Tony Buffa writes:
>Maybe it is worse here
>in Calfornia lately, but I can tell you, it certainly does foster
>resentment when the first thing that happened at Cal Poly here, when the
>students voted tomove to DI (paying higher fees for that was OK, but they
>were fighting the tuition increase tooth and nail in Sacramento!), we
>hired a 70K per year "compliance officer" to keep us out of trouble with
>the NCAA!
 
How much money does the athletic department bring into the school?
I'm not just talking about ticket and tv revenues.  How much does
interest in athletics, whether as a participant or a spectator,
translate into dollars for the rest of the school?
 
An increased athletic presence leads to interest in the school...from
prospective students, donors (alumni and otherwise), the community,
etc.  When you look at it that way, it makes sense to put money into
areas that will do the school the most good - because a winning
football team, for instance, often leads to more research dollars,
better salaries for the other employees, etc.  And if it doesn't, as
you seem to be saying is the case where you are, then I believe that
is a problem at that particular institution.  You can't paint everyone
with a broad brush.  In many cases, it has made sense to spend the
money on good coaches and administrators, and the school has reaped
great benefits.
 
Boston College had applications skyrocket after the Flutie years.
Since then, BC has had the academic qualifications of its student body
increase (they have more and better students to choose from), they
have put tons of money into the facilities and programs around campus,
and basically made BC an even better school than it was.  They have
maintained their academic standards for athletes, too.
 
As well, the situation with your institution just moving up to DivI.
I would expect them to make the commitment and put the money into good
administrators from the start (i.e. the compliance officer) and do
things right.  The result in several years may be more funds for the
rest of the school, an increase in enrollment, and perhaps some of
those faculty members you said were fired may be hired back.  You have
to give the process time.
 
>When you say "Notre
>Dame" what do you think of first?  How about UCLA?  Or Georgetown?  Or
>USC?  Until these types of institutions are held in high esteem for the
>education and research activities they perform, it is a sad commentary on
>our society and its attitudes towards edcuation.
 
These are among the schools that I recognize as excellent both
athletically and academically - very respected in both areas.  I
suspect many people feel the same way.  You seem to be suggesting that
the two are mutually exclusive, and they are not, as these and other
schools have proven.
 
I don't believe that if OSU decides to pay a hockey coach $80,000,
then it will mean a sudden degradation in their status as a superb
research university and academic institution.  Yes, there are schools
that have had problems stemming from big-time athletic programs.  But
these are the ones that get all the press.  It's too boring to print
the news about the schools that maintain their standards and have
their athletes achieve academic success too.  And, the NC$$ spends
much more time and money hunting down the offenders than it does
recognizing the achievers.  Think about that.
 
Finally, I think it is wrong not to recognize that higher education in
the US is a business - even at state schools.  As such, often it is
necessary to make decisions that make business sense.  And the
business aspect of higher education did not begin when the first
school had a winning football team or began collecting tv dollars...it
began way back when the first student was charged to attend (or even
earlier), years before college sports were even dreamed of as big-time.
---                                                                   ---
Mike Machnik                                            [log in to unmask]
Cabletron Systems, Inc.                                    *HMM* 11/13/93