<br>
<blockquote> <p>Even the most eggheaded or quirky LACs have 20-25 different sports teams. Personally, I think this is a good thing. </p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>I think that, because of the small sizes of the schools, LACs have to pay particular attention to the role of athletics on campus. There is a huge difference between 39% of male students being on a varsity sports team and 4% at a larger school. </p>
<p>As long as the sports operate at a level of expectation similar to a club sport (the way Div III was supposed to work), then I basically agree with you. However, when a small school crosses the line into actually taking the sports team seriously, recruiting, segregating sports teams from the rest of campus, etc., they are in dangerous territory with those percentages. </p>
<p>The issue is not whether sports are good or not. The issues relate to the impact of some some sports team cultures on campus life, the impact on admissions, and the impact of total campus EC hours allocated to sports.</p>
<p>Let me give an example. How does ice hockey add value to the Williams College experience? It is no longer a regional school, drawing exclusively from hockey country. I dare sare that the average Williams College applicant has never shot a puck. So, to field a team, Williams has to specifically go out and find hockey players.</p>
<p>Has anyone every asked "why"? Done a "cost/benefit" analysis? Even given a moment's thought? Are they trying to attract more Canadians? More New England students? More of a rough-hewn brawling element to campus? Do hockey games attract sizeable crowds? Are they a positive campus event. Or is it just blind inertia from a bygone day when Williams was a regional school and hockey was New England's version of Little League?</p>
<p>When they added soccer, did they give any thought to replacing another sport? How 'bout when they added women's sports? Or, is the athletic department at these schools a one-way ratcheting mechanism, alway increasing in scope without review?</p>