Would the presence of intercollegiate sports affect the desirability of a college for you?
UCSC may eliminate its NCAA Division III sports, depending on the outcome of a student vote on a fee to fund it.
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/article/NE/20160510/NEWS/160519967
Yes. I think sports build a community spirit.
I wouldn’t want to go to a college without intercollegiate sports. I love Texas sports! Football games were one of my favorite activities in school.
Yes. For me, it was a big part of the culture of the school I chose. My H and others who attended his school (without it) still say they think it was a part of college they wished they had experienced.
I wonder if a fee levied on all students is the best solution, since there’ll be some who could care less about the athletic program but still have to pay $270, or else (depending on the outcome of the vote) a minority who want to preserve the program and would pay more than $270 to do so may be overruled by the majority.
Why not adopt a “season-ticket” model? Students pay a fee - higher than $270, since not all would be interested - and this entitles them to attend any home games/competitions. You would have to bundle all sports together, to avoid a lack of funding for the less glamorous teams, but this would ensure that the students who want sports teams are the ones shouldering the cost.
DS did not even consider any schools without sports to watch. He also considered the availability of intramurals so that he can play.
Certainly a factor but could be pro or con. My kid was turned off by schools with a big sports culture and so indifferent he considered a school that barely had any sports at all. I did point out that he seemed to enjoy cheering on one of his HS teams, and might want to factor in some sports.
My son was never into sports until his Sophomore year at HS when he began to attend some football and basketball games. He enjoyed watching and supporting his teams his last 3 years of HS . He applied to 5 schools , 3 of them had football , 2 did not. It came down deciding between 2 schools , one with a very well known ACC team , and one with no football. He chose the school without football. In all fairness , his chosen school does have basketball, baseball and soccer which provide him with spectator opportunities. In the end , for him , football wasn’t enough to sway his decision. He’s had quite a hard time explaining that to his peers and many of our adult friends and neighbors. He remains a fan of the school’s team and plans to engage from a distance. I believe that had my son grown up playing a sport or watching a sports team, things may have been very different. Now , his brother on the other hand, would have definitely chosen the other way .
@NotVerySmart That is what my school did back in to late 80s- early 90s and what my S’s school does now. My school literally called it “All Sports Pass”
I am guessing but I am pretty sure the schools in the SEC, Big 10 and Big 12 are making most of their money on television contracts and non-student tickets.
Nope, not for me, and not for 2 of my 3 kids. I went to CWRU, was an engineering major, and never attended a sporting event. My older 2 kids did not care at all about sports when selecting colleges (neither of their schools had football), although D played Ultimate. She remarked after study abroad how European schools did not sponsor sports and she thought that was a better system. Younger D played DIII sports for 2 years, bur when looking at colleges had some on her list which did not have her sport, so it was not a top factor in her choice, but a nice perk to be able to play.
Yup. For all reasons mentioned before.
There was a commercial airing in January time and the mom was getting out of the car and saying goodbye to the kids and dad. ‘I’ll be gone about a week, I’ll miss you’. Turned out the mom is not at an airport but going into a sports bar to watch the playoffs for her college team. The kids ask why they can’t go too and the answer is ‘because Dad went to art school’
Call dropped a few sports about 7 years ago and it was a big deal. They tried to drop women’s lax but it was saved from the ax and is actually a very competitive team, the PAC 12 will have enough teams to be a conference when ASU has a team in 2 years. UA Birmingham tried to drop football last year and again, an uproar. What we’re experiencing in daughter’s sport and conference is teams being added every year.
Could care less about sports at college, both DD’s in/headed to college agree. Many college sports, even big name football schools, lose money. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/sports/wp/2015/11/23/running-up-the-bills/ where 28 of 48 big conference schools lose money on football, and make students pay to support the football program.
My kids were turned off by the large proportion of recruited athletes at many LAC’s, even when other aspects of the LAC experience seemed attractive. Popularity of club sports, alongside other EC’s, was however a positive.
Also by Stanford’s policies of awarding athletic scholarships, but no academic merit scholarships.
They were too busy and preoccupied by other concerns to follow their schools’ sports teams.
Absolutely! I’ve been a huge sports fan since I was 7, and even chose my alma mater over another college because one had a Div I football team. I’m still a rabid fan, and love going to the games. Terrific community builder as a student and as an alum.
For those who think that intercollegiate sports are a desirable part of the college experience, do you think it is worth the costs:
A. Monetary costs of supporting an intercollegiate sports program (except for the 12 or so colleges whose intercollegiate sports programs make money).
B. Bending the admissions standards to treat recruited athletes in a way more favorably than treating their sport as a high level extracurricular.
C. Academic and other scandals and shenanigans involving the athletes and staff on the intercollegiate sports teams.
About half of the schools that I applied to (including my own) didn’t have a football team - that was semi-intentional. But 11 of the 14 schools did at least have D1 athletics, and ALL of them had men’s soccer teams, which was intentional.
Yes, the presence of intercollegiate sports teams make or break an experience. I can tell you, unequivocally, that I would follow sports out of the exit door at UCSC if I were a student there.
A is a question of degree. I personally don’t mind funding my college’s sports program, because it’s a Div. III school where the athletic budget is a drop in the bucket while professor salaries are some of the nation’s highest. In cases like that of UCSC, a public university where many students are low-income or middle-class and their family finances are precarious, there’s more room for debate.
B and C are two reason I viewed Div. III athletics as preferable to Div. I, though athletics would never have tipped the balance in my college choice. Often, though not always, the “problem sport” is football. I chose a school that once demolished its football field to build a library, won its last national championship shortly before Woodrow Wilson took office, and banned football for the better part of two decades (admittedly, an extreme measure).
College sports are beneficial much as sports in general are beneficial. I feel intramural athletics should be expanded, if anything. As long as intercollegiate sports don’t detract from a school’s academic goals, there’s no harm in having a program, but the experience of the vast majority who are non-athletes should be the priority.
My kid would be thrilled to go to a college with no sports. Zero interest. One of her worries at one of her top choice colleges was that 50% of kids participated in sports.
Yes, to a point. I see a lot of benefits to a sports program, enough that using student fee’s to support it makes sense. However, the institution still needs to put a reasonable upper limit on student fees and direct institutional support. Usually this comes into play when thinking of adding a football program. UNF recently decided against it, as the math simply didn’t support it. However, if it’s enrollment continues to increase (as well as it’s donor bases), it may make sense in the future.
Yes, to a point. The institution still needs to make sure the athletes meet a minimum requirement. Then it’s a question of fairness; of how large is the overall enrollment VS the number of recruited athletes. A school that enrolls 7,000 freshman, isn’t impacted (from a fairness standpoint) when it’s recruits 100 scholarship athletes, however, a school that enrolls 500 freshman is much more impacted when it gives preferences to 50 (DII or DIII) athletes.
Never. It happens because we’re dealing with people (and in some cases NCAA rules that make little sense), but it’s never acceptable. It damages a school reputation. However, it’s going to happen, as well as scandals that don’t involve athletics, so you have to be diligent in monitoring and taking proactive action. The recent UNC-CH case was so damaging because the fake classes/grades continued for several years.