<p>
[quote]
And, frankly, I personally hold football of no importance whatsoever.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Then you are in the minority. Look at the attendance & excitement at football games. Now, look at the attendance at a women's gymnastic meet or a fencing conmpetition. I think that clearly demonstrates what sport is having an impact on the college. I would venture a guess that most students attending a school with women's gymnastics or rowing teams have no idea those teams exist. They do not influence the schools's culture in any noticable way. They don't benefit the school in any meaningful way. Beyond the athletes & their families, not many people care about them. The athlete herself gains quite a bit from competition, of course. But not a big payoff for the school. (I saw the women's NCAA final four competition in lacrosse on television. I think there were about 50 people in the stands. More people come out to watch five year olds playing t-ball in most towns. Sad, but true.)</p>
<p>I love many women's sports. I'll attend WNBA games. My d is a fine athlete & I've always loved to see her compete. I'm from the pre-Title IX generation where there were few, if any, sports for girls. I've lived it and know first hand how unfair those days were. But I'd be kidding myself if I thought for one minute my daughter's sports participation is of interest to anyone out of a rather small circle of family and friends.</p>
<p>I have no problem with colleges paying professional athletes and offering professional sports. That's where most of the football players would like to be to begin with, and most won't get the opportunity otherwise, so why not pay 'em now?</p>
<p>I thought the current purpose of college sports was to enhance the collegiate academic environment. I have no problem with flushing that down the tube, if the colleges choose, and employing "hired help" to get their names emblazoned on tv, but I fail to see what that has to do with a college education.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The NCAA eliminated the procedure by which these foreign players, who often were national players supported by and representing their country, could move into the U.S.college system after their glorious national career starts to ebb at, age 24. However, if there is a rule a new way to circumvent it develops and so it has. So they are all there, grown men on the court demolishing scraggly freshmen boys who are in no way inferior, just young and not grown to their physical potential yet.
[/quote]
I thought only amateur athletes could compete in college sports and that once you were ever paid for the sport you were ineligible to play at the college level. If so, how can tennis players in their mid-20's who hit the end of their playing career come to American colleges and compete with freshmen?</p>
<p>How is the collegiate environment, academic or not, enhanced if nobody but the team and a handful of fans are attending the events?</p>
<p>If you waved a magic wand and removed college sports from the schools, only a few would be missed by anyone but the players. Intra-dorm or intramural sports are more a part of most colleges' cultures than obscure women's varsity teams. I really do wish more people cared & would make an effort to watch the women. But except for basketball in name programs, they don't.</p>
<p>The Div 1 scholarship football players are paid: a free education. You may not know any true football student-athletes who have overcome the enormous odds & can play at that level. Too bad, because there are some fantastic guys among them. </p>
<p>Are you saying that the kids on popular, televised teams can't be getting a college education? Or a female athlete toiling away in an obscure sport is getting a better education, simply because she has no fans to cheer her on? I'm not following you here.</p>
<p>And what does becoming a professional actress or singer or musician or artist or a myriad of other things have to do with a college education? Most people who succeed in those fields and others do it without ever attending a traditional college. Most college players soon know they will never make the NFL but they enjoy the game at the college level and many even manage to get some education while they are at it.</p>
<p>My relatively new trainee is a former Husky starting football player and managed to graduate on time with over a 3.0 in psychology. He's a bright and fun to around person who works hard.</p>
<p>" Most people who succeed in those fields and others do it without ever attending a traditional college. Most college players soon know they will never make the NFL but they enjoy the game at the college level and many even manage to get some education while they are at it."</p>
<p>Right! There is benefit (often GREAT benefits) to the participants. That's why Title IX is so, SO important. As to whether anyone ever sees them on tv, who cares? That's what pros are for.</p>
<p>Well, THEY care about being on TV. That's one reason they go D-1, to play in big games on TV and in front of big crowds. My trainee tells me about the feeling of walking on the field at Michigan and Miami and what a thrill it was. That's why they work so hard year round while in college.</p>
<p>BTW I support the non-revenue sports too but there can be room for both.</p>
<p>Why of course! Which is why I support Title IX, and am glad when I see ADs and college presidents stepping up to the plate to support sports of all kinds, and equity as well.</p>
<p>mni, you still haven't explained how obscure women's teams that eat up sports resources benefit the college. I think everyone agrees that sports benefit the participants. But if nobody is watching, how does it benefit the college? Or the other students?</p>
<p>If you are looking to benefit all the students, it would be much more "fair" if you used the obscure sport $$$ to buy every student a new mattress. </p>
<p>Football, on the other hand, is the center of bustling campus traditions that draw in thousands of students, alumni, and fans. Often real money is made & this benefits the college enormously. Why do we have to pretend that women's sports are anywhere near as important?</p>
<p>Excuse me, but I never argued that it DID benefit the college. It benefits the students and, quite specifically, the student-athletes. Duh...I thought that's what college education is about?</p>
<p>Now, kids with 1600 SAT scores? Colleges can do without them - bunch of drones, and they often don't need what's being offered in any case. ;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think everyone agrees that sports benefit the participants. But if nobody is watching, how does it benefit the college? Or the other students?
[/quote]
maybe some schools believe in trying to help develop well rounded adults and that having interests other than academics are important ... 90+% of colleges run sports while getting no publicity ... why is this any different than having a drama club, a band, singing groups, or any other non-academic EC ... I LOVE that my school supports its students participating in about a billion types of ECs including a ton of sports and I don't think the school really gives a hoot about how many people attend any of the events. Personally striving to do one's best is a very personal quest and in many ways more noble when no one is watching.</p>
<p>It is different because of Title IX. Bravo for the development of well rounded adults. No argument there. But the artificial limitations and meddling into the sports choices of college kids is actually preventing men from participating. Gender balance is not mandated in these other activities. I bet most college singing groups are heavily weighted toward women. Nobody has a problem with this, because women are more likely to have an intereest in organized singing than men. Should the federal govt. step in and force the college to adjust the numbers? Shut down the chorus if they can't achieve a 50/50 balance? That's happening with sports. Colleges are demonstrating that all interested women are well served with their sports programs, yet that is simply not good enough for the irrational, agenda driven bureaucrats. Women's interest in organized sports drops off sharply after high school. It doesn't for men. Why do we have to deny reality?</p>
<p>The illustration of football's huge popularity demonstrates this irrationality. Because women sports have no such matching institution, not even close, the fur flies and big name sports are demonized. Even though the football traditions are enjoyed by the vast majority of the students. Even if the football $$$ funds Suzie's new chem lab or performing arts center or non-revenue sport.</p>
<p>Imagine if in your efforts to encourage more black kids to study science you suddenly decided to only be satisfied with enrollment equal to their representation in the population. Rather than develop better science programs in high schools, or set up mentor programs to achieve your numbers, you would simply deny admission to any white kids who exceeded their representation numbers. It sure sounds crazy, but it is the reality for young men who want to particiapate in sports.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I look across the field hockey field during games and see dozens of football players at practice with helmets, pads and numerous specialized coaches. I like football but it does get irritating that they get all the resources.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am not going to pretend to have studied our school district's athletic teams allocations and budgets (meaning that I don't know how much football gets vs. field hockey) -- but an enormous amount of dollars are contributed by the booster clubs for football and lacrosse. </p>
<p>For example -- stipends for 2-3 extra coaches that are 'volunteers' on the books, new uniforms for the varsity, coach buses rather than school buses to distant away games, dinner on the road returning from some of those games, chunks of dollars here and there for equipment, and more. </p>
<p>The Booster Club funds come from lots of different places -- in our town they seem to come from refreshment stand proceeds, parent contributions, and the sports yearbook/program advertising, but it's certainly not our tax dollars at work! In fact, the new turf fields are all Booster Club - parent contributed and NOT paid for by the town tax coffers.</p>
<p>That's where individual Booster Clubs come in - and they really only work at big high schools.</p>
<p>I belong to the booster club at my daughter's school. We cover all the sports. Some people join to push their own agenda (meaning: their kid(s) sports only) and leave when they find out we have to be equal.</p>
<p>Funny though that the majority of the parents on the booster club are parents of female athletes.....</p>
I don't think I agree with this. From what I see, many women continue to be interested in sports and they probably tend to choose sports that can be done into adulthood in larger numbers than men do. I see many adults running, playing golf, racquet sports, swimming, ice skating, etc; however, I don't see too many middle age guys playing basketball, wrestling, football, baseball, ice hockey or lacrosse. </p>
<p>One other thought I had a thought on achieving artificial parity in sports (or chorus or science or w/e)...colleges do that all the time in admissions. They call it "diversity"!</p>
<p>PS to cnp55: You are lucky to have such a robust booster club. At our public hs, all of the new stuff does come from tax dollars.</p>
<p>lkf, the "interest surveys" colleges have conducted show this to be true. I have a hunch it is because the female athlete has to derive most of her pleasure from achieving personal goals. They simply don't share the glory of the popular boy teams. Pursuing private, individual sports & fitness goals is often the shift that female athletes take in college. For boys, the rush of having thousands cheer you on in a packed stadium is addictive. It's hard to walk away from that. Most of the girls, no matter how talented, didn't experience that. So they don't crave it or miss it quite as much. </p>
<p>Grown-ups? We just can't find the time to fit in many team sports. If my h didn't have a demanding job & kids to worry about, he'd be playing on a team every day. He fits in exercise when & where he can, like most of us. He is on an "old guy" hockey team, and with everyone's travel schedules and family commitments, it's often a very short roster. The women's teams around my town are filled with younger women. I'd feel like Methusala if I joined!</p>
<p>The spouse of one of my employees was a All American basketball player at Stanford. Although she acknowledged the benefits of a full ride scholarship, she probably wouldn't have done it again and doesn't recommend it to any one else. Why?</p>
<p>Mam1959 ,found at post number 2,gave most of the reasons. Once you get a full ride athletic scholarship, the college feel that they own you. There are a lot of games and lots of practice sessions with little time for academics or social life. This person felt that she got a poor academic experience because of this. In fact, she felt this so strongly that she told her daughter, who will be going to next year Olympics and is a nationally ranked athlete, to become a professional by accepting endorsements and not take any athletic scholarships.</p>
<p>I should note another sobering fact: many division 1 athletes get injured in college while competing. Some of the injuries stay with them for the rest of their lives! </p>
<p>I have warned a number of parents of athletes about this, and sadly no one has taken my warning to heart.</p>
<p>The only way I would recommend an athletic scholarship would be if either the child couldn't afford college at all OR if they want to use college as a springboard towards becoming a professional athlete. Even then they have to not care about the quality of the education that they will or, in this case, will not be receiving.</p>
<p>Thus, before you or your child gladly accepts that full ride, not to mention admission to some top colleges, you both need to factor into the equation what is mentioned here and notrd above. It isn't the "free lunch" that you may think. You have been warned.</p>
<p>Taxguy, I think a huge issue is the fact that sometimes the kids getting the full athletic scholarships in truth are only marginally qualified for the academic load at the school. So that "ownership" component is really more an issue of not really being able to handle the other aspects of the college and having used athletics to get into a school that is really beyond the athlete's intellectual grasp. That, plus not really being able to appreciate the time commitment involved in college athletics.</p>
<p>I have pretty current, direct inside information as least as to one school and one sport. There is no difference between the practice/time commitment of a scholarship versus a non-scholarship athlete. The difference is that the non-scholarship athlete, or the academically qualified scholarship athlete, is able to handle the academic load and chooses to do his or her sport at the same time. While that does of course mean that there won't be time to take advantage of everything the school has to offer, the athlete can still have an unforgettably rich experience. </p>
<p>I think that the caution should be (1) don't accept an athletic scholarship, or admission via athletics, to a school where your grades and scores are in the bottom percentiles of other admitted applicants and (2) understand that college athletics does demand a level of commitment and time management that is uncommonly found in human beings. </p>
<p>I just don't accept the premise that all colleges make different demands because of the scholarship. It is the being part of the team that creates the pressures.</p>