next »

[Chris]

The other day I read a book called "Confessions of a Spoilsport: My Life and Hard Times Fighting Sports Corruption at an Old Eastern University" by William C. Dowling. Downling is a professor at Rutgers University and his whole argument in the book is that Div 1A sports are destroying college life. Before I read the book I thought his claim was ridiculous but after reading it I have to say that I agree with many of the points that he makes. I'm sure I take his lessons to heart more than others because his examples at Rutgers apply directly to me but I wanted to see how other people feel about Division 1A sports in general. If you have any other questions about the book feel free to ask. 

[Matan]

Well, Chris, I also read that book, and found it quite stimulating. You see, I came to Rutgers as a student first and foremost. I never considered the quality of the "semi-professional" athletic program in my choice for higher education. however, it has been an enjoyable feeling on campus attending exciting athletic events. Students are proud of their athletes. It's a simple fact that sports will always be more enjoyable to the layman than, say, open heart surgery or mRNA replication. Dowling did impress upon me, and hopefully his audience, that vigilance is necessary in in regards to athletic spending. These athletes should be students first. They should aspire to receive degrees rather than draft picks. I worried initially about the quality of our education, but I am convinced throughout the restructuring that Rutgers has faced, our committment is ultimately to education. Constantly, the administration has expanded an effort to redevelop New Brunswick. Our graduate programs are nationally ranked. our undergraduate schools are excellent. our business school is consistently rising in comparision to the old timers, and various other programs have shown a committment and a desire to excel. The overall quality of the student is rising, even though our culture is collapsing., Dowling's worst fears of a hedonist society may be animating themselves, but its the generation and not the institution that ultimately can decide how people will behave.

[Singer]

Well, Chris, I also read that book, and found it quite stimulating. You see, I came to Rutgers as a student first and foremost. I never considered the quality of the "semi-professional" athletic program in my choice for higher education. however, it has been an enjoyable feeling on campus attending exciting athletic events. Students are proud of their athletes. It's a simple fact that sports will always be more enjoyable to the layman than, say, open heart surgery or mRNA replication. Dowling did impress upon me, and hopefully his audience, that vigilance is necessary in in regards to athletic spending. These athletes should be students first. They should aspire to receive degrees rather than draft picks. I worried initially about the quality of our education, but I am convinced throughout the restructuring that Rutgers has faced, our committment is ultimately to education. Constantly, the administration has expanded an effort to redevelop New Brunswick. Our graduate programs are nationally ranked. our undergraduate schools are excellent. our business school is consistently rising in comparision to the old timers, and various other programs have shown a committment and a desire to excel. The overall quality of the student is rising, even though our culture is collapsing., Dowling's worst fears of a hedonist society may be animating themselves, but its the generation and not the institution that ultimately can decide how people will behave.

wow, well said.

[Chris]

wow, well said.

You don't have anything to add yourself?

See I personally enjoy having a winning programs at Rutgers but realistically I don't think that anyone from my incoming class decided to choose Rutgers because of our athletic program, because to be honest our program has been a joke for a very long time and only now are we starting to become better. I realize that millions of dollars are spent a year on the athletic programs at Rutgers and that money could be invested in other projects such as rebuilding Livingston campus which still looks like a leftover relic of the cold war, or how more than $80 million is being spent on adding to the stadium but only $15 million is being spent to "green" College Ave. (if anyone unfamiliar with Rutgers is reading this and not understanding what I am referring to please feel free to ask), and at the same time I enjoy going to football games and the recognition that Rutgers has received recently on a nation level. For example, this summer I took a trip to Canada and as I was coming back into the United States they quizzed me on certain things such as like where I had been born and where I attend school. I told the officer that I attended Rutgers University to which he remarked what a nice season our football team. This name recognition of Rutgers, in my personal opinion did not exists years ago, but at the same time I would have been more impressed if I told the person that I attended Rutgers and he had commented on how strong our Pharmacy program is. The main argument I am trying to make is that although having a Division 1A athletic program is nice but I would probably have just as much fun with Rutgers having an 11-2 season playing teams such as Princeton and Vassar, and it would free up a lot of money that could be used elsewhere in the University.

[ian]

I did not read the book to which you are both referring, but the one question that comes to mind is, "What about the money these sports bring in?"  Rutgers has recently gained a lot of recognition due to its football team, as well publicity surrounding the women's basketball team with the Don Imus controversy.  This publicity brings in large sums of money for the school through, ticket sales, mechanise sales, private donations, and other indirect mediums.  The old saying, "any publicity is good publicity" holds true.  Granted, RU football winning most of its games does not have a direct correlation to better funding for the science department, but indirectly it does.  Furthermore, what about student morale?  As a student its much more inspiring to see your team overcome the odds and win the big game, then to lose to an unranked team.  This inspiration may be a catalyst to better classroom performance and/or positive feelings towards the university as a whole.

[Chris]

See this is where I have to disagree with some of the points that you made. It is a pretty well known fact that most athletic programs are losing money this ranges from a minor loss to millions of dollars. I believe in the case of Rutgers it was over $30 million in a six year period. Now that the team is winning it is diminished but Rutgers athletics is still operating at a loss, as is evident by the fact that many of Rutgers athletic programs were cut due to lack of funding.

On the point that you made about "any publicity is good publicity," I agree that Rutgers has benefited from the recent publicity it has received through it's football and women's basketball programs, as is evident from the rise in admissions this year, but you also have to think about the type of students you are attracting to the University, I don't like to stereotype but more often than not people interesting in sports are a different breed from those interested in classic literature or biochemistry.

Lastly, on the argument about student morale I feel that winning programs have provided more of an identity to the University but the question remains what kind of identity. To the outside world it might seem more impressive that we beat the #3 ranked team in the nation last year but the student population could probably get excited about beating Div III teams that were on our level as well. I know for example that while I was in high school the basketball program was finally able to put together a winning season and make it to the State tournament for the first time in years, it didn't matter that we were probably not even in the best 500 teams in the nation all that really mattered was that we were winning.

Let me finish by saying that I would be very upset if Rutgers came out tomorrow and said that they were leaving the Big East and becoming a Div III school, but at the same time I could understand and accept why the move was being made.

[ian]

See this is where I have to disagree with some of the points that you made. It is a pretty well known fact that most athletic programs are losing money this ranges from a minor loss to millions of dollars. I believe in the case of Rutgers it was over $30 million in a six year period. Now that the team is winning it is diminished but Rutgers athletics is still operating at a loss, as is evident by the fact that many of Rutgers athletic programs were cut due to lack of funding.

The athletic program may be operating at a loss, but the school isn't.  I don't know the financial situation of the RU program, but I think you need to look at a time frame that is longer then 6 years.  Perhaps the $30 million was an investment on the school's part to get the team to where it is today.  In addition, where would the school be at as a whole in 6 years if they cut athletics completely in order to free up funds?

On the point that you made about "any publicity is good publicity," I agree that Rutgers has benefited from the recent publicity it has received through it's football and women's basketball programs, as is evident from the rise in admissions this year, but you also have to think about the type of students you are attracting to the University, I don't like to stereotype but more often than not people interesting in sports are a different breed from those interested in classic literature or biochemistry.

This is why the school implements standards for the players.  They require you need to maintain a certain GPA or higher in order to stay on the team.  This way RU gets good player's without sacrificing its overall academic reputation.  Its very probable that RU missed out on a bunch of good players just because they didn't have the grades.

Lastly, on the argument about student morale I feel that winning programs have provided more of an identity to the University but the question remains what kind of identity. To the outside world it might seem more impressive that we beat the #3 ranked team in the nation last year but the student population could probably get excited about beating Div III teams that were on our level as well. I know for example that while I was in high school the basketball program was finally able to put together a winning season and make it to the State tournament for the first time in years, it didn't matter that we were probably not even in the best 500 teams in the nation all that really mattered was that we were winning.

So you're saying that instead of going to a friday or saturday night football game, you'd have just as much fun going to a "Computer Science Club Dinner?"  Plus, when was the last time you have seen someone where a school's name without representing a sports team?  Most people don't wear a t-shirt or hat that says "LSU Economics Dept".  Last, I think that when you see the games and players on ESPN it means a bit more, then if you were a D3 team and beat the other local college. 

Let me finish by saying that I would be very upset if Rutgers came out tomorrow and said that they were leaving the Big East and becoming a Div III school, but at the same time I could understand and accept why the move was being made.

[Singer]

wow, well said.

You don't have anything to add yourself?

Nope.

[Matan]

Gotta say a few more things about good old RU. Everywhere you go, you see students wearing hooded sweatshirts that say "Rutgers Pharmacy," "Rutgers Engineering,", even "Rutgers Business School." There is a ton of product labeling even without the NIKE swoosh.

Academic standings, well, thats another matter. I have personally spoken to several members of the academic oversight committee, which reviews all athletes that get accepted to RU> They basically decide if each athlete can pass our classes. Sure, most athletes are intelligent new jersey students. theres plenty of intellectual and athletic talent in this great state. But a lot of the big name players that come here, if they arent academically eligible, the coach tells the committee how valuable they can be, and the committee agrees that "we can work with this kid." We tutor them, we monitor their study habits (I used to be a sports monitor and I've seen the way some of these athletes really hit the books while others do not HAVE books), and we feed them into sections of courses that have limited class sizes which only athletes, who register before regular students, manage to get into. Not saying these classes are easier, but the curve is definately in their favor when they all are at the same intellectual capacity.

Spirit, its always been here. Milton Friedman went to Rutgers! he's a Nobel laureate. He wrote the book on conservative liberalism (seriously, I have it, its called "Capitalism and Freedom" and its a great read). Our students have plenty to be proud about. Football is great but we aren't really involved, as opposed to debates and student organizations where we are the leaders.

To quote the great Oscar Wilde, "We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams." Its the students that truly bring the pride to the university, and not the athletes. A little more recognition our way couldnt hurt.

On that note, go RU! I hope the football team wins big against South Florida. But personally, i dont know any of the players, and I doubt I will cross their paths again, considering i no longer monitor their study hours.

[ian]

Gotta say a few more things about good old RU. Everywhere you go, you see students wearing hooded sweatshirts that say "Rutgers Pharmacy," "Rutgers Engineering,", even "Rutgers Business School." There is a ton of product labeling even without the NIKE swoosh.

As I was reading that I was definitely thinking  until I cam across this.  http://pharmacy.rutgers.edu/2008/rurxsweatshirts.doc

Academic standings, well, thats another matter. I have personally spoken to several members of the academic oversight committee, which reviews all athletes that get accepted to RU> They basically decide if each athlete can pass our classes. Sure, most athletes are intelligent new jersey students. theres plenty of intellectual and athletic talent in this great state. But a lot of the big name players that come here, if they aren't academically eligible, the coach tells the committee how valuable they can be, and the committee agrees that "we can work with this kid." We tutor them, we monitor their study habits (I used to be a sports monitor and I've seen the way some of these athletes really hit the books while others do not HAVE books), and we feed them into sections of courses that have limited class sizes which only athletes, who register before regular students, manage to get into. Not saying these classes are easier, but the curve is definitely in their favor when they all are at the same intellectual capacity.

In your opinion, and from your experience, would you say that these student athletes were hard working or coasting on there athletic reputation?

I would think that being an athlete on such a large scale, as well as student, makes it pretty hard to find time to do anything.  I know in the past there were points in the semester were I was buried with work, especially towards the semester's end.  Trying to get it all done on time was a task in itself, so I would imagine its even harder for these athletes who have to do it plus go to practice, play weekend games (sometimes away), and perform in front of hundreds of thousands of fans.  I think they are entitled to early registration, for some classes so they can get the good schedule.  Thats the trade-off for giving there free time to athletics.

[Chris]

As I was reading that I was definitely thinking  until I cam across this.  http://pharmacy.rutgers.edu/2008/rurxsweatshirts.doc

I think that I'm missing something here. The link was only an order form for hoodies.

The athletic program may be operating at a loss, but the school isn't.  I don't know the financial situation of the RU program, but I think you need to look at a time frame that is longer then 6 years.  Perhaps the $30 million was an investment on the school's part to get the team to where it is today.  In addition, where would the school be at as a whole in 6 years if they cut athletics completely in order to free up funds?

It's hard for a University in general to not operate at a loss. Rutgers takes all the money that it makes from tuition and other revenue streams along with state funding and uses all of this money every year. Last year state funding was cut dramatically and as a result every department had to take cuts including the athletic program. Instead of reducing the budget of every sport, some sports were just cut outright. In exchange all of the coaches on the Rutgers football team and many of the coaches on the women's basketball team received raises and a new stadium. I'm not saying that the school should cut the athletic program entirely, but is it really necessary to have football players stay in a hotel before HOME games, or hire people to make sure that athletes show up to class? Imagine if your grades were slumping and somebody sat outside of your class with a clipboard to make sure that you showed up to class.

This is why the school implements standards for the players.  They require you need to maintain a certain GPA or higher in order to stay on the team.  This way RU gets good player's without sacrificing its overall academic reputation.  Its very probable that RU missed out on a bunch of good players just because they didn't have the grades.

These standards for players have become very loose. I'm not saying that there aren't smart athletes at Rutgers but at the same time there are players that have just barely sneaked in over the NCAA minimum 800 on the SAT. The other thing that is at a university as big as Rutgers there are literally thousands of classes to choose from and this includes a large amount of on-line classes. Hidden in this massive jungle of classes are ones that tend to be fairly easy and coincidentally enough athletes always seem to find out about these. Personally, one of my friends was dating a female athlete and because of this was able to register for one of these classes.

So you're saying that instead of going to a friday or saturday night football game, you'd have just as much fun going to a "Computer Science Club Dinner?"  Plus, when was the last time you have seen someone where a school's name without representing a sports team?  Most people don't wear a t-shirt or hat that says "LSU Economics Dept".  Last, I think that when you see the games and players on ESPN it means a bit more, then if you were a D3 team and beat the other local college. 

I'm saying personally I've had a great time attending Friday football games and at the same time I enjoyed guest lectureres that have spoken at the University. But take a look at the smartest people that you knew in your high school and picture them at a "Computer Science Club Dinner" and at a Friday night football game and think about where these people would fit in. It does matter if you get to see your school on ESPN, but it matters more for people on the outside looking in than for the students themselves. These people that never attended the University might now be informed that Rutgers has a winning program, but if Rutgers were a D-III school I think about the approximately the same amount of the student body would know the record of our football team.

I figured that I would add my own smiley
 

[cactusflinthead]

Sure, even in DII and III schools there are different standards for admittance to the Uni for ball players and engineering or English students. It is really pretty simple. Follow the money. Who did T.Boone Pickens give 250 million to? The athletic dept. Who pays to see people play chess? very few, if any. While there are serious bragging rights concerning the academic accomplishments and acquisitions to the rare books library, it is the sports teams that garner real national attention. You cannot use Rutgers as the only example of how sports affects the bottom line of the Uni. How about your opponent this weekend? Are they operating at a loss? Is their budget less or more since the inception of football? Are there less or more students?  Texas A&M, whose football coach is in the hottest of hot seats and is soon to be a goner, still managed to clear 45 million last year. The waiting list to attend is not getting shorter. I have been to DII schools and DI and athletes are treated about the same either place.

[ian]

I think that I'm missing something here. The link was only an order form for hoodies.

I was just surprised that they had hoodies for RU Pharmacy, Engineering, etc.  Its the first time I've seen this.  I figured they wouldn't only make them for RU Scarlet Knights.

It's hard for a University in general to not operate at a loss. Rutgers takes all the money that it makes from tuition and other revenue streams along with state funding and uses all of this money every year. Last year state funding was cut dramatically and as a result every department had to take cuts including the athletic program. Instead of reducing the budget of every sport, some sports were just cut outright. In exchange all of the coaches on the Rutgers football team and many of the coaches on the women's basketball team received raises and a new stadium. I'm not saying that the school should cut the athletic program entirely, but is it really necessary to have football players stay in a hotel before HOME games, or hire people to make sure that athletes show up to class? Imagine if your grades were slumping and somebody sat outside of your class with a clipboard to make sure that you showed up to class.

Yes, they may operate at a loss for a period of time, but if RU was just a money pit sucking up resources the state would step in.  You can't look at a college in just the 4 years that you attend.  You need to look at it over the long term.  Perhaps RU took the 6 year loss to finish with a 10 year high.  Eventually they will have some assets or at the very least break even.  In addition, I'm not saying that some of the athletic spending shouldn't be reviewed.  Perhaps they can get the same level of performance without spending on unnecessary things.  Last, you said that you think its stupid for the team to hire someone to sit outside your class and make sure you attend.  I agree that it is an unnecessary expense, because the student should be mature enough to attend on their own.  However, doesn't this counter Downling's point?  In reality the person hired is helping the student to stay motivate and attend his/her classes.  This translates into the athletic department helping the students to do better in the academic department.

These standards for players have become very loose. I'm not saying that there aren't smart athletes at Rutgers but at the same time there are players that have just barely sneaked in over the NCAA minimum 800 on the SAT. The other thing that is at a university as big as Rutgers there are literally thousands of classes to choose from and this includes a large amount of on-line classes. Hidden in this massive jungle of classes are ones that tend to be fairly easy and coincidentally enough athletes always seem to find out about these. Personally, one of my friends was dating a female athlete and because of this was able to register for one of these classes.

Well this isn't the fault of the athletic department, but the fault of the academic department.  They could always raise the standards and/or rework the curriculum of the "easy" classes.

I'm saying personally I've had a great time attending Friday football games and at the same time I enjoyed guest lectureres that have spoken at the University. But take a look at the smartest people that you knew in your high school and picture them at a "Computer Science Club Dinner" and at a Friday night football game and think about where these people would fit in. It does matter if you get to see your school on ESPN, but it matters more for people on the outside looking in than for the students themselves. These people that never attended the University might now be informed that Rutgers has a winning program, but if Rutgers were a D-III school I think about the approximately the same amount of the student body would know the record of our football team.
I figured that I would add my own smiley
 

I think its a generalization to just say that because someone is smart that they would fit in better at a club dinner then a sporting event.  Also, I agree with the fact that a sports team appearing on ESPN means a lot more to people looking in.  However, thats the point.  The outside people looking in leads to an increase in publicity and revenue for the school.  I also agree with the statement about how a D3 team wouldn't get the same amount of recognition, but then you also have to agree that they probably wouldn't get the same amount of funding.

I also have to agree with cactusfilinthead's statement, "follow the money."  Downling's book stated that sports are bad for academics, but I think just the opposite is true.  The big college teams bring in a lot of money and lots of publicity for their school.  Smaller d2 and d3 teams may not get the same publicity, but they do get students to the games on weekends and offer an event to attend and pride in your school (even if on a smaller scale).

[Chris]

Sure, even in DII and III schools there are different standards for admittance to the Uni for ball players and engineering or English students. It is really pretty simple. Follow the money. Who did T.Boone Pickens give 250 million to? The athletic dept. Who pays to see people play chess? very few, if any. While there are serious bragging rights concerning the academic accomplishments and acquisitions to the rare books library, it is the sports teams that garner real national attention. You cannot use Rutgers as the only example of how sports affects the bottom line of the Uni. How about your opponent this weekend? Are they operating at a loss? Is their budget less or more since the inception of football? Are there less or more students?  Texas A&M, whose football coach is in the hottest of hot seats and is soon to be a goner, still managed to clear 45 million last year. The waiting list to attend is not getting shorter. I have been to DII schools and DI and athletes are treated about the same either place.

I agree that money has a lot to do with it, and it universities were able to benefit monetarily from having a big time sports program then I would say that every school should have one. Let's take for example Texas A&M which you stated was able to earn $45 million last year for football. In reality the football program made $36,086,026 and spent $13,616,098 which already brings the total down to $22,469,928. Next you have to take into account that Texas A&M has 159 football players out of a total number of 336 male athletes. This means that approximately 47% of male athletes play football and assuming that athletic scholarships are given to each sport as a percentage of how many players they have that would mean that approximately 47% of athletic scholarships go to football players. The total amount of athletic scholarships given to male athletes is $2,915,762 so that means that about another $1,379,780 is spent on the football program, bringing the grand total down to $21,090,148. Take into account the $642,747 spent on recruiting male athletes and once again take 47% of this and the final number you end up with is $20,785,991. All of a sudden that $45 million that you quoted now all of a sudden is now more like $21 million. In case anyone is wondering where I got my numbers from they are all from the US Department of Education (http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/InstDetail.asp?CRITERIA=3). Now many of you are probably thinking that $21 million is still a lot of money even if it is less than half of the originally suggested number. This still doesn't take into account many other factors that drive the revenue down even further but are more difficult to calculate because they often get added into the school's budget instead of the athletic budget. This includes item like the new Bright Football Complex which opened in 2003 at a cost of $27 million. The full description is located here: http://www.aggieathletics.com/facilities.php?FID=17 but let me give you a little sampling.

Housing the locker room, athletic training room, rehabilitation complex, meeting rooms, coaches offices, players' lounge and academics under one roof, A&M football players will be conveniently located close to all kinds of student-athlete support at the south end of Kyle Field.

...more than 130 solid oak lockers outlining the room.

One of the benefits of the area is a shoe room nicknamed "Footlocker" which houses approximately 2,000 pairs of Nike Shoes.

Just outside the equipment area is a loading dock able to accommodate the Aggies' custom-made 53-foot 18-wheeler provided by Garrett North America.

Student-athletes will also find other features in-house like two doctor's offices, a conference room, full x-ray system with a processing room, and two walk-in whirlpools.

The facility will have 28 digital coaches stations creating a tape-less environment for reviewing game film. Each station will accompany a 60-inch plasma monitor to aid the viewing.

Remember that all of this goes under the University's budget not the athletic department's budget. On top of that, why should student-athletes receive their own classrooms and doctors offices. Why can't they go to class or go to the health center like everyone else on campus? Why have solid oak lockers when regular particle board would do the job? I can guarantee you that none of the student's desk are made out of solid oak. What about the 28 plasma televisions? If I wanted to would I be able to walk in to these facilities to review a taped lecture?

Don't get me wrong, I follow college athletics and am very excited about tomorrow's game against South Florida, but when does this stop being a student athlete league but instead a semi-professional league?

[cactusflinthead]

It stopped being a student league somewhere back in the thirties. The history of players making money under the table is older than my grandfather. You crunched the numbers well, but the bottom line is that they make coin off of football and basketball. When you make as much money from the engineering, horticulture, or any other academic endeavor then they will get the same sorts of budgets. I got that number (45Mil) from a sports talk show out of Houston, John Lopez who writes for the Houston Chronicle is on the show so I don't doubt his source. This was in the context of hand-wringing about their angst and that the budget should be no excuse for losing. Even if they were operating at a loss or nearly so, they have done everything to get a good return on the investment of solid oak lockers and plasma TVs. It would appear that they are getting that return on investment. The aggies are not alone by any means in their fancy digs for players. Does this mean that the academic portion of the school lacks facilities? Not by a long shot. I certainly wouldn't mind if they threw a pile of money at Prunus and Rosa research but I am doing ok.

What exactly are you asking the Uni to do? Take money away from football? Refuse to update facilities, settle for second best or third best in terms of upgrades? Again, when I bring in as much money as they do, then I will get my piece of the pie too.