<p>Interesting--no UCLA in Top 10??</p>
<p>The</a> Most Valuable College Basketball Teams - Forbes.com</p>
<p>UCLA is there…</p>
<pre><code>13. University of California Los Angeles, Bruins
Value: $13.6 million
Profit: $7.0 million
Conference: Pac 10
Head Coach: Ben Howland
The most storied team in college hoops saw operating income increase 14% last season with a berth in their second consecutive Final Four.
</code></pre>
<p>GO IU!!! I love college basketball. Just got back from watching Vanderbilt beat UMass. It is just so much fun to go to these games.</p>
<ol>
<li>University of Kentucky, Wildcats
Value: $24.9 million
Profit: $15.4 million</li>
</ol>
<p>And to think – they recently got beat by lowly University of San Diego.</p>
<p>What’s surprising is the NCAA championship team for the past two years isn’t in there. Oh well, guess we’ll have to wait a few years now, now that everyone has gone on to greener pastures. Rebuilding is a b*tch.
Fortunately, I can still cheer for the Heels! Yah, baby.</p>
<p>I’ll bet’cha those U of Maryland tickets will be easier to come by this season. They got beat by American University two weeks ago.</p>
<p>not only does Kansas have a winning basketball program but now ALSO their football program is in the news…2008 Orange Bowl Champions ! Congratulations to the “Fighting Manginos!”</p>
<p>Looks like Gary is running out of steam. It’s hardly “Fear the Turtles” anymore.</p>
<p>Right. Maybe a couple down years in Gary’s recruitment results. Balt./DC has always had some of the best talent in the nation (Carmello and Durant to name two) and they just haven’t landed the impact players lately.</p>
<p>condor30 -</p>
<p>I’m right with you! Rock chalk Jayhawk!</p>
<p>What is fascinating is that success in basketball (generally) can be had without corrupting the university mission as with football. Take for example Duke University or Stanford - the only two schools in the USNWR top 10 offering Div. 1 athletic scholarships. These schools can accomodate 2/3 players a year (and Duke and Stanford may not have that many) that have “old” SAT scores below a 1000 and who have otherwise marginal academic skills. But football - that requires admitting 20 such students - and with these numbers, it means not just getting them through school or eligible, it also means having majors and classes that these kids can pass. 20 marginal students - just don’t easily find a home at a Duke or Stanford (or a Notre Dame) for that matter. So basketball just makes a lot of sense - and I can see why the AD’s at top schools see it as a wise investment.</p>
<p>mam1959, if you want to understand the true nature of the corrupting influenct intercollegiate athletics have on college mission, read “The Game of Life: College Sports and Educational Values” The President Emeritus of Northwestern University had this to say about the book. </p>
<p>“This path-breaking study of intercollegiate athletics is rich in detail, long on perspective and enlightening in insights and conclusions. Shulman and Bowen have tested-and refuted-many of the popular assumptions concerning intercollegiate athletics with a pervasive body of empirical data spanning over twenty years. They document the increasing tensions, if not conflict, between athletics and the academic mission of institutions of higher education. Moreover, the study reveals that many of the same issues that bedeviled ‘big time’ intercollegiate athletics are now manifested in women’s athletics and the programs of Ivy League and smaller, liberal arts institutions. No starry-eyed idealists, the authors recognize the complexity and sensitivity of the issues involved but offer a set of propositions to begin the task of restoring balance between academic values and the appetites of intercollegiate athletics. This book should command the attention of university presidents and trustees and all those fans and alumni who hope to cheer their teams to victory.”</p>
<p>Look at the lacrosse scandal at Duke a few years ago. Lost in the criminal conduct of the local DA, was the fact that the Duke lacrosse team did have a history of bad behavior in which many team members lived together in off campus housing and did invite strippers to a party on that fateful evening. No illegal activity but hardly consistant with the campus culture which Duke administrators fostered. And yes the same charges could be leveled at many Greek societies but that is another discussion.</p>
<p>Mam–</p>
<p>Duke/Stanford/Notre Dame have the same issues as the rest, right? Brooke Lopez of Stanford was academically ineligible and couldn’t participate at the beginning of the season. Do you really see ND/Stanford/Duke as a panacea for athletics?</p>
<p>It’s great to be a Buckeye!</p>
<p>Yes, a stripper has never performed at a party at Princeton or Harvard. Right. I once heard the Jane Fonda hung naked from a light fixture at a Princeton eating club party. Really.</p>
<p>“I once heard the Jane Fonda hung naked from a light fixture at a Princeton eating club party”</p>
<p>Bon App</p>
<p>Duke/Notre Dame/Stanford (and a few others) are not a panacea for college athletics. They suffer, to a degree the same problems as every other school engaged in the rat trap of sponsoring professional or quasi-professional athletic teams. Parents of student athletes in my area are surprised at how negative I am concerning the college athletics scene and the perversion of the academic mission flowing therefrom - thinking that I somehow would be compelled to support the status quo given my experience. I suffer no illusions about the corrupting nature of college sports. </p>
<p>But what Duke, Stanford, Notre Dame, etc. do have, except for a few extraordinary star revenue sport athletes (i.e. first or second team All-American types in football or basketball), are real students doing real college level work, albeit often at a level often beneath their peers. This doesn’t in and of itself make them “better”, because the university mission is being corrupted to some extent, but the degree of rot is generally less. And my own experience was at Duke, where I attended. I was in an honors program of ten, and was the only scholar athlete in the program, but at no time was I given any favors or presented with any lower expectations - and all of us (I believe) went on to Ivy League grad schools and the like. And many of my teammates had similar experiences in their programs - most of whom are now physicians, professors, lawyers, etc.. And it was the hardest thing I have ever done in my life - bar none. I was recruited by the largest athletic factories as well as the Ivy League schools, and Duke, while far from perfect, was one of a handful of schools that could land me in a major conference (with a meaningful high level athletic schedule) and permit pursuit of the top rung in academics. It was not my first choice - one of the Ivies was - but given the circumstance of a single mother home (and that mother had no job), Duke made far and away the most sense. Financial aid and work study did not jive with thirty hours a week at a near world class athletic performance level. </p>
<p>My twin brother (perhaps one of the the best student athletes the school has had) was an All American at UNC in his sport and Phi Beta Kappa and all the rest (math and econ). He would have not have been a rarity at Duke - but for a top level athlete, there really was no other at UNC like him (the current vice chancellor there was such a student athlete, however - he preceded by brother by 3 years and was, like my brother, a once in a 10 year phenomena). And UNC is not the athletic factory that some other public schools are. He at times felt isolated. </p>
<p>Witness the national champion in football last night - LSU. Look at the academic records and graduation rates on that team. I feel quite comfortable in concluding that but for a few happy exceptions, most of that team is not engaged in anything that folks on this board recognize as academic pursuit. These schools establish “family life” and “recreation majors” really for the purpose of warehousing athletes - and while some education is better than none at all, what these students are doing bear little relationship to those focused on receiving a challenging education. I hesitate to be so critical - many of these types, if they finish and somehow mature (not an easy thing when you have been handed kudos and favors all of one’s life) do play a helpful roles in the community as coaches, physical ed teachers, and the like - but from the perspective of a serious student or academic it does call into question not only the significant direct costs of athletics, but more importantly, the huge indirect costs and burdens - because big time athletics so changes the face and academic mission of the schools. </p>
<p>Suffice to say this is all tilting at windmills - students with extraordinary athletic talent will continue to get a huge plus in admissions and other benefits.</p>
<p>LSU probably had 10-15 future NFL players in their starting teams. Many of them will outearn most college grads from top schools. Education is not everything either. And I’m sure you will find some academic surprises even at LSU. Have you looked up every players bio or is it just your presumption?</p>
<p>The NFL rookie of the year was a player who also graduated in a solid major with well over a 3.0 gpa.</p>
<p>barrons - surely you are just being argumentative? Ever compete against top flight athletes from LSU? Ever been there? Know its athletes and culture? Its library has the look, feel and size of a community college. Look at the declared majors of the football players on its website. It is very telling. I can assure that as one of the worst major public universities in the country, it earns every bit of its reputation as an athletic factory with a school attached. Think they turn down any recruited athlete meeting the terrible minimal NCAA eligibility standards? I highly doubt it. Again, I don’t mean to impugn the place entirely - there is a school for everyone - and they have some good programs - but if the relevant topic is how greatly athletics distort the academic mission of a university, LSU is the poster child for this phenomena - and it is decades old - Huey Long had his professional football team at Baton Rouge in the late 20’s/early 30’s, well before the athletic craze set in. </p>
<p>And your argument about the earning power of 10/15 players that will enter the NFL contains accurate facts (LSU is indeed one team with 10/15 future pros - unlike most teams, with just 2 or 3), but it is really an argument that these kids ought to be able to pursue their craft without going to college and without the restrictions inherent in the NFL’s (and for that matter, the NBA’s, although to a lesser degree) collective bargaining agreement. Put another way, your argument augments the view that schools ought to be farm teams for professional sports (which is what they unhappily are), but in so doing it also buttresses the notion that presidents of universities ought to be happily cruising along with the status quo and living with the incredibly corrupting influence that athletics now has on the academic mission. I am a big sports fan - but I think universities have lost their way with sports - and I am not a contrarian or curmudgeon for raising it. The decision of University of Chicago in the late 40’s (a former athletic powerhouse) to abandon big time athletics seems saner and saner all the time. But as I say figure the odds of this changing are near zero. </p>
<p>I agree with the other poster’s reference as a helpful authoritative source on college athletics. But I also recommend googling the term Rutgers 1000, a now defunct group that tried to put athletics into proper perspective at Rutgers, and also attempted (a bit tangentially and non-persuasively in my view) to trace Rutgers’ decline in academics to its misplaced focus on athletics. To give you an idea of how crazy this is, the leader of this group, an English professor, received death threats for his oh so crazy idea that the primary focus of the school should be on academics. Their analysis of how a kid with a 900 score (old SAT’s) could possibly do meaningful college work while being employed full time as a professional athlete is stunningly honest and accurate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>i second that. look at the reports on graduation rate analysis:</p>
<p>[Scout.com:</a> The Bootleg’s Graduation Rate Analysis](<a href=“Cardinal 247 - Stanford Cardinal Football Recruiting”>Cardinal 247 - Stanford Cardinal Football Recruiting)</p>
<p>it seems fairly clear to me overall, team rankings in football/basketball/baseball seem to inversely vary with the graduation rate. i don’t think that’s a surprise to anyone anyway. </p>
<p>now we know why the sec football is so mighty with pac10/big12 as close second and why the acc and big10 football are overrated. </p>
<p>barrons, players bio don’t always give you their academic info, especially if they are bad and looks like many lsu athletes couldn’t or didn’t graduate. </p>
<p>mam,
looks like what you said about duke doesn’t apply to its basketball (not a surprise). ;)</p>