<p>I read the article – TRIED to, that is, until the quantitative analysis (page after page) had me gasping for air!</p>
<p>Looks like his conclusions (which he repeated for our benefit at least three times) were that, yes, athletic success leads to more applications, yet the bulk of them is from students “less academically capable” (although it did also attract a fair number of “better students” as well) – it seems sports are more important to them – well, whoda thunk it!</p>
<p>And – get this – students who are more academically inclined care LESS about sports. Wow, what a revelation! This is something that always seemed obvious to me. Now it has been proved mathematically! One has to wonder how much time, thought and sweat (this is about sports after all) went into the research – whose conclusions are probably on the lips of that every ignorant person on the street, oblivious to its existence.</p>
<p>He starts off his paper with that exciting moment in college footbaqll history in 1984 when Boston College beat Miami at the end of the game with a “Hail Mary” pass delivered by everyone’s favorite underdog hero, Doug Flutie. This was, apparently, the “miracle”, that brought BC back from the brink of a financial abyss and started it on the road of unprecedented success in all areas that matter to a university. Notwithstanding the fact that (as he admits in the text) the real credit for BC’s turnaround had to do with its new president, J. Donald Monan, and his Executive VP, Frank Campanella, who, together, did a phenomenal job of solidifying and expanding BC’s fortunes. Flutie was more like the icing on the cake.</p>
<p>He uses this “Flutie Effect” for the base on which he builds his research. But, ironically, in BC’s case the presence of Flutie was just one piece of the pie. It must be evident that BC’s rise and sustained stature in the last thirty years would not have continued had Flutie been its only catalyst.</p>
<p>No, a college needs more than success on the field to maintain a higher level of quality in the long run that the Flutie Effect may have initiated. This he acknowledges. And, this, too, is intuitively obvious.</p>
<p>So, the question is: ‘Of what benefit is this?’</p>
<p>Hail Flutie!</p>
<p>Overall, athletic success has a significant long-term
goodwill effect on future applications and quality. However, students with lower than average
SAT scores tend to have a stronger preference for athletic success, while students with higher
SAT scores have a greater preference for academic quality. Furthermore, the decay rate of
athletics goodwill is significant only for students with lower SAT scores, suggesting that the
goodwill created by intercollegiate athletics resides more extensively with low-ability students
than with their high-ability counterparts. <but, surprisingly,="" athletic="" success="" impacts="" applications="" even="" among="" academically="" stronger="" students.=""></but,></p>