quote:
quote:
And that's why you can't make overbroad statements, here. Oregon is a special case.
Yes. My answer was specific to Oregon. Oregon's athletics drive the ship. Oregon would be wise to leave the golden goose alone, greedy professors be darned. It could be applied to most of the 20 or 30 athletic programs that do not lose money.
But you're not only talking about Oregon, because you're turning around and saying things like "there are a
handful of schools that succeed without strong athletics" and "there are a
very few universities that do not need athletics."
And you're just wrong. As a lawyer, I'm sure exceptions to rules don't phase you, but when you've got more exceptions to a rule than you do instances that fit the rule, you don't have a rule anymore.
There are too many schools that don't fit your rule and there are too few schools that fit your rule.
There are, more or less, 120-130 schools in FBS. About half, about 65, are in Power Conferences. Only a minority of the schools I would consider "elite" or even "great" or "good" are in FBS, and even fewer are in the Power Conferences.
Top "all-around universities like the Ivy League? Nope. Top Tech schools like MIT or Cal Tech? Nope. Top liberal arts schools like Amherst or Wellesly? Nope. That next level of school like Rochester, Lehigh, Northeastern, Boston U? Nope.
Who are the best FBS/power conference schools? They're Northwestern- damn near the bottom of the Big Ten as far as athletics. They're Rice, who have a nice baseball program and then nothing. They're Vanderbilt, the bottom feeder of the SEC. They're Berkeley, famously not building athletic facilities because they don't want to hurt the trees. They're Georgia Tech, where athletic mediocrity abounds.
Maybe you point to Duke? Nice basketball, for sure. But they're a bottom feeder in ACC football.
It's a pretty common theme- the best power conference academic schools are often among the worst power conference football programs and usually pretty poor in basketball, as well.
Yes, you've got Southern Cal, you've got UCLA, you've got Michigan. But that's a small minority.
I have no doubt athletics can help any university, they offer opportunities to high school kids who otherwise might be short on opportunity, they build community and school pride, and yes, they can lead to increased applications. But to say to say strong academics require strong athletics unless you're a really, really, really old school? That's just not supported by the facts.
BTW, is there evidence that the Flutie Effect leads to more above the average applications (more desirable students) or is just you get flooded with the same quality of application you were already getting? Also, is there evidence that the Flutie Effect leads to any sort of sustained increase in number of applications (and quality) as to make a real difference to the longer term academic outlook of a university?