<p>Well, using that argument: why do you read? Doesn’t your own life have enough meaning? Why read about someone else’s-- and a fictional character’s, no less?</p>
<p>It’s a hobby-- I enjoy it, it gives me something to talk about with people, and I’ve learned some really great lessons from watching them. Golf, for example, where you’re your own referee and being fair and honest is essential-- I learned about that through watching, that fairness and honesty are important. And racial equality-- C.C. Sabathia and Cliff Lee are equally good pitchers. Ben Roethlisberger and Donovan McNabb are equally good quarterbacks. From kindergarten on, I’ve observed that in sports and applied it in real life. Don’t want to start an argument, but I really think you can learn as much from watching as playing.</p>
<p>I certainly believe in the benefits of sports. What I reject is the assertion, made in the first post, that Harvard has only just recently come around to believing it. :)</p>
<p>I am a sports fan, too. I think sports enriches my life and I love to discuss scores and players with my co-workers. It has served me well in business. I am also an athlete in an individual sport, but that doesn’t change my love for watching team sports. I admire excellence.</p>
<p>xxEMMABEE,
Actually, I don’t read fiction unless I have to. </p>
<p>hoedown,
Do you believe in the benefits of watching sports?</p>
<p>A little bit of entertainment won’t kill you. But many people get involved as spectator or audience to their own detriment. Look at the amount of time and hype devoted to sports by television. They do it because people watch and then buy beer. It’s crazy. Priorities are way out of whack.</p>
<p>someone may have already said this (i didn’t read all the posts) but are people forgetting that the Ivy League was founded as an athletic group? These schools joined together not because they are all elite universities where the best and brightest go, but because they were an athletic league.</p>
<p>given this, it is pretty obvious that at some point athletics was a big deal at these schools. at some point they recognized the value of sporting events, an idea which has been lost as they have all focused solely on academics. i think returning to the Ivy League’s roots as an athletic league is a great idea, and one that would enhance student life greatly.</p>
<p>after all, not all Ivy League-ers just stay in all night studying. They can like sports too and be interested in tailgaiting and cheering on their team – these are not events that are beneath students at IL schools.</p>
<p>I do. There are people who use fandom and spectating as a platform for boorish behavior, sure. But many college students successfully balance their enthusiasm with their school obligations. Students at Michigan have mentioned how much cheering for the teams brings the place together and helps cement the idea of U-M as a community. A pretty big proportion of students mention U-M games as highlights of their time here, including people who were also focused, ambitious, and academically successful. So I definitely believe in its potential value.</p>
<p>I’m highly skeptical that a high-power football program would energize any of the Ivy campuses all that much, especially if the student body thinks that admissions standards were significantly lowered to admit the players. I suppose it might energize some alumni, but as an Ivy alumnus (who played in the marching band), I can tell you that it would have the opposite effect on me.
Here’s my idea: the Ivies should abolish varsity football and basketball, and just hire professional players to play those sports for them. Wouldn’t that satisfy everybody?</p>
<p>You have such a wrong impression of the majority of college athletes. The ones you call “semi-pros” are really a tiny percentage of college athletes. At a school like Vanderbilt, the athletes DO get scholarships and do get a break on the admission standards. HOWEVER, they are kids just like the rest of their peers, and they DO care about their education. I know a number of these kids and I go to the basketball games. They are blessed with size and skills, and they work very, very hard to excel at their sport and be contributors to their team and their university. THIS is the norm- not the few “grunts” that are just passing time until they can get to the pros.<br>
Bobby Knight’s Indiana players graduated at a percentage well into the 90s. They stayed out of trouble and were great members of the school community.
I just get so tired of all the athlete-bashing around here.</p>
<p>how about this? let them play and work hard and strive their utmost to graduate. Like everybody else. Without any scholarships. Like members of the glee club, or the a capella group, or the quizz bowl team.</p>
<p>All those other people are trying, in their respective endeavors and academia as well, they just aren’t getting paid for doing so via free tuition. In other words these people are not semi-pros getting paid. while the athletes are effectively semi-pros, they are being paid via barter, effectively. That’s the difference.</p>
<p>I feel sure that the Ivies could admit athletes with significantly lower grades and scores than they do now, and still have most of those students graduate (with some judicious major and course choices).</p>
<p>Think about this: at many of the Ivies, undergraduate drama and music are major deals. Lots of students attend plays concerts. How much should the university relax its academic expectations in order to attract really top-notch actors and musicians?</p>
<p>I’m sorry Hunt, you’re completely missing the point.
They shouldn’t merely relax standards to attract these really top-notch actors and musicians. That wouldn’t be sufficient inducement.</p>
<p>They should pay them. By giving them free tuition.</p>
<p>I’m sure many posting to this thread will agree with this inevitable logic.</p>
<p>My daughter DID get a merit scholarship from Rice as a musician. As proud as I am of her, she didn’t make as much of an impact on the school community as did the baseball pitcher!</p>
<p>Perhaps we aren’t thinking big enough–hiring football players has really been overdone. Maybe the Ivies could hire gladiators–the students and alumni alike would enjoy giving the “thumbs-up” or “thumbs-down” to a defeated combatant. But is the Yale Bowl big enough for chariot races?</p>
<p>hoedown, I just think it is too bad that a student body would build a sense of community around something as silly as a football game when there are so many more serious and important issues out there. Stand back and look at the sports phenomenon objectively. There are so many life and death or quality-of-life issues that could unite our concerns. But what do we get excited about? A stupid game. What is it that makes a campus feel proud? Having more points on a scoreboard. It is insanity. It is not much better than drugging the student body into a state of euphoria while the world collapses around them. People need to wake up out of their complacency. Not just for humankind in general but for our own individual lives.</p>
<p>Hmmm…well…I do think that even Ivy League students want to have some fun, and will unite over very silly campus traditions and rivalries. This could be football (like the Harvard/Yale game), but I don’t think the quality of the competitors is what matters.</p>
<p>“the alumni would enjoy giving the “thumbs-up” or “thumbs-down” to a defeated combatant”</p>
<p>isn’t that what Paulson, Bernanke and their Ivy buddies have been doing for the last year? </p>
<p>Paulson has almost completely obliterated all of the competition for his former firm. Those losers undoubtedly spent too much time attending silly athletic events and not enough time in their “Machiavelli is God” and Sun-Tzu coursework.</p>
<p>I think it’s presumptuous to assume that I haven’t. </p>
<p>For people in higher ed, it’s a complex issue in terms of budget, priorities, student life, admissions, and behaviors (both positive and negative) associated with student fandom. Sure, one might question the resources and energy spent on sports vis-a-vis other issues, but that wasn’t what you asked. You asked if I saw value to spectator sports on college campuses. I do, and I gave a brief answer why. Personally, it wasn’t a big deal to me; I attended a DIII school with no football team. But I do understand why it appeals to people, and I see evidence that, for some students, it enhances their college experience.</p>
<p>I think it’s flawed to suggest that students who enjoy rooting for a team aren’t also proud of other things. Students here, for example, are very proud of their outreach and community service. They’re proud of their academic achievements. They’re proud of their activism and advocacy. They’re proud of the way discoveries here advance the human condition. Being psyched that your team won doesn’t preclude being proud of other things that are less “silly” and “insane,” to borrow your terms.</p>
<p>It seems to me that we just differ in our opinion. I am not trying to convince you to change your mind. I do object some of the assumptions you’re making about me, and about students who report enjoying sports in college.</p>
<p>I think many of the anti-sports people on this forum are the ones who were picked last for the elementary school kickball team and/or were picked on by the “jocks” in high school. Get over it.</p>
<p>I have a kid who was a music major and attended cultural events every week. She was also proud of Rice’s sports teams and now, as a grad student, is excited about SEC sports. Her athletically clueless doctor/musician husband is also enjoying the sports atmosphere at Vanderbilt. What’s wrong with a little break from the reality of a harsh world? My company happens to have a large business tie to a professional sports team. It has been SO much fun for all of us, and is something we cling to in these economic times which are giving us not much other reason to cheer for anything. I think you, collegehelp, really underestimate the bonding experience sports creates for students AND adults. We aren’t painting our chests blue, but we sure ahve fun!</p>