<p>I don’t get the feeling that she really knows much about college sports. Almost all of the honorable mentions are better than the schools that were given the “award.” Penn State an honorable mention? For example, Penn State. I’m not a PSU fan (my allegiance lies with UVA), but I don’t think there is anything like Beaver Stadium on a Saturday. I’ve been to pretty many games in C-ville, and while they’re fun they don’t nearly compare to Penn State. </p>
<p>I also think that a lot of people are taking this list WAYY to seriously. Maybe that’s just the nature of CC.</p>
<p>Hawkette frequently cited Stanford, Duke, NU, Rice, Vandy and Notre Dame as her ideal blend of academic life and vibrant sports scenes.</p>
<p>However, there is a real and qualitative difference in the extent to which following sports pervades campus life in these schools. Duke, Notre Dame, Vandy and Stanford are more at one end of this spectrum, where team successes are truly unifying to the campus and someone who doesn’t participate in following the team is really “out of the mainstream.” NU and Rice are at the other end of this spectrum, where you can follow / cheer the teams if you like, but it just doesn’t pervade campus life the way it does at the first four and you can very easily ignore it if it’s not your thing. I think it’s a mistake to lump these 6 together. The first four are much more what Hawkette is looking for than the last two.</p>
<p>Rice University - Excellence in Division I major sports of football and basketball that drums up school spirit and allows for the total college well rounded environment, according to Hawkette</p>
<p>NCAA Div. I Football and Basketball Rankings 2009-10</p>
<p>Football (Div. IA and IAA combined)
31. Stanford
45. Northwestern
71. Notre Dame
98. Penn*
101. Duke
128. Harvard*
146. Vanderbilt 151. Rice</p>
<p>Hawkette, thanks for mentioning about the excitement that comes about for fans that love to watch soccer. Now lets take a look at the NCAA college soccer rankings to see which college students get a more well-rounded education by being spectators at these top college soccer games.</p>
<p>NCAA Men’s College Soccer Rankings - 2009
10. Northwestern
13. Duke
15. Harvard*
18. Stanford
27. Princeton*
28. Notre Dame
41. Brown*
50. Dartmouth*
73. Yale*
85. Penn*
91. Cornell*
120. Columbia*
No Team - Vanderbilt No Team - Rice</p>
<p>Hawkette speaking of the excitement of watching the U.S. Soccer team play in the World Cup, do you think that this particular school’s spirit was increased having the U.S. Soccer Team practice on its campus during the school year?</p>
<p>It’s a step in the right direction. I don’t think its necessary to abolish football completely, but I would favor doing away with all athletic scholarships. “But…” you might say, “…what about the poor kids who use athletic scholarships as their ticket out of the ghetto?” Well, this isn’t 1948 anymore. Nearly every decent school offers need-based financial aid that can serve to pull the kids out of the ghetto - the difference being that this kind of aid is contingent upon your ability to excel in the classroom and not on the gridiron, your GPA instead of your size and speed for 40 yards. Make the student-athletes be students first and qualify for admission on the same academic basis as other kids at that school. Then once they have shown in high school that they actually are an academic fit for the college in question, then bring on the financial aid to make education possible for the poor kids.</p>
<p>I think the Ivy League and Div. III have it about right. Provide the sports for kids who want to play, provide the games for the students and alumni who want to watch, but get serious about being a school instead of a football/basketball factory. The Ivy league used to sit atop the college athletic world, but they decided to make hard choices. Were they in the school business or the football business? They made the right call. The football is still there for those who want it, but the primary empahasis of the schools is schooling. What a concept!</p>
<p>JA,
This has been a fun week in South Africa and maybe even Ivy partisans like you will hold their noses and enjoy the spectacle of the USA team. It’s ok, nobody will notice and nobody will hold it against you. We’re all too busy having a good time ourselves and preparing for the next party when we play against Ghana. </p>
<p>As for your lame comparison of Princeton soccer and Rice football, let’s review the facts to put this into perspective:</p>
<p>In the 2009 season, Princeton soccer played 9 home games. Total attendance for the season was 3632, an average of 404 per game. Per game, this is equivalent to 8% of the Princeton undergraduate student body. </p>
<p>In the 2009 season, Rice football played 6 home games. Total attendance for the season was 81,309, an average of 13,555 per game. Per game, this is equivalent to 430% of the Rice undergraduate student body. </p>
<p>Btw, Rice football opens its home season on September 4 against U Texas. You, too, can join in on the fun as the game will be telecast nationally on ESPN.</p>
<p>Enjoying the party more than the game itself is lame. Don’t be a poseur.</p>
<p>College sports make tons of money. To get rid of athletic scholarships would make college athletes even more financially abused by the institutions that profit off them. College athletics is more intensive than a full time job. Pay them like a work study, and it covers the cost of the scholarship. Get rid of scholarships and poor athletes stop going to college, play in a development league hoping to become pros, and then when they don’t make it they’ll have no backup plan for their life. Many won’t even graduate high school, because they won’t need that degree either if they don’t have to go to college.</p>
<p>This is exactly what happens to the academically unqualified “student-athletes” today. They play for their college team (another form of “pro development league”) hoping to become pros. The college exploits them and keeps them academically-eligible under NCAA’s joke rules with a series of crib courses that don’t even come close to adding up to a degree. When their eligibility is up they are out on the street with no degree and no backup plan for their life.</p>
<p>The better system would be to abolish the abused sham of athletic scholarships. Require the student-athletes to qualify for admission like any other student, and to the same academic standards. And them make sure the ones from poor circumstances get plenty of need-based financial aid. </p>
<p>The point is to quit taking cynical advantage of athletes who cannot cut it in the classroom and then abandoning them after four years. Student athletes need to be real, legitimate students first and foremost. And the current system so often operates contrary to that.</p>
<p>^Umm tell that to my friends on the swim and soccer teams who have 3.5-4.0 GPA’s in engineering majors and other hard majors and take the SAME classes and do the SAME work as everyone else IN ADDITION to getting up at 5 AM to practice and train. The same goes with most other sports that aren’t football/basketball. The majority of student-athletes work harder than any of use ever will.</p>
<p>Also, coureur, go look up Myron Rolle on google and tell me that what you are saying applies to every athlete.
Rhodes Scholar, got a 3.8 GPA as a pre-med student, college football star, now playing in the NFL…</p>
We need a more specific methodology. I want to be able to follow your steps and come out with exactly the same list right here at my desk. Are you using Director’s Cup standings? What sports are we considering?
I’m not quite sure how UT could be improved academically for the purposes of this ranking. They are easily one of the top 20 (perhaps top 10) schools in the country in terms of departmental strength per the NRC rankings, and their honors programs (Plan II, Dean’s Scholars, etc.) are among the best-known and most exclusive available.
The only people potentially harmed by the attitude you describe would be the athletes themselves, and if they choose to compete in such a high-pressure environment they know what they are getting into. I agree that academic dollars should not be used to support the athletic programs, but most of the big-money programs you describe earn enough money to cover their own costs as well as the non-revenue sports.</p>
<p>Case in point, yesterday Clemson raised tuition and everyone immediately began accusing Clemson of raising tuition to pay Dabo Swinney, our football coach. No tuition money at Clemson or state funding or academics money go towards our athletics program. Therefore, I see no harm in having a school athletics program that is very reputable if the funding for it comes from tickets, donors and extra revenue.</p>
<p>coureur,
I understand your points and certainly there is some mischief going on at some colleges, but IMO you’re painting with an awfully broad brush to the point of smearing almost every college that doesn’t follow the Ivy athletic model. In reality, lots of excellent colleges make it work successfully even in high profile sports. Places like Stanford, Duke et al make a very big effort to attract legitimate student-athletes and don’t stick them in majors like kinesiology or criminology or other ologies that can be a popular academic domain for marginal student-athletes. </p>
<p>Anyway, the point of the thread was to point to the positives of athletic life and how much fun it can be. The USA soccer team is inspiring parties all across America and I think that is a good thing. The same thing can happen with many major college sporting events, particularly football and basketball (men and women) and baseball. It’s fun and there is lots to look at and be entertained by, both on and off the field. </p>
<p>What are some of the elements of an effervescent college athletic life? In the fall, a football Saturday with a full and energetic stadium…in the winter, a packed gymnasium and a national TV audience…in the spring, a leisurely, well-played, baseball game in the warmth and the sunshine. All are fun, all provide a great outlet for students, all provide a regular connection for alumni. </p>
<p>So, rather than drag down a lot of the kids and their schools because of the actions of a few, I’d rather extol the fine places that seem to do it right…and also laud the benefits that this athletic life can deliver to students, alumni, employees, locals, and even faculty.</p>
<p>Yeah, places like Stanford and Duke do that. Unfortunately there are precious few places like Stanford and Duke. Those two schools are part of the same small handful of exceptions that you have been flogging for years here on CC. Long time readers of CC can no doubt recite your short list of school by heart. And I agree that those few schools are doing fine. </p>
<p>But you seem to suggest that all a school has to do to be like Stanford and Duke is want to or resolve to. And many or even most schools would love to do it just like Stanford and Duke if they could. BUT THEY CAN’T! And the simple reason is that there just aren’t enough excellent scholars who are ALSO blue-chip athletes to go around. The limited numbers of scholar/athletes who are available end up going (you guessed it) to Stanford and Duke - and the handful of schools like Stanford and Duke.</p>
<p>But poor old Ordinary State U. can’t attract those students, and yet they still want to win at football. The sports-mad public expects and demands it. So what to do? They mostly let down their academic standards and offer admission and scholarships to guys who weigh 270 and can run the 40 in 4 seconds flat but can’t spell “NCAA.” But hey, there is always room on the team for someone who weighs 270 and can beat people into jelly in 4 seconds flat. And that’s what starts the vicious cycle of colleges exploiting athletes who are simply not college material. It’s sad really. Simply sad.</p>
<p>coureur, I go to ordinary state u and you’re ignoring my comment…also college athletics isn’t all about football…</p>
<p>“^Umm tell that to my friends on the swim and soccer teams who have 3.5-4.0 GPA’s in engineering majors and other hard majors and take the SAME classes and do the SAME work as everyone else IN ADDITION to getting up at 5 AM to practice and train. The same goes with most other sports that aren’t football/basketball. The majority of student-athletes work harder than any of use ever will.”</p>
<p>^^They could spend the next four years pursuing legitimate vocational/career training or apprenticeships that might actually help them instead of leaving them with not much meaningful education, no degree, and no job skills, and often broken down with injuries to boot.</p>
<p>The school could also spend its resources educating real college students instead of pretending to educate hired sem-pro players.</p>
<p>And both could get their self-respect back by stopping what is all too often a charade of the “student-athlete.”</p>