mind I find it is distasteful for some students to be paying large activity fees to subsidize other student's sports. I'll have to look up what those activity fees are.

HRE wrote:

I'm only guessing here, but I'd bet that JMU's recognition factor is higher than comparable schools that haven't played for or won a DI-AA football championship recently.

It's a state school, so it's comparable to a Shippensburg (my alma mater,) also a decent state school that's like JMU in that it's right next to I-81 in the Cumberland Valley, but one that plays a mediocre brand of DII football. I'd bet that JMU is more widely recognized than Shippensburg and that their football program is part of the reason.

HRE wrote:

I'm only guessing here, but I'd bet that JMU's recognition factor is higher than comparable schools that haven't played for or won a DI-AA football championship recently.

It's a state school, so it's comparable to a Shippensburg (my alma mater,) also a decent state school that's like JMU in that it's right next to I-81 in the Cumberland Valley, but one that plays a mediocre brand of DII football. I'd bet that JMU is more widely recognized than Shippensburg and that their football program is part of the reason.

But is it worth the expense? Losing $1 million per year isn't unusual for a school of that size. How many dollars is a school willing to spend in order to gain that? If the decision-making process was based only on a well-researched cost-benefit analysis I'd be surprised. Also, JMU has pissed off a lot of loyal alumni in archery, cross country, gymnastics, track, swimming, wrestling, and fencing in order to gain that football recognition.

I'm not against college football, I'm just against university leadership deluding themselves, or allowing ADs to make themselves look good in the short term while screwing the school in the long term.