<p>Alexandre, 1998 was the first year of the BCS, not 1997.</p>
<p>
[quote]
No, you just sound like a Cal supporter. When was the last time Cal made it to the Rose Bowl? hehe!
[/quote]
Too long...:( 1959!</p>
<p>We had a chance to play your Wolverines in the 2004 Rose Bowl but Mack Brown lobbied for his Longhorns... Instead we were sent to the Holiday Bowl and played like poor losers.</p>
<p>Whether it started in 1997 or 1998 doesn't change the fact that a dozen or so other programs have had more sucess than Notre Dame in the BCS.</p>
<p>And don't remind of me of 2004 Rose Bowl!!! We had a 31-21 lead entering the 4th quarter and that last minute field goal by Texas killed me!</p>
<p>^ I'll admit, both Texas Rose Bowls were extremely exciting games. Sorry to rehash old wounds. ;)</p>
<p>It's OK, at least I can say that we lost to the 2005 National Championships by 1 point thanks to a last minute field goal! And I agree, Texas definitely spiced up the Rose Bowl, although a lot of that had to do with Vince Young.</p>
<p>Go BEARS! :D</p>
<p>Are we talking Golden Bears or Da Bears? I am all for the latter...not so much for the former!</p>
<p>
[quote]
In regards to Stanford. It's not the best academic/athletic combo. Nobody cares about the 20 championships you have put up from your field hockey, golf, and volleyball teams. Football, Basketball, Baseball in California. Add in hockey in the midwest/NE.
[/quote]
Stanford certainly is up there as one of the best academic/athletic combos. And a sport is a sport. You don't get to pick which sports count and which don't simply because they're more popular or because they fit your frame of reference (ie., alma mater's strengths).</p>
<p>
[quote]
You don't get to pick which sports count and which don't simply because they're more popular or because they fit your frame of reference
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes you do, because that's what makes an "athletic" school. You do the same thing when you rank in terms of academics...pick what counts (teachers) and what doesn't as much (class sizes)</p>
<p>Honestly, some sports, due to the money and national exposure, are definitely more important than others. </p>
<ol>
<li>Football-Basketball
2.Lacrosse-Baseball</li>
<li>Everything else</li>
</ol>
<p>The problem is that, while the sports are just as important to the rest to some, the majority of fans that follow college sports watch the first two categories. Honestly, I don't think there is even a legitimate debate that can be made when trying to compare the importance to a university of a football national title vs, say, a women's golf national title. The important, money making, sports should hold more weight in the system.</p>
<p>Lacrosse? I think you mean Ice Hockey.</p>
<p>Jec,
I agree with you about the revenue aspects of football and men’s basketball. They are dominant. However, other sports that you and Alex mention, like lacrosse (56 men’s teams) and ice hockey (59 teams), are very limited in numbers and geography. These are regional sports.</p>
<p>One sport you are missing, however, is women’s basketball which is much more broadly played (328 Div I teams) and it may also surprise you that the attendance is greater for this sport than either ice hockey or men’s lacrosse. </p>
<p>At one point this winter, I analyzed the fan attendance for men’s ice hockey vs women’s basketball for colleges in the USNWR Top 30 national universities. Only 9 of these colleges played Div I hockey and I compared their attendance with those that played women’s basketball (22 of the USNWR Top 30 have women’s Div I teams and another 7 have women's Div III teams). Here are the results:</p>
<p>Fan Support Rank , Attendance , MEN'S ICE HOCKEY Ratio of Home Attendance to Undergraduate Enrollment , College</p>
<p>1 , 6806 , 0.266 , U Michigan
2 , 4426 , 1.083 , Dartmouth
3 , 4267 , 0.315 , Cornell
4 , 3142 , 0.589 , Yale
5 , 2673 , 0.398 , Harvard
6 , 2126 , 0.447 , Princeton
7 , 1498 , 0.249 , Brown
8 , 350 , 0.070 , Tufts
, na , , MIT</p>
<p>Fan Support Rank , Attendance , WOMEN'S BASKETBALL Ratio of Home Attendance to Undergraduate Enrollment , College</p>
<p>1 , 8831 , 1.057 , Notre Dame
2 , 5929 , 0.937 , Duke
3 , 4455 , 0.698 , Vanderbilt
4 , 4027 , 0.627 , Stanford
5 , 3763 , 0.247 , U North Carolina
6 , 3623 , 0.224 , U Virginia
7 , 1853 , 0.220 , UCLA
8 , 1284 , 0.191 , Harvard
9 , 1273 , 0.168 , U Michigan
10 , 1114 , 0.162 , Northwestern</p>
<p>Granted, neither of these sports can match the attendance figures for men’s basketball in the winter and they are dwarfed by the football attendance in the fall, but women’s sports are playing a more prominent part on college campuses and are being followed by more and more fans (including surprising numbers of secure men :) ).</p>
<p>But Hawkette, you should take into account the size of the Ice Hockey arenas. They only seat 2,000-6,000 people. The schools you menion above are 100% sold out for each and every single hockey game. If Michigan's Yost Arena could seat 30,000, it would be sold out. Hell, if it could seat 50,000, I still think it would be sold out. Same goes for Cornell. I am not sure about the other programs, but I would not be surprised if their Hockey programs could potentially attract much larger crowds.</p>
<p>This said, I agree that Hockey and Baseball are nowhere near the level of Men's Basketball or Football.</p>
<p>"In the end, it's just wishful thinking on my part for wanting a system in which very selective schools in major sporting conferences don't sacrifice academic standards to try to maintain some level of atheletic competition. Let's face it, most atheletes aren't the brightest crayons in the box."</p>
<p>"Athletes work just as hard as other students, although maybe not in the classroom. Do you have a similar bias against musicians and artists? Do you consider them to be not the brightest crayon, either? Are the 'brightest' crayons just the academic high achievers?"</p>
<p>Not the OP, and I disagree with the assertion that athletes aren't the brightest crayons in the box since there are undoubtedly plenty of very smart student-athletes. </p>
<p>However, I consider achievement in music and art part of academic high achievement, and I place those on a higher plane as part of a college's mission than I do the college's mission (or lack thereof) to produce / support spectator sports. Music and art are, to me, on an equal plane with English and chemistry and physics and history and whatever else the school offers academically.</p>
<p>If the college decides to spend $X on a new music or arts building, that's investing in the mission of the school just as much as if they spent that money on a new chemistry lab. If the college decides to spend $X on a new stadium, they're not investing in the mission of the school (unless they offer a major in football). It may still very well be a smart BUSINESS decision insofar as their stadium and/or teams generate revenue that can be plowed back into the mission of the school (creating more music buildings and chemistry labs and so forth) but I don't think that the sports themselves are or should be the mission. I am quite aware Hawkette may disagree and that's ok :-) </p>
<p>And before everyone gets all upset about sports not being considered on the same plane as music and art in terms of school mission, are you judging all athletic endeavors equally? Is supporting the baton-twirlers as important as supporting the football / b-ball / hockey / lax players, and on what basis do you make that determination? I would expect someone to say that baton-twirling doesn't bring in revenue the way that football (etc) does, which is true -- but then it means that you're valuing sports by their revenue potential, which is a different way of valuing things than how we typically value academics. (For example, no one tries to rank English over physics based on the revenue they bring to the school, or for that matter what they cost to run well.)</p>
<p>I have never posted that the sports of a college are or should be the mission of a college. </p>
<p>I have frequently posted that college sports and the life/fun that surrounds them can be an additive, positive experience on many college campuses, even for those who don't even like the games, but enjoy the spectacle and the social gatherings.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Do you even know how athletic recruiting or sports marketing works? Joe Schmo with a 900 on his SAT isn't going to get into a school because he can play golf. He could get in if he's going to play basketball though. The rules are bent more for bigger sports.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, do you even know how debating works? Sure, the rules are bent more for the 'money' sports. Have I ever said otherwise? Hence, what exactly is the relevance of this point? Do you even have a point here? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, I love how you say Cal baseball isn't a great revenue generator because they only have students come to their games. Surely you've taken into account merchandise, TV contracts, advertisements at the stadium, concessions into your account right? Oh wait, you didn't. Nice job.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh yeah, because those other categories like concessions and stadium advertising really generate a lot of money, right - enough to cover the cost of the team, right? Nice job.</p>
<p>Look, I said it before, I'll say it again. The real money in college sports comes from TV rights fees. Tell me again: how much TV money does Cal baseball pull in? Exactly. Heck, does anybody even know what TV network the Cal baseball team is even broadcast on? Right. Again, nice job. </p>
<p>Look, LaxAttack09, before you respond, just think carefully about exactly how much money you think the Cal baseball team can reasonably generate, and then subtract out the costs of the team, and see if you can come up with a reasonable profit margin (or, heck, any profit margin). You talk about stadium advertising. Yet, without TV coverage, advertisers aren't exactly going to want to pay a lot. After all, such advertising becomes little more than a roadside billboard - in fact, worse than a roadside billboard because at least a billboard is viewable 24 hours a day, whereas a stadium ad is viewable only during games. You talk about concessions: but again, how much does that make? Trust me, the Cal baseball stadium ain't exactly packed during gameday. The vast vast majority of students don't even know that a game is being played, and frankly, don't really care. Couple that with the fact that students don't even need tickets to get into the game, are hence free to walk in and out whenever they want, and that the baseball stadium is located near a downtown area with numerous shops, bars, and restaurants, and that the gate agents don't really care if students are bringing food/drink in...tell me again, how much does concessions bring in? Regarding merchandise: you gotta be kidding me, right? I don't know about you, but I don't exactly see a lot of people champing at the bit to buy an authentic Cal baseball jersey. Or, heck, anything else affiliated with Cal baseball. Cal football and, to a lesser extent, basketball, sure. But baseball? </p>
<p>Here are the offerings specific to Cal baseball at the Cal pro shop. Do you think any of these items are hot sellers? Be honest with yourself. </p>
<p>Men's</a> Varsity Baseball</p>
<p>Add up the baseball scholarships, the salaries of the coaches, the equipment, the game travel, and it's hard for me to see that Cal baseball actually generates a profit. If you disagree, fair enough, by all means lay out a financial scenario where profit is to be had. Oh, can't do it? Nice job.</p>
<p>and then there are programs such as womens basketball at uconn and tennessee that attract more fans and money than every other sport except football and mens basketball....</p>
<p>"Look, I said it before, I'll say it again. The real money in college sports comes from TV rights fees. Tell me again: how much TV money does Cal baseball pull in? Exactly. Heck, does anybody even know what TV network the Cal baseball team is even broadcast on? Right. Again, nice job."</p>
<p>It's my understanding, though I could be wrong, is that the revenue from the TV rights fees is really why Northwestern stays in the Big 10, since it otherwise doesn't really "fit."</p>