Apparently football isn't consistent with being a leftist:
Thomas Lifson tells the story better than I could.
Enjoy!
Now THIS is a hoot!
Comments ... #
jhostetler, you didn't read it, did you?
posted by AmericanPie on Sep 10, 2007 at 05:30:09 pm #
I did read it and thought within the above quote was an acurate observation.
posted by jhostetler on Sep 10, 2007 at 05:50:55 pm #
Before we get started, let me state unequivocably that I am a college football fan.
Yet I think there are some good points to be made about priorities in academia. Are colleges supposed to prepare the next generation to lead in business, research, government, and the arts, or is our first priority the tossing around of an inflated hunk of leather?
Far too often it seems that universities place greater emphasis on football and basketball programs than they do on academics.
And Lifson is dead wrong on one important point: many of Cal's academic programs are cutting edge, and in no way seen as the "laughingstock" of academia. Just because the football program has never been a high priority doesn't mean that Cal is somehow an intellectual backwater. In a recent US News ranking, the Cal system had 6 of the top 15 spots among public universities, and Cal-Berkeley was the number one public university in the U.S.
Are there some high-profile radicals in Berkeley ? Sure. Are students somehow "harmed" by being exposed to controversial or unpopular lecturers? Doubtful.
If nothing more, listening to someone with radical politics can make you a better debater, and yesterday's radicals might become tomorrow's icons.
Take Tom Paine, for example, who was once reviled as a dangerous radical.
posted by historymike on Sep 10, 2007 at 06:14:40 pm #
The woman who wrote the article sounds like a pretentious old biddy with a stick up her rear.
I agree with you totally. Why is football so important at universities? Why does it absorb so much funding? To tell you the truth, I couldn't care less about it and wish it would all be chopped down to size so it can be put into the proper perspective with respect to education. How about instead of spending millions and billions of dollars on huge coaching staffs, facilities, training, remedial education for players, and perks, why don't we just make it so that whoever wants to play shows up on the field on Saturdays and plays? Take the money that is saved from athletic scholarships, overpayed coaches, and team perks and spend it on people who know the value of education.
What really erks me is the "attitude" football players and coaching staff are encouraged to have. Whenever I deal with players or the staff, they seem to expect my eyes to light up and expect me to get all tingly so that I fulfill their expectations, no matter what. The spell never seems to work on me. Instead, the only thing I see are overbulked, over indulged, under brained, and under mannered jocks, probably most of whom are qualified to be no where near a university except possibly on the janitorial staff, if that.
Down with millions for football!
posted by ilovetoledo on Sep 11, 2007 at 09:48:25 am #
Why is football so important at universities? Why does it absorb so much funding?ilovetoledo....are you kidding me? Football has become a college icon and an American staple as much as apple pie or turkey on Thanksgiving Day.
Why is it so important and absorb so much funding? Duh....MONEY! I ask you...are 100k+ fans shelling out up 300.00+ a ticket (not to mention concession revenues and the impact out-of towners have on the local economy on game day) going to show up for a version of "Collge Quiz Bowl Saturday"?
Maybe our priorities are a little askwed but our passion for the game and the thrill of competition, the rivalry, the "smash" talk, and pretty young cheerleaders will live on forever!
GO BUCKS!
Money you say? I will just say that at many universities, football does not earn its keep. I would rather we have a better American tradition of honoring students and educators and rewarding them with big pay and bonuses rather than so many sports stars who contribute so little besides setting a poor example for American young people. Overall, as you indicate, I think such sports events appeal to the lower instincts of a people already overdosed on testosterone.
posted by ilovetoledo on Sep 11, 2007 at 12:22:13 pm #
...as you indicate, I think such sports events appeal to the lower instincts of a people already overdosed on testosterone.Yeah....But aint it fun! :)
Are money and quality education correlated?
Have you ever checked out a Dr. Phil book from the lie-berry? Or snagged one from the Goodwills?
Without football, there would be no Kige. Truly a role model for the mainstream newsies and sports aficionados.
http://www.youtube.com/user/SlyFox4569
ilovetoledo -
Perhaps you should do some research into how college athletics are funded before you spout off.
A school that spends (your words) "millions and billions" of dollars on coaching salaries, facilities, and athletic scholarships is going to be deriving that revenue from athletics. (Ticket and merchandise sales, alumni donations earmarked for athletics, etc.) Not routing funds away from academics.
Athletic scholarships do not take funds away from academic scholarships or any other academic function. In fact, many high-earning athletic departments actually make annual contribution to the general scholarship funds of their schools.
Schools with smaller, low revenue athletic programs are also schools that don't give as many scholarships, don't have the highest paid coaches, and don't have multi-million dollar facilities.
The NCAA regularly analyzes the costs of college athletics, and the results are a bit discouraging:
1. 90 percent of college athletic programs spend more than they bring in.
2. Only 22 of 313 Division I athletic departments are self-supporting.
3. The escalating costs of college athletic programs are being driven by scholarships and the salaries of football and basketball coaches.
4. Many schools feel compelled to invest in new sports facilities to compete. This does not show up in the direct costs of athletic programs, and adds long-term debt to institutions that build new stadiums and arenas.
Granted, some football and basketball programs generate a great deal of revenue, but beyond the elite superpowers, college few football and basketball programs are profitable.
For every Ohio State there are many other colleges who must subsidize athletics through tuition.
Now, again, I love my collegiate sports, but I think we should at least be aware of the fact that these programs cost students and taxpayers money, and that we should make informed decisions about sports.
posted by historymike on Sep 12, 2007 at 06:35:21 am #
Thanks for the great statistics, Mike. I agree, I like attending a football game now and then, but I think what we invest in them is outrageous, particularly when getting an education is so expensive.
posted by ilovetoledo on Sep 12, 2007 at 07:45:04 am #
Yeah Krazykat, I agree, testosterone, steroids, and sports all can be alot of fun just like this article shows:
posted by ilovetoledo on Sep 12, 2007 at 08:15:02 am #
historymike,
reading the report, it leaves a lot of questions. it looks like scholarships are the most expensive part of athletic programs (this includes all the non-revenue sports like track and field).
football and basketball probably earn their keep, even in smaller programs.
scholarships have a retail value and wholesale/overhead value, and they allow kids who probably wouldn't otherwise be able to attend college a chance. so i would guess (since public places tend to be secretive of their finances), they cost money on the books, but not so much in real life and have ancillary benefits (if educating athletes is considered good).
analyzing anything with incomplete or speculative information seems like an exercise in futility.
I began this thread with the following statement:
Apparently football isn't consistent with being a leftist
I don't think anyone has disputed the statement, and I'm pretty sure that the comments presented so far are supporting it's truth. I think I get to move my prior statement from the 'hypothesis' stage to the 'theory' stage of truth determination.
Let's try another one.
Soccer is consistent with being a leftist.
How do you respond to that one?
posted by AirTrainer on Sep 20, 2007 at 10:25:33 am #
Good point:
The United States is in danger of becoming a spectator society inhabited by people who can no longer play their own games or even make their own music. The millions and millions of dollars which are proposed for the Strawberry Canyon entertainment extravaganza should instead be spent making sure that all of us, especially our kids, have access to healthy exercise of all kinds, including team sports for those who enjoy them, but also hiking, dancing, swimming, ice skating and other individual pursuits which can be enjoyed into old age.
posted by jhostetler on Sep 10, 2007 at 03:27:01 pm #