<p>I went the same way as proud dad's kids, I didn't want very much if any greek life, which was one of the reasons I picked my school. Even a relaxed system like the ones at UR or Kenyon seem unnecessary to me.</p>
<p>This is a down year for Colgate hockey. Look at their record for the prior three seasons.</p>
<p>Even in a down year, Colgate hockey is big time. It's kind of silly to argue about this.</p>
<p>I agree with john wesley - I think athletics can be an even bigger influence on the campus of a LAC than a big time university. It's just a question of numbers of % of the student body who are athletes.</p>
<p>It's not a question of % that are athletes when at the big school 80% are fans and at the LAC teams struggle to get 100 fans. Colgate hockey is big time by LAC or by hockey standards, but it would lose absolutely any comparison to Michigan football. It's ridiculous to use college hockey to justify athletics being big time at LACs. I love hockey. I watch hockey. Compared to other sports, there aren't very many of us, which is why the NHL can't get a legitimate TV deal.</p>
<p>I disagree that it's the number of fans in the seats. It's a matter of campus life and culture - if a large % of the student body are athletes, that will have more of a direct impact on your daily life than whether or not tens of thousands of students show up for the football game on fall Saturday afternoons or whether or not the game is broadcast on ESPN.</p>
<p>and you cant really go by pure numbers- of course a LAC is going to have maybe a couple of hundred fans at most- but yet that still is a significant percentage of the student population!</p>
<br>
<p>I know that at Wesleyan students are more likely to know an athlete personally, but athletics are simply not more important to their campus than Duke's<</p>
<br>
<p>Maybe we're defining the word "important" differently. I think at Duke, sporting events certainly loom larger as an entertainment venue. Does that make it important? I wonder how a Duke student would really answer that? At Wesleyan, it's seen as one of many personal commitments that a fellow student might make over the course of four years; it's part of what might make them a little bit different than you. Does that make it trivial? I don't think so.</p>
<p>Also, ferris - you contradict yourself when you use fans in seats as the standard for big-time sports yet you discount the same measurement when it comes to something like small college hockey which certainly does put fans into seats -- even at Wesleyan.</p>
<p>small college hockey puts a solid number of fans in the seats, but it's not necessarily bigger than hockey at the U of Minnesota, UM Duluth, or others. To compare Colgate hockey to Duke's Cameron Crazies in terms of significance to the campus and impact on campus attitude is kind of nuts. I never said small college athletics are "trivial" johnwesley, obviously they are very important to those involved and to some students at the school. However sports at these schools is not as large a part of the campus identity as it is at larger schools.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Relative influence of Greek life seems to go hand-in-hand with schools where students say if you don't have a fake ID you have no social life. Make your own decisions.
[/quote]
It depends on the college. A college like Occidental, for example, would offer the resources of a major city even if Greek life is large. A college like Kenyon, however, would not. There is a great deal of difference in Greek life being huge at a college in Ann Arbor and Greek life being huge in Cow Pasture, KS.</p>
<p>
[quote]
To compare Colgate hockey to Duke's Cameron Crazies in terms of significance to the campus and impact on campus attitude is kind of nuts.
[/quote]
I can't speak for Colgate, but the importance of athletics at Davidson doesn't compare to the importance of athletics at Duke, even in basketball. No tenting at Davidson! Camping out in cold weather for a month says a lot more about devotion to athletics than showing up to a game, methinks. Of course, it's completely irrelevant because this thread is only comparing LACs. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>ferrisbueller said:</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>yes, but just because 80% of the students at Duke attend sporting events (a stat which I'm accepting at face value just for the moment -- I don't think either of us can verify that) does that mean 80% per cent of them think its an important part of their lives?</p>
<p>I suppose next we'll be considering the quality of the hookers at private athletic-team parties as an indicator of the quality of education? If the main social skill you want to learn at college is how to get drunk with your friends and demean women, there are plenty of schools to choose from. Comparing the ability to enjoy athletics personally and having the facilities to do so versus the frenzy of being obsessed with a professional sports team masquerading as a college activity should be what you're looking for, unless...well, you know best what your own interests are. And who's to say networking through big-time sports affinities isn't productive in the workplace, if that's your goal?</p>
<p>wow proud dad, a bit off the deep end of the rhetoric pool with the hookers bit. You can be a devoted sports fan, and also be a devoted student/member of the college community. Also, not sure which one you're saying, but you can be a fraternity member or a sports fan without demeaning women.</p>
<p>it brings up an interesting point though. someone who couldnt give a rats behind about sports might be much more interested in popularity of theater for example, and thus would rank the LACs MUCH differently.</p>
<p>One-size-fits-all rankings are total nonsense.</p>
<p>Interesting list, interestedad. I agree that list seems to be the ones with the most serious students. </p>
<p>Its also interesting that Berkeley, the first public on that list, doesn't show up until #49. Food for thought</p>
<p>
[quote]
ferrisbueller wrote: wow proud dad, a bit off the deep end of the rhetoric pool with the hookers bit. You can be a devoted sports fan, and also be a devoted student/member of the college community. Also, not sure which one you're saying, but you can be a fraternity member or a sports fan without demeaning women.
[/quote]
I'm glad you understand rhetoric. Now work on hyperbole! The problem on this site is there are no emoticons links ;) .</p>
<p>My point, I suppose, is the we're confusing college athletics (ie. the ability to actually play sports in college) with the money machine that some colleges call athletics. For some that's a point in favor of most LACs. Thank Dog for Title IX or we'd have few true sportsmen (women) playing for the pure sport. But really, as a Yahoo, I'll use any opportunity to take a shot at Duke. If we can't beat them on the court.....</p>
<p>Well what we were talking about is how important sports are to a campus. Is there a money machine at large campuses that exploits athletes? Certianly. However at a great number of these schools that money machine is the primary source of campus unity and entertainment. There are certainly problems in college athletics, and Title IX has been very good for sports, we agree. (Though there have been instances of mens' programs being cut in order to comply, obviously it's been beneficial as a whole.)</p>
<p>Can we get back actually ranking the LACs?</p>
<p>Sure, but it's equally useful to understand the criteria others use to arrive at the rankings. Otherwise a list is just a list.</p>
<p>• broccoli
• corn chex
• toilet paper
• Colby cheese
• 2% milk</p>
<p>Ooops! Wrong list. ;)</p>