quote:

---

...at a particular subset of schools- that subset mostly being power conference FBS-level schools with less than great academics- that the athletic department can play a role in improving the admissions outlook...

---

The Flutie Effect was termed at Boston College. A good friend did his MBA at Michigan because of the athletics culture. He could have done his MBA at comparable academic institutions with lesser athletics.

Heck, even baylor applications went way up after RGIII won the Heisman. The effect is huge. More applicants means the university gets to admit better students. Better students raise the academic ratings.

Moreso, when football and hoops win, alumni giving goes up across the board.

Yes, there are a handful of schools that succeed without strong athletics. Most of them are very old and have huge endowments.

quote:

---

I've never heard of half of those schools. The might as well be Tom's Trucking Academy or Hillary's Hair and Beauty school. Now tell us all how superior you are to us because we are a bunch of hayseed rednecks from Texas.

---

I don't know if you're a redneck, I'm from 10 miles outside of a 2A town between CS and Waco, but I'm convinced you're an 80 year old that's never left your hometown. I guess if you're a huge fish in your tiny pond you don't need to see the outside world.

And we can all completely ignore your uninformed opinions of academic excellence from now on (not that a lack of knowledge has ever stopped your sesquepedalian logorrhea)

Revenue from Alabama's athletic department is what funds their academic scholarships, and they give away a lot of money.

My daughter got a full out of state tuition scholarship next year. She was thinking of going to med school, but will probably become a speech therapist instead. Either way, she'll have money for grad school.

Alabama has attracted a lot of smart kid's with their honors college and great scholarships. My daughter's 3 roommates are all National Merit Finalists.

We live in California, and one of the reasons she didn't consider A&M was because of costs.

I wish A&M funded more academic scholarships. My son is a senior there and it's been expensive! Hopefully he'll get a good job when he graduates!

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?

quote:

---

Do you think Mark Helfritch (Oregon's head football coach) get paid $2 million a year to coach a minor league football team? Would Rob Mullens (Oregon's athletic director) have a job? Would he get paid $500,000 a year to be some sort of equivalent front office man in the minor leagues? Do you think Oregon's football players would have a facility like this if they were playing minor league football?

Ask yourself this, too: Why hasn't the NFL created a minor league system? (Answer: They know attaching the "minor league" team to a college with an consent influx of a captured audience of new fans (students who turn into alumni) is means better coaching, better facilities, etc... and creates an almost blind allegiance to players after they leave college and enter the league and that means more eyeballs on TV)

---

I could make up all kinds of conjecture about what or where Helfritch or Mullens would be without the current organizational setup in football - but it would be a silly guess, much like your silly hypothetical is.

The NFL hasn't created a minor league system simply because they have college athletics as a defacto system - they'd be stupid to try to compete with that. And again, because football evolved through college athletics (unlike baseball), it is a completely different animal.

I don't think anybody is arguing that college athletics would not be around were it not for colleges. That's pretty much a given. But to make the argument that athletics is strictly a subset and is subservient to the university is assinine. As pointed out by numerous folks, many university athletic departments fund other areas and any argument that athletics is not the most visible part of the vast majority of universities is just being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse. And to intimate that many universities would be in the same position today had their athletic programs not brought money and attention to the university is just being silly.

quote:

---

The same Sewanne whose endowment of over $340 million rivals that of Mississippi State? The same Sewanne that is often ranked higher than the overwhelming majority of the SEC in academic rankings?

That the only athletic news we have ever heard out of Cal Tech is that their basketball team ended their 228 game losing streak ought to put an end to any conversation athletics is at all necessary to successful and well respected academic, research, funding, and grant programs.

---

Yes, the same Sewanee college that is a liberal arts and theological college. You neglected to include that in your attempt at disproving my point with respect to rankings. Being ranked the #45 Liberal Arts college in the country is something to brag about - in the world of liberal arts. Not so much when comparing a university to a technical university or a school with a heavy emphasis on law or business.

Endowments are really not much of an indicator as to the overall success of a college - for example, Sewanee has a decent endowment because one of the founders pledged $25k per year, every year to the university - starting in 1857 (BTW, that is the equivalent of over $675k in today's money - every year, from one person). Private school endowments are also, generally speaking, different than public universities because they have significantly more discretion and control over investment and spending.

Miami is also an example of what happens to a college when athletics become a massive part of the entire university. Look at what Miami was prior to the 1980's, the massive growth during the 80's and 90's, and then look at how that correlates perfectly with their football program becoming a dominant program and winning multiple national championships. Hell, even in the 30 for 30 show on them, it was stated without ambiguity that the increase in enrollment in the mid 80's when Schnellenberger really took the football program and turned it into an annual powerhouse was directly attributed to the success of the football team. And success in other areas seems to follow shortly after as well. (Flutie effect)

quote:

---

But to make the argument that athletics is strictly a subset and is subservient to the university is assinine.

---

ALL athletics? then no

However if you meant your statement to be:

quote:

---

But to make the argument that college
athletics is strictly a subset and is subservient to the university is assinine.

---

Then sorry, I find that statement asinine.

It's also kind of silly to compare a school like Harvard or Yale to Oregon or Texas A&M - they are not the same and you simply cannot make straight line comparisons.

A bit of research into some of the older ivy league schools would also be a good thing - they weren't always like they are now with respect to athletics. There was a time where Harvard and Yale were football powerhouses and put a metric crap ton of emphasis on getting the best athletes on campus so their football programs would be the best they could be. The de-emphasis on athletics is actually a pretty recent phenomenon with many of the schools that you point to as examples of a school that is academics above all else.

Bottom line though - comparing a school that was founding in 1636 as a private university for Massachusetts upper society that was founded as a general college and a medical college with a land grant university founded in 1876 that is a public university who's specific areas of education were agriculture and engineering and who's primary demographic was poor farm kids from rural Texas is pretty much the same as trying to draw a straight line comparison between a rock and a quasar.

You're getting really of track with those (obvious) statements.

Personally I find paying collegiate coaches millions of dollars, half billion dollar stadiums and billion dollar TV contracts to be asinine.

And yes, I do understand the economics and who does and doesn't profit. I don't think that collegiate athletics should have no role, I just think that big time college football is disgustingly over-valued and over-emphasized. It's primary purpose is to build up and assuage the egos of alumni and others. No that's not ALL that it's about, but make no mistake, ego, not education, is the prime driver of big-time collegiate football.

quote:

---

There was a time where Harvard and Yale were football powerhouses and put a metric crap ton of emphasis on getting the best athletes on campus so their football programs would be the best they could be.

---

While those are true statements (although they didn't really recruit, at least not in the sense the word is used now) "powerhouse" meant something totally different. back then. Football was regional, and relatively tiny amounts of money were spent on it. It was truly subservient to education and was intended to be a community building exercise and a diversion for the rigors of study. For example Yale's 12-0 season in 1900 - the furthest from New Haven they traveled was Princeton, NJ which is all of 132 miles!

And interestingly enough, I'm going to "The Game" this November at Yale.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Yes, the same Sewanee college that is a liberal arts and theological college. You neglected to include that in your attempt at disproving my point with respect to rankings. Being ranked the #45 Liberal Arts college in the country is something to brag about - in the world of liberal arts. Not so much when comparing a university to a technical university or a school with a heavy emphasis on law or business.


Miami is also an example of what happens to a college when athletics become a massive part of the entire university. Look at what Miami was prior to the 1980's, the massive growth during the 80's and 90's, and then look at how that correlates perfectly with their football program becoming a dominant program and winning multiple national championships. Hell, even in the 30 for 30 show on them, it was stated without ambiguity that the increase in enrollment in the mid 80's when Schnellenberger really took the football program and turned it into an annual powerhouse was directly attributed to the success of the football team. And success in other areas seems to follow shortly after as well. (Flutie effect)

---

---

1) Your knowledge of what "liberal arts college" means is lacking. Harvey Mudd, for example, is a "liberal arts college" and it is also one of the best undergraduate engineering programs in the world.

2) Citing ESPN to prove a point about the academics at the University of Miami is a little weak. I challenge you to provide a source that shows Miami's undergraduate rankings rising with their football program (which is a bad example anyway, given the thugs and cheating Miami undertook to achieve that football success - not exactly aligned with the goal of higher education, no?).

NIKE MONEY=PURCHASED TEXAS HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL FIVE STAR PLAYERS!!!!!!!!!

They should question it. The amount of spending is getting out of control and it doesn't seem like it's slowing down, for better or worse.

quote:

---

quote:

---

what you know of these schools' athletic programs:

MIT
Harvard
CalTech
Northwestern
Chicago
Claremont
Pomona
Harvey Mudd
Swarthmore
Smith
Williams
Amherst
USMA/USNA

It's popular on fan message boards to believe that winning in football makes their school better

---

I've never heard of half of those schools. The might as well be Tom's Trucking Academy or Hillary's Hair and Beauty school. Now tell us all how superior you are to us because we are a bunch of hayseed rednecks from Texas.

---

Didn't someone already point out that there are rare exceptions to the "athletics are the front porch of the university" rule earlier? I'm not sure what TM point is other than to repeat what was already written.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

what you know of these schools' athletic programs:

MIT
Harvard
CalTech
Northwestern
Chicago
Claremont
Pomona
Harvey Mudd
Swarthmore
Smith
Williams
Amherst
USMA/USNA

It's popular on fan message boards to believe that winning in football makes their school better

---

I've never heard of half of those schools. The might as well be Tom's Trucking Academy or Hillary's Hair and Beauty school. Now tell us all how superior you are to us because we are a bunch of hayseed rednecks from Texas.

---

Didn't someone already point out that there are rare exceptions to the "athletics are the front porch of the university" rule earlier? I'm not sure what TM point is other than to repeat what was already written.

---

The point is there are many, many exceptions...to the point where I don't think the rule stands anymore.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Butler's basketball team has probably been good for admissions recently

---

Which shows that athletics are the front porch for universities. Which TangoMike was saying isn't true. But he is wrong a lot.

---

Tell me, brilliant one, what you know of these schools' athletic programs:

MIT
Harvard
CalTech
Northwestern
Chicago
Claremont
Pomona
Harvey Mudd
Swarthmore
Smith
Williams
Amherst
USMA/USNA

It's popular on fan message boards to believe that winning in football makes their school better, or that professors choose whom they collaborate in research with based on sports conference affiliation, but the fact is it is completely irrelevant. There are some places like Stanford and UCLA and Michigan that are good at both, but their academic and research prestige is in no way caused by the number of old narcissists who recognize their mascot when the TV is on.

---

You put a B1G school who we played in a bowl game on this list?

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Tell me, brilliant one, what you know of these schools' athletic programs:

MIT
Harvard
CalTech
Northwestern
Chicago
Claremont
Pomona
Harvey Mudd
Swarthmore
Smith
Williams
Amherst
USMA/USNA

It's popular on fan message boards to believe that winning in football makes their school better, or that professors choose whom they collaborate in research with based on sports conference affiliation, but the fact is it is completely irrelevant. There are some places like Stanford and UCLA and Michigan that are good at both, but their academic and research prestige is in no way caused by the number of old narcissists who recognize their mascot when the TV is on.

---

You put a B1G school who we played in a bowl game on this list?

---

---

---

Northwestern that has, in its history, lost 140 more games than it has won and has 2 bowl wins in 11 bowl appearances.

If the best academic schools within the Power Conferences are typically near the bottom of their conferences as far as athletics, does that support the rule or not support the rule?

And Northwestern that happens to be on the ignominious list (along with 2 other high-academic schools) that have been in D1 since its inception and have never made the NCAA basketball tournament

Schmelba,

The University of Chicago left the Big Ten in 1946 and have done more than fine for themselves academically. See, I have anecdotal evidence, too.

The point on Sewanee is they have done just fine and they weren't left in the academic dust by their SEC brethern. For whatever reason, they've got a solid endowment that rivals some SEC schools, and they're pumping out high powered graduates.

Fun fact, with 26 Rhodes Scholars, they'd be tied with Vanderbilt for the most in the SEC. The Rhodes program isn't the end-all be-all of academic measurement, but its got a good history of producing Presidents, Goldman Sachs executives, etc...

Coincidentally, Vanderbilt probably has the worst athletic reputation in the SEC.


I bet you can at least make an educated guess as to whether a minor league football coach would get paid multiple millions of dollars to coach a minor league football team and whether a minor league football team would get a $100 million+ "operations center".

Also, make an educated guess what would happen to the football players and staff at say, Rice, or SMU, or wherever... if their and everyone else's college ceased to exist. Then, make an educated guess as to what would happen to players at FCS schools, and D-II, and D-III schools.

quote:

---

As pointed out by numerous folks, many university athletic departments fund other areas and any argument that athletics is not the most visible part of the vast majority of universities is just being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse.

---

1) Only a handful of athletic departments make enough money to fund themselves, yet alone play any role in funding the rest of the university.

2) By visible you mean the football stadium that's in the middle of the big parking lot with the big tall light poles is visible? Then yes. If by visible you mean actually in some way elevating the academics of the school? I think that's really obtuse.

Look, I at least personally have said athletics is a valuable part of the university and I'm glad we have it and I'm glad we have Title IX and all that stuff, but I think its rather asinine to suggest its a, or even worse, the, key cog at most universities and colleges. Because I just don't see any evidence that it is.

At Oregon and other places whose athletics have a sustained presence in the public eye, sure, I'm sure it plays a part in attracting applications on a regular basis. Is that elevating Oregon's academics or are they getting flooded with more mediocre applications, I don't know. But sure, Oregon athletics is a major marketing tool for that university. I don't doubt that.

None of this really means anything to the original questions, which are 1)Could Oregon's athletic department be just as successful if they spent less money and,

What I was really interested in, 2)Should athletic departments that, for whatever reason, if they find themselves with some extra cash, be opposed to giving that to the academic side of the university?

I don't think they should. I think they should be glad to give away money. I don't understand the near spite that some people in this thread have displayed towards the academic wing of universities.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

If I donated a million dollars to the athletic program and then found it was being used for education I would be pissed. Especially if I was a former player.

---

If the athletic department doesn't need all of your donation, you'd really be pissed off that it got diverted to better the academics of your university?

While it'd be fair to ask questions of why it got diverted, I don't know why you'd be so mad.

And you better be prepared to answer the much more common questions:

From students: "why do I have a MANDATORY athletics department fee?"

From academics: "Why do we subsidize the athletic depaetment every, single year?"

From donators to the univeristy: "why are my donations to the univeristy potentially being diverted to fund the athletic program?"

---

Why would I as a donor, care about any of that? I gave my money to better the athletic department. It should be used for that purpose. And they may not "need" my donation to operate in the black, but it will absolutely Get used by them. Upgrades to facilities, equipment etc. happen all the time.

And same thing. If I donated money to a certain college in the university, and found out another department was stealing it, I would be pissed.

---

Then be pissed, because this happens all the time.

The main thing driving a lot of this is resentment from academic types over the amount of money Phil Knight has donated to athletics. They view every dollar that goes into football as a dollar that could have gone into academics. It doesn't matter that it's Phil Knights money and he can do whatever the hell to he wants to with it or how much he has donated to academics. You have the same thing with Boone Pickens at OSU even though Pickens has donated more to academics then to athletics. The truth is most big athletic supporters also donate to the university general fund and tend to donate more when then the athletics are doing well and increases the university profile.

quote:

---

The main thing driving a lot of this is resentment from academic types over the amount of money Phil Knight has donated to athletics. They view every dollar that goes into football as a dollar that could have gone into academics. It doesn't matter that it's Phil Knights money and he can do whatever the hell to he wants to with it or how much he has donated to academics. You have the same thing with Boone Pickens at OSU even though Pickens has donated more to academics then to athletics. The truth is most big athletic supporters also donate to the university general fund and tend to donate more when then the athletics are doing well and increases the university profile.

---

Phil Knight has donated tons of money to the academic side including $500 million for cancer research. He also donated over $100 million to Stanford's Business School.

Think of the top universities in the country. Most of them suck at football.

Think of the large, mediocre "diploma mill" universities. Many of them are good at football.

Having a good football program in itself is nothing to be proud of. It's only a source of pride for alumni if it complements an outstanding academic institution, which is rare (Stanford, UCLA, Michigan, Notre Dame). I would personally rather A&M be more similar to Cal Berkeley than Auburn (both land grant schools by the way).

Academics >>>>>>>>> Athletics