The Debate Between Supporting Academics And Athletics

Some schools make so much money on athletics (Football) that the Athletic Association gives money to the academic side of the school: TX, u(sic)GA, Florida(?), otherwise known as Football Factories. These are revenue producing programs unlike a published professor who brings in little cash, (see Nick Saban’s salary vs. Dr. Jones’s salary in Sociology).

Some schools need funds from Alums and the school to fund Football (see GT, see Vandy).

I found this article fascinating, and it does mention UCLA by name.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/blog/athletics_over_academics_an_im.php?page=all

Money, the root of all evil, but fans will skip their mortgage payment to buy an inflatable Auburn Tiger for the front yard (NASCAR fans=no braces for the kids because that Earnhardt leather jacket is a must have).

So it is the have’s and have-nots.

Let’s tax ESPN, CBS, ABC. They make all the money, they distribute huge amounts of money, but mostly to Football Factories. Let’s apply the Rozelle rule and split it evenly by Division 1, 1A, 2, and 3 and see where we get.

I wouldn’t cut any giving to the school because of Athletic performance. I wouldn’t cut giving because the IE School loses it’s #1 World Rank. I would cut giving if a long time coach shielded the hallowed program from the depredations of a pervert child abuser.

…upgraded this season. Used to be in that Greek block student seating and now we have Upper North Deck season tickets. We don’t yet donate to the AT Fund, but we go to the games and buy GT merchandise pretty much whenever it strikes our fancy.

But I do have a general opinion about these things.

Sports were part of the earliest development of colleges and universities because of the Athenian ideal that a sound mind must inhabit a sound body. Sports were considered one facet of a well rounded education. Somewhere along the way people started getting paid to do athletics, not necessary an evil thing if this is your only way to make a livelihood. The problem was that professional athletes existing along side college athletes set up a slippery slope for anyone interested in sports. Do I engage in athletics as part of a well rounded curriculum or do I engage in athletics because it is the only thing I think I can do to make money? If it is the latter then athletics is cut loose from its original moorings and education becomes secondary at best and totally unimportant at worst.

Some schools dropped “big time” sports years ago and chose to focus on non-scholarship and intramural sports because they saw the danger of institutions beginning to exist only for the sake of supporting sports rather than sports coming under the larger umbrella of education. A side note is that Bobby Jones chose rookie status because in his time he was clear that playing for money meant it was no longer a sport. That is pretty close to the Athenian model. (does anyone find it ironic that I keep referring to a place called Athens when referring to academic ideals?)

Anyway, the reason I became a Tech fan as a youth was that I sensed this was an institution that did not want to sell out to those crass commercial interests that view academics as a nuisance that interferes with sports. But here is the elephant in the room. There are lots of people who are good enough to play in the NFL but they are not good enough to get into college. Funny thing though, colleges are the farm system for the NFL. There really isn’t any other way to get prepared for the NFL than to play in college. So where do all these players go who can only make a living by playing football but who really aren’t college material?

Let’s just put it this way. The occasionally line up across the line of scrimmage from Georgia Tech.

I have yet to experience the whole “paying a substantial amount of money for athletics” thing yet (football seasons tix are ~$40 for season tickets or free if you play it right, everything else is free) but I can certainly appreciate the importance of giving back in other ways. This school and the people I’ve met here (read: the fraternity) have shaped me into a new man from the one I was 5 years ago, and will give a jump over everyone else in the career path. I guess what I’m saying is that I don’t think I’ll ever stop giving to the school and the fraternity when I have graduation moneez, but I’ll sure as hell stop buying season tickets if we start sucking it up for a while.

Maintaining winning sports programs has no bearing on my decision to support the school. It doesn’t even impact my decision to go to games or not. The only things that would are my own personal circumstances. I try to make multiple football, basketball, and baseball games a year regardless of the current success of said programs.

The people who think not paying for tickets or not donating is the right way to get change are imo, not looking at the whole picture. Yes, not going to games sends an obvious and clear message that the fanbase is unhappy with the current situation, but that combined with a complete stop in support also makes it much more difficult to actually make change in this era of extreme buyouts. Look no further than the situation GT was in with Hewitt’s ridiculous buyout and contract.

In today’s economy, it is getting harder and harder to justify buying out coaches and fully replacing an entire staff.