Watching the Arizona-Stanford game right now, I want to post something that’s been on my mind related to college football. I don’t think I’ve ever met a college football fan who doesn’t despise the BCS system, but the money invested in the existing bowl system is what keeps us from ever getting the playoff system that everyone wants.
If college football fans want to usher in a playoff system, there’s one easy way to do it:
Stop going to the bowl games.
You could force the NCAA to adopt a playoff system by the end of January if the bowls were all played in front of tens of thousands of empty seats. I don’t understand why this isn’t discussed as a way to force their hand. You can yell and scream all you want about how much the BCS sucks, but they’re not going to listen until you figure out how to hit them in their wallets.
There is a more urgent issue.
Meet these three criteria and then I will applaud big daddy alumns and corporate givers who want to support pre-professional sports:
1. Set standards for intramural athletics as a pre-requisite for any school that wants to participate in any NCAA sanctioned sport.. Non competitive athletic offerings should also meet some standards.
In the mean time, the number of WA kids who can get into varsity/junior varsity/ or anything other than full out pre-pro sports is zilch. What sports the students do get are paid out of a student activity fee.
Oddly, exactly this sort of thing is the norm at private schools. MIT .. actually does sort of have a football team but the team is just one more part of its effort to educate MIT students!
2. Insist that all athletic scholarships. from whatever source, be matched by funds given purely for academic scholarships.
Getting a full boat athletic scholarship should be and is a mark of achievement. Why don’t we offer full boats to kids who excel in academics?
Where are those kids supposed to go, Harvard?
3. Require that athletic admissions meet the the same academic averages as students admitted without athletic scholarships.
One affect of this would be to force the UW (and its peers) to stop pretending that minority Samoans and African Americans recruited for pre-pro athletics contribute to our need t show diversity in our student body. I have been told that 50% of the few African American undergrads at UW are NOT on athletic scholarship. If this is true, then the UW should be ashamed.
Well, I was going to blast college sports, but reading SJ’s post he makes a pretty good for how to have them and have them be cool.
The Huskies really suck. Truly. They suck.
@3
They had one of the top rowing teams in the nation for years, don’t know how they’re doing now.
No, a couple of years ago they sucked. Under Sarkasian, they’ve managed to claw their way back up to mediocre.
SJ,
You should add
4: Require colleges and universities athletic departments that field intercollegiate sports teams must have a graduation rate equal to or exceeding that of the standard student body to keep their yearly scholarship allotment.
Teams will have three years to achieve the nominal standard student body graduation level. If the athletic department doesn’t graduate 75% each year then they lose 3-5 scholarships per year until they reach that level again. Then all the lost scholarships are reactivated for the school. If a student opts out for the pros during any of their underclassmen years, the school is not penalized.
Maybe the Huskies don’t suck quite as badly as everyone says. They may have lost to Stanford 41-0, but the vaunted 13th-ranked Arizona team just lost too, 42-17.
Puddybud,
Good idea, but that rule gives an unfair advantage to schools with low graduation rates, doesn’t it? Or does “standard” student body equal an average across Universities?
@7
I thought the Huskies played pretty well against Oregon, considering how much Oregon has been beating everyone else by. Stanford is also a very, very good team.
sdstarr,
Maybe. Don’t know. You have some low graduation examples? Wouldn’t they lose their accreditation with low graduation rates?
SJ
Correct on taking “gut” courses. At Cornell it was Sociology 101, Psychology 101, Creative Writing 101, etc. Also at Cornell there weren’t athletic scholarships so they had to choose a major. Well some of them were Ag School majors like Keith Odormann.
I love college football, even Husky games. I wrote on this subject, defending the flawed BCS, several months ago.
http://breckenblog.blogspot.co.....r-bcs.html
Wouldn’t ~130 teams make for a very large playoff tournament? Even if only half qualify that’s still a six-round tournament (2^6 = 64) with 63 total games. Extending the season by six weeks seems untenable. Am I out to lunch?
@12
You could easily have a 16-team playoff that includes all the conference champs and other highly ranked teams. There’s no reason to have every single Division 1A team in a playoff.
Hi Lee.
Respectfully…
Scholastics and intermural athletics don’t mix. There should be no intramural collegate sports.
The Correct Answer: football/soccer pyramid (interconnected leagues) used throughout the world.
Why am I subsidizing the farm system of professional sports?
Why are athletes working for free while others profit?
Why are the free market cultists okay with sports monopolies?
Funny that it takes a liberal to be the advocate for open markets.
oops, “intramural” (editing no work, sorry)
proud @ 3
Husky’s (football) underperformance, post James, just proves that in the current system, you have to cheat just to stay competitive.
@14
I don’t completely disagree with you, but I still enjoy watching college football.
Pre-pro-sports (football, basketball, hockey, and baseball) pay for the remainder of the NCAA sports. Without all of that money, the amateur sports would not flourish. A football playoff system doesn’t achieve the flow of cash that the bowl games provide. Working on that problem would certainly help.
Michael @ #4: The Univ. of Washington men’s rowing team has been # 1 in the nation for several years now, although it lost the varsity eight race to california in the I.R.A. finals last spring (by 3/10th of a second).
The Univ. of Washington women’s rowing team is another story. It was consistently in the top three in the nation until about eight years ago (if I remember correctly), when it started going downhill fast. Right now it is allowed to participate in the NCAA championship regatta only bi special invitation, which it secures based on it’s historical dominance (a priviledge which it may have used up by now).
But note an important difference. The women’s rowing is an NCAA sport, giving full or partial scholarships to some twenty women each year. The men’s rowing team isn’t an NCAA sport, it is governed by the International Rowing Association.
Why the difference? Title IX requires schools to offer the same number of athletic scholarships to women as they do to men. But men’s football takes up a huge number of scholarships. Women’s crew teams help offset that advantage. But if they also gave scholarships to men’s crew teams, it would erase that advantage, and the colleges would be scrambling to find other sports to make up the difference.
Of course, rowing has never really been a “professional” sport, and it’s not a money generator because spectator access can’t be controlled well, and there are limited endorsement opportunities. Spectators can view the race course from a wide variety of shorline areas along the race course. And without any exclusivity in viewpoints/broadcasting rights, the networks aren’t interested in making the investment to cultivate an audience.
So rowing remains rather “unsullied” as a collegiate sport. Rowers like to joke that they bring up the athletic department G.P.A. by at least two points.
I think the best solution would be to simply raise academic standards for athletes to a point where those with less brain and more brawn might simply choose to enter professional developmental leagues rather than go to college. The minor-league system of baseball works reasonably well, as does soccer’s pyramid, and the NBA is developing its own system with the NBDL. Perhaps the United Football League could eventually fill such a role for the NFL.
That said, I think it wouldn’t be a bad idea for such developmental leagues to put a portion of their players’ salaries aside for later college or vocational education. I’d think that since their investing in these kids, they should put some small percentage of that money towards some sort of education in case of a career-ending injury…
@14 & @20
I didn’t have a lot of time over the weekend to fully respond to Jason on his points, but there are a lot of things to consider.
There are several aspects of college football that I think need to be preserved in any new system:
1. It gives educational opportunities to individuals who otherwise wouldn’t have them
2. It has over a hundred years of rich tradition and rivalries that can’t just be abolished overnight
3. The money generated from college football and basketball keeps a lot of other sports afloat
What I’d like to see is a preservation of the existing programs, but a decoupling of football and basketball from the universities. Athletes in those programs could participate without being students, would collect normal salaries (or receive educational credits if they academically qualify for the university). For instance, the Washington Huskies basketball team would be made up of both students and non-students.
Definitely there’d be a lot of specifics to work out, but that’s what I’d like to see as the general outline. Financially, these major sports could also still be set up so that the minor sports that rely on that revenue don’t get scrapped. The one part of Jason’s comment I don’t agree with is that I think intramural sports are a very important part of the college experience (just as all other non-athletic clubs and organizations are), and I would hate to see them go away.
@21. Lee spews:
This facile nonsense fosters an implicit racism. How many “minority” kids get an education by choosing to compete as athletes? Is this like roman gladiators? Fight in the arena and we will make you free?
I have met an awful lot of AA kids who avoid college because they think they are not wanted if they can not dunk the ball from a foot above the basket.
Really? What tradition is that. Harvard and the rest of the ivies seem to do pretty good in the tradition dept without allowing a pre-pro sports effort.
Exactly what would be hurt at the UW, if we opted out and decided instead to compete only with peers that commit to a true student athlete effort?
Sorry bubbelah, this is an oft told myth. Take a look at this recent entry at THE-Ave.
The entry refers to a number of studies showing that very few athletic depts operate in the black, Oregon, as one example, subsidizes the extra costs of educating its semipro #1 ranked Ducks to about $2000000/yr!
UW students NOW pay an athletic fee for the non AF sports. As to whether it is true that Basketball and Football subsidize other varsity sports, I have never seen convincing data. Actually here at the UW, we dumped varsity swimming because the AD said it could not afford that! Imagine, the UW, the University surrounded by water, has an AD that claims it can not afford a swim team??? Would present subsidies to basketball and football NOT cover all the sports?
Lee .. that IS essentially what we have now except the “salaries” are concealed in various ways .. excessive scholarshoips, summer “jobs,” etc.
Worse, as a WA parent, why shouldn’t ALL UW kids be able to compete for a place on a varsity open to all UW students interested in competing for spots? What does the UW get out of hiring athletes and paying coached twice what it pays the President?
My solution is a lot cleaner.
1. admissions ot the UW should be entirely based on academic achievement .. including athletics as part of that record.
2. team members could be paid student level salaries just as we pay students who work in labs or the library.
3. the UW would doubtlessly need to seek new opponents .. unless embarrassed by the comparison other Pac10 schools decide to join us in a sort of everyman’s version of the Ivy League.
Alternatively,if the NFL wants to set up farm teams associated with Universities. let them go ahead and the UW can sell the naming rights. I have not noticed a paucity of enthusiasm for the SeaHawks .. hello even subsidize them out of taxes!
These NFL farm teams teams could employ UW students just as Microsoft and Amazon do now. The rules regulating these off campus jobs would be the same rules we have for any off campus jobs. Like MS, they would then be free to hire talented kids for permanent jobs, relieving the UW of the need to pretend it is educating them.
@22
This facile nonsense fosters an implicit racism.
No, it doesn’t. This has little to do with race – and everything to do with socio-economics. There are a number of individuals (of all races) who receive college educations because of athletic scholarship who otherwise would not have had the means to attend college.
I have met an awful lot of AA kids who avoid college because they think they are not wanted if they can not dunk the ball from a foot above the basket.
This is maybe the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard in my entire life. I dare you to point me to anyone who thinks this way.
Really? What tradition is that.
Are you serious? Are you actually claiming that there are no rich traditions or rivalries in college football? No Notre Dame? No Penn State? No Auburn-Alabama? No Army-Navy? No Michigan-Ohio State? No Florida-Georgia? No USC-UCLA? No Apple Cup? No Texas-Oklahoma? Are you high?
Exactly what would be hurt at the UW, if we opted out and decided instead to compete only with peers that commit to a true student athlete effort?
From a fan’s standpoint, that would be devastating. That’s why I’m proposing something that could be done NCAA-wide that would preserve the existing traditions without requiring individual schools to jump off the ship out of what I tend to agree are worthy principles.
Worse, as a WA parent, why shouldn’t ALL UW kids be able to compete for a place on a varsity open to all UW students interested in competing for spots?
Of course they would be. Why wouldn’t they?
1. admissions ot the UW should be entirely based on academic achievement .. including athletics as part of that record.
Exactly the same as my solution.
2. team members could be paid student level salaries just as we pay students who work in labs or the library.
Exactly the same as my solution.
3. the UW would doubtlessly need to seek new opponents .. unless embarrassed by the comparison other Pac10 schools decide to join us in a sort of everyman’s version of the Ivy League.
My solution is to have this done NCAA-wide, so this would be accomplished as well.
So how exactly is your solution any different than mine?
Alternatively,if the NFL wants to set up farm teams associated with Universities. let them go ahead and the UW can sell the naming rights.
I have no objection to this, but I’d imagine that most wouldn’t want to (again, this goes back to the tradition thing).
It sounds like your solution to this is nearly identical to mine, so I have no idea what you’re arguing with me about.
@23…
Lee, you are nicer than I am.
@22
As for the subsidizing other sports issue, I have seen that the recent economic downturn has caused a number of football programs to go into the red, but my alma mater’s football program continues to subsidize the general fund.
@24
Well, I already had to delete one of his earlier comments because he was very clearly accusing me of taking positions I hadn’t taken. And I have a feeling that with how much difficulty he had in understanding my comment @21, he’ll be doing it again with his next comment.
Really?? Have you looked at your Alma Matter lately? What proportion of UM’s AA students are there on athletic scholarships?
As for getting an education, what does that mean? Would you hire someone to mange a startup if there college consisted of a menu of courses designed to not get in the way of prepro sports?
As for racism, ask Jesse Jackson or Colin West or Lewis Gates what they think of schools that send the message “in order to get into the UW, we want you to be able to throw a tackle.”
Boobelah, I think you know I LIKE the Huskies, but to deny the racism of our program when only a tiny number of WA state students from the AA community get in w/o athletic scholarships is .. racist!
FWIW, I have sat, with shock, at a meeting of a committee that oversees this stuff and listened to the AD claim that it has no reason to consider a student athlete’s academic record beyond the NCAA meager minimums.
This is maybe the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard in my entire life. I dare you to point me to anyone who thinks this way.
Any time you want. I would be happy to try to set up a meeting with some kids at one of the AA schools and you can ask them yourself.
YOU, not I, said there was a hundred years tradition. Most of these are a lot younger than that/ Moreover. I note that your brew includes some pretty weak academic schools.
I thought the “tradition” you were referring to might be the older one where many high quality academic schools fought out their glory needs on the football field.
If you mean schools running football as a semipro sport, how old is that? When did college teams change from a sport for students to a sport for hired athletes?
Gee, I guess the “fans” going to the Harvard Yale game, the Army Navy game amd such just did not know this???
I call BS. Are you saying is that the University Brand is being used to support a non university entertainment? Is so we agree. What pisses me off is that tax moneys support that and .. as a result .. UW students are deprived of the fun students have at other schools that DO offer students a chance to be athletes.
Because if you hire the best from utside WA state (a small state), WA kids are simply not competitive.
Great, but if we did that most of the semipro kids would not get in. How would your fans feel about that?
Hay, if we agree that is great! BUT, the team members NOW are paid well above that.
NO issue, BUT it will not happen because of the current practice of recruiting kids who have no interest in college itself.
BTW, note how few baseball players come from college!
Lee, I think the major difference is that I would eliminate any academic preference beyond the reasonable idea that being a great QB is a bug part of any kids application. I would also eliminate ALL athletic scholarships other than offering to pay kids for the money they can not earn because they are on the team.
I have no objection to this, but I’d imagine that most wouldn’t want to (again, this goes back to the tradition thing).
However,m in effect this is what they do now. Most ADs claim to be separate entities form the campus. This would formalize the process and let the Huskies, like the Aquasox, recruit athletes whether those kids wanted to get a degree in American studies or not.
I am not sure we are arguing except for two things:
1. The myth that ADs are self financing.
2. The myth that our current mechanism helps kids get an education who could not otherwise get one. Five years playing football is NOT equivalent to four years of pre med.
Oddly, our answers are similar. Where we differ (I think) is that you beleive that fans will not watch college ball if the teams are not pre-pro. You may be right about that.
I feel, however that if we are too have a farm team, we should call it tha,t stop pretending playing on this team (as opposed to rooting) part of student activities, and I think we somehow need a way to recreate the fun of a real student athletic program.
3,
@25 Lee
With all due respect, the numbers at UM are probably cooked.
They report a profit of about 4%. That profit, I assume, does not include:
a. overhead (the overhead on campus activities ranges from 20% to80%).
b. rent on facilities.
c. lost opportunity costs (imagine the present value of Husky stadium!).
d. Hidden educational costs ($2 million a year at UO!).
I have read several studies, not just in the present downturn. The ONLY way one can justify the finances of ore0ori college sports is if you believe it attracts contributions to other parts of campus or increases generosity of the legislatures.
@27
Really?? Have you looked at your Alma Matter lately? What proportion of UM’s AA students are there on athletic scholarships?
This was just as true for the hockey team, which was 100% white for the entire time I went there.
As for getting an education, what does that mean?
At this point, I’m not sure you’re capable of understanding the answer to that question.
Would you hire someone to mange a startup if there college consisted of a menu of courses designed to not get in the way of prepro sports?
Again, my proposal is intended to address this, so I’m not sure I understand your point here.
As for racism, ask Jesse Jackson or Colin West or Lewis Gates what they think of schools that send the message “in order to get into the UW, we want you to be able to throw a tackle.”
That’s not what I asked.
Boobelah, I think you know I LIKE the Huskies, but to deny the racism of our program when only a tiny number of WA state students from the AA community get in w/o athletic scholarships is .. racist!
Even if that were true, that’s completely irrelevant to what I’m talking about here.
FWIW, I have sat, with shock, at a meeting of a committee that oversees this stuff and listened to the AD claim that it has no reason to consider a student athlete’s academic record beyond the NCAA meager minimums.
And my proposal addresses this. When you’re ready to start arguing with me – and not some imaginary strawman – go for it.
Any time you want. I would be happy to try to set up a meeting with some kids at one of the AA schools and you can ask them yourself.
Let’s make this interesting. If you set this up, and the students agree with your statement, I’ll pay you $100. If you can’t set it up, or if you set it up and they don’t really believe this ridiculous thing that you think they believe, you stop commenting in my threads.
YOU, not I, said there was a hundred years tradition. Most of these are a lot younger than that
Notre Dame, Michigan, Penn State, Ohio State, the service academies. Hell even UW football has now been around for 100 years.
Moreover. I note that your brew includes some pretty weak academic schools.
So, my proposal would be suitable for schools of all types. That’s the point. You really have no idea what I’m arguing.
If you mean schools running football as a semipro sport, how old is that? When did college teams change from a sport for students to a sport for hired athletes?
It’s happened slowly over the years. It does not mean that the underlying rivalries have lost their value to people – nor would they suffer by the kinds of general kinds of things that you, Jason, and I are suggesting.
Gee, I guess the “fans” going to the Harvard Yale game, the Army Navy game amd such just did not know this???
Wow, you’re not even in the ballpark of understanding my point.
I call BS. Are you saying is that the University Brand is being used to support a non university entertainment? Is so we agree.
No, what I’m saying is that the University brand could be used to support non-university entertainment. You really aren’t getting this.
What pisses me off is that tax moneys support that and .. as a result .. UW students are deprived of the fun students have at other schools that DO offer students a chance to be athletes.
How is UW different than any other university in that regard?
Because if you hire the best from utside WA state (a small state), WA kids are simply not competitive.
But if all the schools across the country do this, a WA kid will have greater opportunity outside of the state. That’s no different than it is today.
Great, but if we did that most of the semipro kids would not get in. How would your fans feel about that?
Um, it wouldn’t matter. They wouldn’t be university students, but they’d play on the football team. Wow, you really don’t understand what I’m proposing. Instead of launching into a tirade about things you don’t understand, why don’t you ask for clarifications about what I’m proposing so that you actually understand it?
Hay, if we agree that is great! BUT, the team members NOW are paid well above that.
Not necessarily. They could be paid in line with what semi-pro basketball players or minor league baseball players make, and if academically qualified, could receive tuition credits as well.
NO issue, BUT it will not happen because of the current practice of recruiting kids who have no interest in college itself.
Again, that’s the problem that my proposal solves. You totally have no idea what I’m saying here.
Please stop using your imagination to conjure up what my viewpoint is. Read my comments, think about them (I know that part is very difficult for you) and engage me on what I’m actually saying, not what you’d like to pretend I’m saying.
BTW, note how few baseball players come from college!
Exactly, and what I’d like to have is the best of both worlds, a minor league that makes it as easy as possible for a student to also attend college, but without the requirement that the student be there for academics first in order to play. I’m not sure you’re not understanding that this is my point, but before you respond again with another long silly diatribe, at least make an attempt to understand what I’m saying.
@28
No, the numbers are not “cooked”. University of Michigan football has long been a profitable enterprise that brings money into the school. Overhead, facilities, and other expenses were clearly factored into that report.
@27
2. The myth that our current mechanism helps kids get an education who could not otherwise get one. Five years playing football is NOT equivalent to four years of pre med.
Athletes obviously take easier courseloads than the average student, but getting a basic degree in communication is still better than no degree at all. Not to mention that there’s far more to the college experience than the classes. Someone who plays college football and gets a basic liberal arts degree at UW has better prospects in life than someone who graduates high school then goes to work at Wendy’s for the next four years.
Oddly, our answers are similar. Where we differ (I think) is that you beleive that fans will not watch college ball if the teams are not pre-pro. You may be right about that.
The point I’m making is that fans will stay if you can keep the existing traditions alive rather than build up a completely new semi-pro league with no relation to the existing programs.
Lee @ 21
Good reply.
#1 – Education should be free. It’s the best investment society can make. We’re training future tax payers. Colleges, universities, vocational techs, Americorps, all of it.
#2 – I’m sympathetic. Culture, tradition, ritual. I love it all.
Further, I think athletics are important. As a geek, exercise makes me a better programmer. Athletes learn body awareness. Sports, especially team sports, is junior management training. Strategy, tactics, training, execution, learning to succeed with people you don’t like, socialization, logistics, etc.
Athletics and sports are great for people and great for society.
#3 – What percentage of the elephant are we talking about?
Intermural sports are important. And maybe even some local amateur leagues would be great.
Can’t I just pay for those things out of pocket?
My cousin races bicycles. He starves to do it. Sponsorships and money out of pocket pays for it all.
There’s a zillion runs every single day.
My mom her boy friend swim competitively. I don’t actually know how that’s paid for.
Sports are everywhere, and more so everyday. We’re not giving up sports. We’d just be more honest about the accounting.
—
I like the idea major sports paying for their farm system directly. I wouldn’t mind colocation and licensing the names.
—
One big hole in my thesis is I don’t distinguish between “major” and “minor” sports. Volley ball, fencing, rowing (crew), etc are all great sports.
Maybe schools should simply publish their budgets and expenditures. Then as a consumer I’d be able to see where my tuition is going.
—
Great. The racism topic.
As a middle aged middle class pasty white guy, I have pretty much nothing constructive to contribute beyond this:
Racism sucks.
That said. Ever see the documentary Hoop Dreams? They followed a couple basketball prospects starting in middle school. Oh my god those kids are cute, smart, innocent, optimistic, and all around awesome. And you just wish you could make their troubles disappear — e.g. no heat in winter, dad using absent dad, no food – stuff to make you rage.
What I learned watching that film is that sports is a meat grinder that chews up prospects and spits them out. Wasted, burned out, jaded, used.
To the NBA’s credit, they let Spike Lee come talk to the kids at a basketball camp. He tells them straight: It’s about money. So whatever your dreams, no matter how much you love basketball, you’ll just a resource to exploit.
—
That there are for profit sports is fine. No problem. I just don’t see why I have to pay for it. My job, as a cheerful tax payer, is to invest in the future of society.
If I want to enjoy sports, I’ll buy a ticket.
If I want to enjoy some athletics, I’ll gear up and get on a training program (just like with hiking).
@31
Jason,
Thanks so much for the reply.
What percentage of the elephant are we talking about?
Intermural sports are important. And maybe even some local amateur leagues would be great.
Can’t I just pay for those things out of pocket?
You could, but most people don’t. Who watches crew competitions? Or water polo? Or women’s gymnastics. All I’m saying with this point is that to whatever extent college football and basketball provides the economic backing for these other activities, that dynamic should be preserved. It would be a shame if colleges had to jettison some of these programs.
But my main point is that because of the money involved in college football and basketball (and in some schools, hockey), the academic integrity is compromised and the amateur nature of the sport is laughable. What I’d like to see is that problem fixed (by making those sports more semi-pro and allowing non-students to participate) while keeping the benefits to the university, to the fans, and to alumni.
That said. Ever see the documentary Hoop Dreams?
Yes, absolutely amazing. One of those “lightning in a bottle” stories where even the filmmakers had no idea what they were going to end up with. And what they ended up with was a story that was as thrilling as it was informative.
Lee @ 32
Certainly. Sign me up.
Be good.
Lee
Lee .. in re UM making a profit
Well, if so, all the studies I have read are wrong. Would you like some references?
Here is a challenge, you get the data for both of us. If, unlike UO that keeps this private, UM makes it public we can both go over then numbers and make an objective comment.
I (and others) did exactly this a few years ago for the UW that claims the AD is a public agency. The ONLY way the UW could claim to be profitable was by not paying for indirect costs, rent on the stadium, or faculty effort to support them.
Moreover, when Coach Wlllingham was fired, the normal procedures that protect faculty were not employed.
This bothered some of us because he, Willingham, was making a real effort .. post Niehaus .. at seeing that the athletes actually did get an education. We tried to get the AD to discuss his policies but they refused. To quote ( ab it rooughly) the acting director at that time, “The UW is not Stanford, we can not afford to measure our athletes by academic standards.”
In re another Lee bet.
I will make a counter offer. I don’t think it would be fair or reasonable to ask some kids to sit in for a grilling. However, I can imagine our BOTH contributing a modest amount of funds to some entity where we could both have the fun of meeting some kids and seeing what we can both learn.
So, if we you can find a venue or if I can would you be willing to match me in a contribution of $100 to the organization sponsoring the venue and attend some activity where we would have this opportunity?
As one thought, I know some of the people in the MESA program (an engineering outreach) and we might both have a chance to be invited to help out with a class. The 100 would .. of course .. not be pat of that other than giving us both an incentive and a chance to do some good.
Let me know.
No,
YOU said that fans would not attend games where the athletes were not chosen ad future pros. You also said that traditon was important.
My point is that at these VERY traditional schools, fan enthusiasm AND student enthusiasm are very, very high.
In contrast, most UW students I meet, even if they are BIG husky fans, do not see the athletes as fellow students. Since the ONLY varsity effort is the pre-pro program, this means most students are not interested in their own participation in competitive sports .. I see this as a big educational loss.
Lee
I do understand your proposal, at least I think I do. In essence you would have the NCAA or NFK set up a farm team program affiliated with the campuses. The athletes on these teams might or might not be university students, but the would comprise the Univeristy’s football team.”
Fair enough. Is my summary correct?
If so, here is why I think this is not a sustainable idea.
You say that the team members would be paid “in line with what semi-pro basketball players or minor league baseball players make, and if academically qualified, could receive tuition credits as well.”
Since the pros you refer to are full time athletes, these athletes, even if they were “academically qualified” could never fulfill the requirements of any serious degree program.
You go on to say that, The Lee Proposal would solve the current issues around ” recruiting kids who have no interest in college itself.”
Of course it would but the result would be the demise of student athletes of the very sort YOU describe as part of the tradition. Obviously Harvard would not replace its football program with the Lee proposal and Stanford, where Willingham’s ideas were developed, would likley have to choose to opt out of the Pac 10 since their student athletes would no be competitive in the Lee League.
@35
Well, if so, all the studies I have read are wrong. Would you like some references?
Here you go:
And here’s a list (from about 3 years ago) of the top grossing programs:
Jason,
I like your comments and wish there were more people here at the UW who understood your points.
Lee’s proposal is not bad, but it serves the fans rather than the students. I am sure his proposal would enhance the Huskies ability to make money and it would be nice if a state run athletic program could make a profit to support other things. His argument seems to me to be pretty much like the argument that the pro state liquor stores make about the financial benefit of the state selling booze.
My concern reflects my role as a parent and a faculty member. I see varsity sports as an important aspect of the student experience. A student who excels in football should have a chance to enjoy that and the rest of us should enjoy rooting for her as a fellow student.
The latter is the issue I have with Lee’s idea. Sponsoring football as a non academic activity would be OK by me, if I saw how this could be done in a way that would enhance the ability of undergraduates to participate in amateur athletics.
Interestingly, exactly this is now the case for collegiate baseball. The difference form Lee’s proposal is that the Rainiers and Aquasox, are not and do not pretend to be university teams. So, UW kids, including my friend John Olerud who played pro ball before becoming our Chair of Dermatology, can enjoy varsity baseball without having to compete with the best sluggers Cosat Rica and Mississippi can produce.
So, my questions for Lee are this.
1. Could he alter his proposal so that the UW branded team was labelled as a non academic effort whose profits would be directed at supporting intercollegiate sports at varsity and JV levels?
2. Could the non pro programs comply with the Ivy standard and limit themselves students recruited or admitted by academic criteria only?
3. If this were the case, would his fans lose interest in the pre-pro tem since there wold no longer be a pretense that the players were students?
@37
YOU said that fans would not attend games where the athletes were not chosen ad future pros.
No, I never said that. You’re making that up.
You’re at least trying a little harder to understand my point, so I’ll answer your questions in comment #40 in more detail.
@30 Lee,
1. I did not ask you for refs, I asked if oyu wanted refs rather than press releases from the programs.
2. In your own (second) list, note the term “grossing.”
3. The link you provided is to the NCAA. I can offer you a similar link where the coal industry explains why there is no problem with burning coal.
The only real issue with these numbers is the claim that we (the Universities) run these programs to make money. I have NEVER met an administrator or faculty member who believes that.
Many of us DO enjoy the pre-pro activities and do root for “our teams.” IMO, the U does a number of these entertaining things that benefit our environment. The Huskies are not that different from the Burke, the Arboretum, or Meany Hall. But, in the case of all these others the cost/benefit is transparent. In the cae of the AD, we do not know how much running this show costs us.
Also, the other entertainments, all have a much clearer role in undergrad education. Obviously. Meany shows performance by student actors and exposes all students to important cultural offerings. Botany and forestry students benefit form the Arboretum.
I would like to see the pre-pro sports retasked so that they also had a much more clear role in education. Your idea is actually similar to mine, with the exception that I think any UW brand use ought o assure that the brand does not hurt the intended academic goal .. in this case the ability of our students to participate in competitive intercollegiate sports.
@40
1. Could he alter his proposal so that the UW branded team was labelled as a non academic effort whose profits would be directed at supporting intercollegiate sports at varsity and JV levels?
I wouldn’t have to alter my proposal at all. That’s exactly what my proposal intends to do. It seems like you’re getting closer to understanding what I’m saying, but something is making it very difficult for you to fully grasp it.
2. Could the non pro programs comply with the Ivy standard and limit themselves students recruited or admitted by academic criteria only?
Yes. In fact, what would likely happen is that the Ivy’s and the service academies (and other academically prestigious schools) would become a different level and compete amongst themselves (with rosters comprised entirely of student-athletes who chose that path because of the particular benefits of being a student at Harvard, West Point, Yale, etc.).
3. If this were the case, would his fans lose interest in the pre-pro tem since there wold no longer be a pretense that the players were students?
I doubt it. As long as 18-21 year olds play in the same stadium every week in the same uniforms they’ve always worn against the same teams they’ve always played, no one will care if only 20-30% of the players are actually enrolled as students of the university.
@38
Since the pros you refer to are full time athletes, these athletes, even if they were “academically qualified” could never fulfill the requirements of any serious degree program.
I strongly disagree with this. At Michigan, most of the players did coast, but a not-insignificant number of them did get fairly challenging degrees. In fact, two members of the football team graduated from the Engineering school the same year as I did (a very challenging curriculum). As I’ve said, the students who are academically up to the task should have the chance to get degrees. And I think many will still jump at that opportunity, even at schools like Stanford and Michigan.
@41 Lee
Ok, so .. assume the Huskies were spun off as a formal farm team.
Would the UW STILL field a varsity team of students?
How would your pre-pro farm team be different from the Seahawks?
Would Hsky fand identify with the prologo team rather than the varsity?
Where would this farm team play? If they were not academic, state law might not allow them to play at Husky Stadium.
@42
Actually the data came from Forbes. They are not press releases from the NCAA.
Lee
?? They do just that NOW!
@44
Ok, so .. assume the Huskies were spun off as a formal farm team.
Would the UW STILL field a varsity team of students?
No, they would field a team comprised of both students and non-students.
How would your pre-pro farm team be different from the Seahawks?
You have to be 20 years old to play for the Seahawks.
Would Hsky fand identify with the prologo team rather than the varsity?
Yes.
Where would this farm team play? If they were not academic, state law might not allow them to play at Husky Stadium.
Why not? The Seahawks played at Husky Stadium for two seasons while Qwest Field was being built.
@46
They do just that NOW!
Exactly, but they would become a separate division so that there could be a separate rankings/playoff for those schools who are 100% student-athletes.
You then go on to cite anecdotes. I can too .. seem my comment about John Olerud above.
I also know kids who hold down a full job while attending college.
Maybe a better question is this. In your model, as I understand it, for the UW the only kids who could get these positions would be UW? I assume then, that these kids would NO be recuited by that AD since there wold no longer be AD scolarships?
If so, why would you expect that 20% of the squad would be UW students? How big is the squad anyway? 40? If so, ar we talking about 8 kids? How many of these would make the first teams? How many would play the red shirt/ game and play for the full 4 years of college? Would your fans take the pre-prp team seriously as a student effort if no more than one or two were starters?
@48 The ivies are NOW in a separate division.,
.”
Yes, and there were huge legal and academic issues raised at that time. The idea of any state facility being tasked for a profit making activity is very difficult. The same issue afflicts the State Liquor Stores.
SJ, Lee
I think it’s great that you guys have thought about this problem enough to formulate ideas. Good stuff.
We’re just pundits. To hash out various plans, full proposals with mutual reviews would be constructive.
Goldy’s podcasts could always use grist for the mill. Maybe this could be a topic.
I’m totally on board with Lee’s plan, because better is better. I try to be an idealistic realist, vs an ultimatist.
I’m sure if you two identified areas of agreement, I’d be onboard.
@49
You then go on to cite anecdotes.
Of course I did. Because you said it could never happen. That’s obviously not true then.
Maybe a better question is this. In your model, as I understand it, for the UW the only kids who could get these positions would be UW? I assume then, that these kids would NO be recuited by that AD since there wold no longer be AD scolarships?
This could be handled in a number of different ways, and I’m not sure there’s a single right answer to it. The NCAA could possibly set a limit to the number of student-athletes, or maybe that’s not necessary and it could just be an open benefit for any of the football players to take advantage of. You could still have students walk-on and make the team, and you could also have a non-academic football player who decides in his junior year to apply to the school.
If so, why would you expect that 20% of the squad would be UW students?
I threw that out as an arbitrary number. The percentage might be higher or lower, but I can see running into the same problems we have already if the NCAA sets some arbitrary minimum.
How big is the squad anyway? 40?
Much higher. Usually close to 100.
How many of these would make the first teams? How many would play the red shirt/ game and play for the full 4 years of college?
Who would play would be based entirely on ability of course. And I could certainly still see red-shirting continue for the student-athletes.
Would your fans take the pre-prp team seriously as a student effort if no more than one or two were starters?
As I said, I don’t think the fans will care much either way. Preserving the student-athlete experience is for the student-athlete, not the fans.
@50
The ivies are NOW in a separate division.
Yes, you’re right, but the Service Academies are not. My mistake. The difference I’m discussing would be similar to the one between the FBS and FCS.
@51
Yes, and there were huge legal and academic issues raised at that time. The idea of any state facility being tasked for a profit making activity is very difficult.
Of the kinds of obstacles that a plan like the one I’m considering would face, this one would probably be pretty low on the list.
@52
I’m totally on board with Lee’s plan, because better is better. I try to be an idealistic realist, vs an ultimatist.
I’m not terribly optimistic that something like what I’m proposing will happen. It’s just how I’d like to see things reformed. In our society, money will continue to shape the college football world. The initial topic of this post should give you a good idea of how profits make even the most common-sense reforms nearly impossible.
Relevant email I just recieved:
Janelle S. Taylor
to aaup
show details 11:14 AM (3 hours ago)
Washington athletic director Scott Woodward apologizes for comments about Oregon
Washington AD Scott Woodward said his remarks Saturday about the University of Oregon suffering as an institution were intended as a commentary about the lack of state funding Oregon receives.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....ard09.html
By Bob Condotta
Seattle Times staff reporter
Washington athletic director Scott Woodward issued an apology Monday for comments he made about the University of Oregon before the Huskies’ football loss to the Ducks in Eugene.
Woodward, who referred Saturday to Oregon as a “once-great academic university” that has declined in academic standing, said Monday that his comments had been intended as commentary on the decrease in state funding.
Monday, Woodward released a statement saying: “I apologize if my comments were found as critical or insulting to fans and alumni of the University of Oregon, and I hope to offer some clarity about my true feelings on the situation.
“I have a great respect for the University of Oregon both as an institution and an athletic program. As a lifelong advocate for public funding in higher education, I have seen firsthand the effects of public funding on many institutions, including the University of Washington.
“My remarks were intended as a commentary on the powerful impact that a state can have on an institution’s academic standing. The University of Oregon is a great example of the struggles which can accompany a university when state funding decreases, but UO is certainly not the only institution suffering.”
Woodward said on his regular segment on the UW pregame show Saturday that “it’s an embarrassment what their academic institution is, and what’s happened to ’em as far as their state funding has gone. In my mind it’s a wonderful athletic facility, but they’ve watched it at the expense of the university go really down.
“But the athletic facility is impressive. The fans at Oregon should get down on their hands and knees at night to Phil Knight and pray to him because this is an incredible facility he’s built. Any of the rankings you look at, you watch how far they’ve (Oregon) dropped because of their state funding.
“And it’s a message for us, too. Our state needs to get its act together because we can’t continue to progress without investment in our institution. But we’re doing extremely well and we’re very proud of that fact. We’re a part of the whole University of Washington. That’s who we are.”
He elaborated on those comments to The Seattle Times, saying, “It’s embarrassing at the level that the state supports this once-great academic university because it’s gone way down in academic standing because of the enormous lack of support over the decades.
“What they have done here athletically is nothing short of a miracle. It is fabulous what they have invested and how they have done it. But it is a shame that the whole enterprise isn’t benefiting (from the athletic success) and that’s one thing that is very much a sense of pride at the University of Washington, that our whole enterprise is excellent in all we do. But that’s no excuse for us not getting it right in football.”
Bob Condotta: 206-515-5699 or bcondotta@seattletimes.com
Lee ..
thumbs up
This is a good thread and one I think UW folks would benefot from reading. Would you mind if I cross posted it at THE-Ave.US and tried to draw attention to ir using our listserv on campus?
If we did that, I would suggest you or I edit out any personal stuff. I could o that, but think your POV is important than mine so would prefer you did this. ,
I think the ideas originating form you pose are far more interesting than what I usually here and would be curious what sort of response you evoke.
@58
If the folks at The-Ave think that my thoughts on this topic are valuable, I have no problem if you point them in my direction.
lee @ 56
Well.
I’m proposing universal voter registration, public financing of campaigns, and require use of open source software in elections. A pretty good start.
Some day these things will be the norm.
It all starts with a conversation.
@60
It all starts with a conversation.
True.
Lee, I like your idea all the way back @ 21. And there are plenty of examples of university teams breaking away from their scholastic roots and becoming professional clubs. In Mexico there’s Estudiantes Tecos and Pumas de la UNAM, and Chile has U. de Chile and U. Catolica. There’s even an example here in the US, as BYU’s men’s soccer team competes in the USL’s Premier Developmental League. It could be done…..
In these examples, what happens?
Do the fans of the break off team consider themselves as fans of the University or do they see the spin offs as a brand? .. e.g. no one thinks the Seattle Seahawks are citizens of Seattle but Seattle fans somehow take Seattle pride in what the Hawks do.
What happens to the profits of these “school” teams?
Lee
I think your idea is provocative.
I can cut and paste into the blog on the Ave, but would want to be sure to attribute this to you. I assume you would like me to use “Lee, Contributor to HA,” as an attribution?
Also, unlike HA TA has a way of keeping abstracts of certain ideas on what we call the “Front Page.” This would likely be one of those. Unless you want to, I will write the abstract. Do you want it sent to you for approval?
@64
I can cut and paste into the blog on the Ave, but would want to be sure to attribute this to you. I assume you would like me to use “Lee, Contributor to HA,” as an attribution?
That would be fine.
Also, unlike HA TA has a way of keeping abstracts of certain ideas on what we call the “Front Page.” This would likely be one of those. Unless you want to, I will write the abstract. Do you want it sent to you for approval?
No, I trust you’ll characterize it properly.
@63
In these examples, what happens?
Do the fans of the break off team consider themselves as fans of the University or do they see the spin offs as a brand?
I don’t think the perspective of the fan changes much. The teams are still tied from a branding perspective to the university in much the same way they were before.
e.g. no one thinks the Seattle Seahawks are citizens of Seattle but Seattle fans somehow take Seattle pride in what the Hawks do.
Exactly.
What happens to the profits of these “school” teams?
I would support a system that mandates that a certain percentage of the profits go to support the local university sports clubs.
And SJ, I’d like to make a very important point here. In this comment thread, you demonstrated quite clearly why I (and most people I know) think you’re an insufferable asshole. This was an issue on which there was very little disagreement between us, yet in order to illustrate that point, I had to completely delete two of your comments that attempted to put words in my mouth, and I had to spend about 5-10 other comments clarifying the points in comment #21 that were obvious to both Jason and BJ.
You have some kind of a problem. I don’t know what it is, but I suggest that you take a look back at this comment thread and use it as a starting point to try to figure out what it is. This conversation should never have been as combative or obnoxious. In particular, look at comment #22 (where you used a sock-puppet again). Knowing what you know now about my position, and knowing that both Jason and BJ understood my proposal right away without further clarification, why did that comment happen? Please take some time and ask yourself that question earnestly. Something is mentally wrong with you, and I’m imploring you to do something about it.
Lee
OK
It would be great to be ion the same page!
I will post an abstract to TA and link it here. I assume you do not want an email address associated. If you do want, then I could use Lee@HorsesAss???
Be good.
Sorry BJ, my bad. I hit the wrong key on my editor.
Lee …
The post is up at http://handbill.us/?p=509.
I just realized this within the past 15 minutes, but the Broadway Joe at #64 is not Broadway Joe. It’s SJ pretending to be Broadway Joe in order to get my permission to re-post something. I’ve asked Goldy to permanently block SJ from commenting at HA.
@68
And I expect that post to be taken down today.