<p>
[quote]
Is this a stupid question: why are the athletes in those 3 sports as a general rule more academically challenged?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Serious answer ... bacause they have a chance to go pro. Football, basketball, and baseball bring a whole different element to college sports than virtually any other sport.</p>
<p>Rice won the NCAAs in baseball two years ago, and a lot of the baseball players were actually very strong students.</p>
<p>coaches are among many people connected to a university. That does NOT mean that they represent the university outside of their coaching role or that they have any special knowledge or influence on admissions. Their opinions about a particular kid's admissions odds may be just that, opinions. It's exactly the same discussion we had a month or so ago about kids taking cues on their admissions odds from alumni interviewers. Those are not the people looking at the entire applicant pool and making the ultimate decision.</p>
<p>Even Tiger Woods assumed that football players were lugheads. He tells the story about his first day at Stanford. He was pleased to be assigned to classes with other athletes--until the linebacker sitting next to him donned a pair of glasses and began to speak on the subject of Descartes. </p>
<p>Woods said that meeting the academic challenge at Stanford was one of the hardest things he ever had to do.</p>
<p>Coaches do have influence over the selection for the given number of recruited athletes. For example, the UB Women's Rowing coach appears to have 6 scholarships to give out every year. Those athletes are vetted for academic capability, but the coach has primary responsibility for those 6 admissions.</p>
<p>(Interesting stats on money losing football teams btw....)</p>
<p>One thing comes to mind about the seeming predicability (Stanford is an anomaly in so many ways) of lower scores for bball, football, baseball, and I'll add a fourth -- soccer: I read a book that explained the neurological hard-wiring of boys. It went into great detail about the way in which men's brains are set up to follow objects through space as a sheer survival mechanism -- they needed this capability to spear the antelope and thus, bring home the bacon, as we say. "Ball sports", as my son's coach sneeringly refers to them, perhaps have a greater appeal to those young men who are content and most at home with tapping into that ancient built-in hardwiring, whereas the remaining sports perhaps bring in a greater developmental challenge?</p>
<p>I've always suspected that swimming, like playing the piano, stimulates the brain via the repetitive use of both arms. If I remember correctly, studies have shown that when young children play piano, this bilateral activity seems to excite brain cells that otherwise would go unused. Swimming, and even perhaps tennis, to a degree, would do this. We all know that they've learned the importance of bilateral body movement to brain development -- babies who walk without crawling seem to be developmentally deficient, and crawling is a fundamental part of rehabilitation for stroke patients. </p>
<p>I've noticed that high school soccer players tend to be among the lowest academic performers -- they don't use their arms at all. Any correlation? I dunno. Are there statistics on the "smartest" to "dumbest" sports? </p>
<p>More simply, it might also just be that for the bball, football and baseball, where the players get treated like high school royalty and people actually come to watch them play their sport (unlike a track or gymnastics meet...) that the young men get caught up in their own "importance" and forget that boring things like grades count in the long run, and that the adcoms at the school of their choice won't have any idea that they were so-and-so on their high school's team. The ones who toil in obscurity in their sport have no such illusions; they know their glory lies in the future, not in the moment, and that grades and test scores rather than numbers on a jersey are their only vehicle toward getting there.</p>
<p>Sidenote: I heard they think soccer players have lower IQ's because they head the ball;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Serious answer ... bacause they have a chance to go pro. Football, basketball, and baseball bring a whole different element to college sports than virtually any other sport.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree that it brings a different element. But how does that opportunity factor into the academic achievement part? Do you think it affects the amount of time the athlete has to devote to the sport? Do the professional sports ranks attract a different kind of personality? I'm not sure that I see the connection.</p>
<p>"Is this a stupid question: why are the athletes in those 3 sports as a general rule more academically challenged?"</p>
<p>The answer to that question is twofold. First those are the sports with incredible time and travel demands. The atheletes wind up missing a lot of classes. And second those are the sports that have a lot of URM's. Take the minority players on those teams out of most of you LAC's and the only diversity left will be strictly skin deep. If you think the son or daughter of a Black corporate lawyer has a fresh perspective to bring on the Boyz in the Hood that the white son or daughter of a corporate lawyer doesn't have then you have probably been hitting the crack pipe too hard.</p>
<p>To elaborate a little further on the last post for a lot of kids in a lot of the worst schools and worst school systems sports is one of the few realistic ways out. You can tell a kid education matters and he might even belive you but if he is going to a school on the wrong side of tracks he will have access to the worst teachers and most apathetic administration that money can buy. If he has half a brain he will figure that out and put his energy into dribbling a basketball or catching a football.</p>
<p>First those are the sports with incredible time and travel demands.</p>
<p>UUMMM all sports in college have incredible time and travel demands!!!
and also miss alot of classes - not just the basketball, football and baseball players - all the sports play in the same conferences as those 3 teams play in. I do agree tho that for some players - it is their ticket out - tho not in all cases.</p>
<p>Dizzymom, I have a hard time agreeing with your premise about ball sports. My son played a ball sport, football. And he also played a few instruments -- piano, sax, guitar, bass. And he also scored in the 99th percentile on all his standardized tests. And, he was not unique in his high school. With the xcellen coaching now in place, his former high school routinely plays in the state playoofs, and puts players in the Ivies, Stanford, and top LACs.</p>
<p>And, for for being treated as royalty -- not until they started winning. Before that they were a running joke at school. </p>
<p>Now if we want to talk about hardwired hunter/gather skill, let's talk track and field -- javelin seem familiar? LOL</p>
<p>JeepMom - basketball 30+ games a year plus tournaments. Baseball - well Tulane has 57 regular season games scheduled before the conference tournament, NCAA regional tournament, super-regional tournament, and hoprfully College World Series. Rice has a similar schedule as does Stanford, USC, Duke, Vanderbilt, Wake Forrest, UVa. Four games a week. I rowed in college and never missed a class but I did not have four races a week and neither does any crew that I know of today.</p>
<p>Sure other sports travel but it is relatively rare for non-revenue sports to have weekday away games schedules and rarely do the travel far for the simple reason that the schools cannot afford it. Sorry JeepMOM we put huge demands on these young men and use the money they generate to pay your daughters scholarship and the coaches, equipment, and travel expenses of the non-revenue mens sports.</p>
<p>BTW just so you know if a D1 college baseball team has all of its allowed scolarships funded by the school there are 10. That is not ten a year that is ten total spread amongst perhaps 35 players. Meanwhile we are doling out big bucks to women to row because without the scholarship money to incentivtize them they will quit and the school will have to drop the men's track team to make the roster numbers work.</p>
<p>When the House and Senate passed Title IX nobody stood up on the floor and said we are going to level the atheletic playing field for women by taking away mens opportunities. If they had it would never have passed.</p>
<p>Actually the number of baseball scholarships is 11.7 in D1 (I know that is nitpicky). I really agree in general with the idea that the pressures and demands on the athletes are enormous and sad, really. Of course there are a very few who really will make it to the professional ranks and excel there, and the academic sacrifices will be balanced by wealth and fame. But that is just a very tiny percentage of the total players who are seeking to play at the next level. Many more may be drafted but will never break out of the minors or its equivalent in football/basketball.</p>
<p>The Stanford President talked about this in his Parents Weekend talk. He bemoaned the fact (in response to a question from the audience about the pressures on athletes) that the NCAA has consistently ADDED games to the yearly schedules over time, and that all too often the "student" part of the student athlete equation is threatened with being forgotten.</p>
<p>Patuxent - sadly for you - you continue to be a male shauvanist!!! and the football team is not paying my dd's scholarship. This world now is an equal opportunity planet - maybe it was time for the males to give up something so that women could succeed - finally. It is people like you who have kept women in sports at bay. Yes - I am sorry for those who have lost out in their sports - I really am - for the gain of women. S..T happens in all walks of life. But what you are saying is absurd - why shouldn't women have the opportunities that scholarships provide to the 'big' male athletes. Are they supposed to be barefoot and in the kitchen?? They have EVERY right to demand equality in the sports arena of scholarships and opportunities. The world is changing - deal with it. If a college does not have a certain male sports team - go find one that does.</p>
<p>When the House and Senate passed title 9 - where were you standing - probably rooting for all the mens teams and be damned the women. Some schools have found a way to satisfy the masses - the 'big' schools just need to find a way or actually maybe privatizing sponsorships would be helpful. I am sure the evolving NCAA chages will have some effect on these sports as well - well be interesting to see how they survive.</p>
<p>And YES I do know how the scholarship numbers work - so you can stop assuming that you know all - others do also.</p>
<p>The attitude you are showing certainly tells alot - maybe your mind can't be changed in any - but at least respect what has happened and why it has happened - women are 1/2 the population in this world and deserve the same as men - in ALL walks of life - including college sports.</p>
<p>One GREAT change due to title 9 is the trickle down effect on high school sports - girls can play guys sports and guys can play girls sports - fantastic!!! It is about time.</p>
<p>You are right women deserve the same as men. If they can generate enough revenue playing their sports to pay for scholarships then they should have them - but they can't. Nobody wants to pay their hard earned money to watch women row boats slowly or swim slowly or play basketball a foot below the rim. If there was a market for any of that stuff I would change careers. Your envy doesn't entitle your sex to the revenues that somebody else generates. </p>
<p>One of the things driving the ever lengthening sport schedules of the D1 revenue sports is precisely the need for more revenue. In the old days football needed to generate enought revenue for 100+ scholarships. coaches, travel, and equipment with some left over for non-revenue sports. Now with title IX we have stretched the football season from 9/10 games all the way to 13/14 at the same time cutting the rosters to 85 scholarships. Why 85? Well the answer is if we still had 120 we would have to find money for another 120 for womens sports and it looks like 170 scholarships is about all the revenue footbal can generate. What is the result of all this? Increased injuries, lowered academic standards, exploitation of atheletes - disproportionately URM's and poor and working class white kids so little Susie from Shaker Heights can get recruited for a bowling team that nobody will ever go watch.</p>
<p>Believe me if title IX were just affecting big time sports I really wouldn't care. It probably would be a good thing if the whole edifice of D1 college football and basketbakk collapsed. Of course along with it would go JeepMOM's daughters scholarship but what the heck at least noone would be getting something she couldn't have too. </p>
<p>My beef has more to do with what is happening in schools that don't have D1 sports. They are feeling the crush of the roster numbers and being forced to eliminate mens sports simply because they cannot get enough true amateur women to fill roster spots on womens teams. Title IX in the hands of the zealots has been interpreted to mean, "If I don't feel like spending 3 hours a day rowing then you can't even if you want to."</p>
<p>That is not the politics or spirit of equality. It is the mean-spirited politics of envy.</p>
<p>I thought you may enjoy seeing a few numbers to fuel your debate. </p>
<p>TULANE </p>
<p>Undergraduates<br>
Men 5,809 47.59%<br>
Women 6,397 52.41% </p>
<p>Athletes<br>
Men 172 53.75%<br>
Women 148 46.25% </p>
<p>Teams<br>
Men 6<br>
Women 8 </p>
<p>Scholarship budget for women<br>
Amount $2,739,052<br>
Proportion of total 35.57% </p>
<p>Females athletes 104<br>
Proportion of total 37.68% </p>
<p>Operating budget<br>
Men $11,148,778<br>
Women $4,551,660 </p>
<p>Sports Revenues<br>
Football Men $7,863,504<br>
Basket M $1,736,992<br>
Basket W $976,439<br>
All Men $11,614,256<br>
All women $4,448,899<br>
Total $20,958,004 </p>
<p>Sports Expenses<br>
Football Men $7,359,035<br>
Basket M $1,489,131<br>
Basket W $1,307,263<br>
All Men $11,148,778<br>
All women $4,551,660<br>
Total $20,958,004 </p>
<p>Gain/Loss<br>
Football Men $504,469<br>
Basket M $247,861<br>
Basket W ($330,824)<br>
All Men $465,478<br>
All women ($102,761) </p>
<p>Recruiting Budget<br>
Men's teams $236,048<br>
Women's teams $118,956<br>
Total $355,004 </p>
<p>Coaches' Salary<br>
Men's Teams $2,149,317<br>
Women's Teams $789,678<br>
All teams $2,938,995 </p>
<p>Average salary Head Coach<br>
Men's Teams $183,944<br>
Women's Teams $68,607 </p>
<p>Average salary Assistant Coach<br>
Men $61,509<br>
Women $34,381 </p>
<p>So, I guess that all soccer players are dumb :)</p>
<p>Xiggi, thanks for the facts--can't argue with numbers.</p>
<p>Jeepmom, I agree that Title IX has really helped high school sports. There were 2 female teams at my pre-Title IX h.s. and 10 for males.</p>
<p>Patuxent: you said in an earlier post: "Lets let men try out for the womens team that doesn't have a mens counterpart. In return women can try out for football." Realistically, genetics means most males will be bigger and more muscular than females. Genetics doesn't make for a level playing field but Title IX was attempting to provide women the opportunity that the economics of college athletics did not. And not at the expense of all men's sports--does the football team need to be five deep in most positions? Maybe you should argue that football budgets (rather than women's sports) should be reined in a bit to support more men's athletic teams.</p>
<p>Patuxent - you can stop the personal jabs and be mature about this - I have NOT jabbed at you - so please be mature about this discussion. You last post still shows that maybe YOU are the one with the problem of non acceptance of change - there are more to come so........... You really have a huge issue against women in sports and no further discussions will change that in you - you sound angry!!! More power to ya - Women in sports is a fact of life now - deal with it.</p>
<p>Xiggi - thank you for your run down - kinda proves a point also - women in sports still get the short end of the stick in many cases - not all but in some when it comes to the almighty dollar.</p>
<p>dcmom3 - your point is very well taken - many high schools still have such unequal opportunities - tho where my kids went to high school they have at least equaled the numbers of opportunities - and at some schools you will see guys on some girls teams and vice versa - there has been much discussion about this - but it is happening.</p>
<p>JeepMOM, I was referring to my high school experience in the seventies. Where my daughter goes now, there are roughly an equal number of teams for each gender as well as several coed teams.</p>
<p>Xiggi - is this the new math or does Tulane field some "confused" teams the way Wesleyan has dorm floor for men, women, and those confused about their gender? How do we reconcile those All Men and All Women numbers with the Total.</p>
<p>Sports Revenues
Football Men $7,863,504
Basket M $1,736,992
Basket W $976,439
All Men $11,614,256
All women $4,448,899
Total $20,958,004</p>
<p>BTW Tulane is substantially out of compliance and that was one of the reasons put forward for dropping D1 sports and football a year or so back. It is also the reason why they dropped mens track and started a womens swimming and diving team.</p>
<p>I believe they are restarting the mens track team in part because they need another sport in order to maintain D1 and conference eligibility.</p>