USM Football - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jun 27, 2004

USM Football

Date: Jun 27, 2004

Though it would be nice if Athletics did pay its own way, at USM Athletics has always run a deficit and required infusions of cash from other sources. If football costs can now be covered by the Eagle Club, that's better than taking away from the bookstore (as was done in the recent past) or from the academic side of campus. If SFT really belived his rhetoric about the need for financial efficiency across campus he would get rid of athletics altogether - a position I do not support by the way, but it is more than a little hypocritical for SFT to starve some academic programs for not being money makers while promoting one of the bioggest money losers of all in athletics.

Date: Jun 27, 2004

The university provides about a 1 million dollar a year supplement to the athletic department. When you consider all the publicity, recognition, and goodwill athletic events bring to the university this is probably money well spent.

Date: Jun 27, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Book Keeper
"The university provides about a 1 million dollar a year supplement to the athletic department. When you consider all the publicity, recognition, and goodwill athletic events bring to the university this is probably money well spent."

In 1987 (I think it was) after USM won the NIT, Dr. Lucas remarked that inquiries from prospective students increased tenfold. About the same time, the USM Polymer Science program (oddly enough) received national recognition and -- according to AKL -- did not cause any substantial increase in inquiries. Like it or not, athletics is a major source of publicity for all but the truly world class schools . . . and maybe for some of them.

Date: Jun 27, 2004

Book Keeper, You are right: athletic programs do result in publicity and recognition for the university. I was an Eagle Club member, I held season tickets, and I enjoyed the games. Nonetheless, I never once lost sight of the fact that a university's mission is to contribute to the larger body of knowledge in the various disciplines represented at the institution, and to impart that knowledge to its students. The kind of publicty USM needs is the type of publicity it seems to be tossing out the window within the English Department alone - e.g., the contributions of scholars like Gary Stringer, DC Berry, and others. They brought to the university the type of good publicity that money can't buy! The university administration should make every bit as much effort to retain those scholars as it does to retain an athlete. Another thought: I noticed that ram reported that one of your former presidents said that USM received a tenfold increase in student inquiries the year the university won the NIT. I seriously doubt that a tenfold increase in inquiries occurred for your programs in French, Chemistry, Literature, Theatre, and the like. Those are not normally "majors of choice" for prospective athletes. I'd sure like to know just which disciplines received the "tenfold increase" in "inquiries." And I'd like to know just how many of that tenfold increase in "inquires" actually made application or enrolled. Not many, I'd guess. A final thought: In a systematic manner, and allowing for anonymnous responses, I have asked undergraduate students at several institutions about the extent to which the institution's athletic program influenced their decision to enroll. Their answers seldom had anything whatsoever to do with the reputation of the athletic program.

Date: Jun 27, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Lamont Cranston
"Book Keeper, You are right: athletic programs do result in publicity and recognition for the university. I was an Eagle Club member, I held season tickets, and I enjoyed the games. Nonetheless, I never once lost sight of the fact that a university's mission is to contribute to the larger body of knowledge in the various disciplines represented at the institution, and to impart that knowledge to its students. The kind of publicty USM needs is the type of publicity it seems to be tossing out the window within the English Department alone - e.g., the contributions of scholars like Gary Stringer, DC Berry, and others. They brought to the university the type of good publicity that money can't buy! The university administration should make every bit as much effort to retain those scholars as it does to retain an athlete. Another thought: I noticed that ram reported that one of your former presidents said that USM received a tenfold increase in student inquiries the year the university won the NIT. I seriously doubt that a tenfold increase in inquiries occurred for your programs in French, Chemistry, Literature, Theatre, and the like. Those are not normally "majors of choice" for prospective athletes. I'd sure like to know just which disciplines received the "tenfold increase" in "inquiries." And I'd like to know just how many of that tenfold increase in "inquires" actually made application or enrolled. Not many, I'd guess. A final thought: In a systematic manner, and allowing for anonymnous responses, I have asked undergraduate students at several institutions about the extent to which the institution's athletic program influenced their decision to enroll. Their answers seldom had anything whatsoever to do with the reputation of the athletic program. "

I forgot to mention one other thing: Universities such as Northwestern, Chicago, MIT, CalTech, and even Tulane, are not known as having a terribly good track record over the long run. I recall when a 70-0 LSU/Tulane score was not uncommon. Yet, nobody would challenge those schools' status as "World Class." They all made their reputation on academic scholarship, not on athletics. Although Amos Alonzo Stagg, the greatest coach in the history of college football, was the head coach at the University of Chicago, even Chicago's reputation is based on academic scholarship, not on athletics. This Former Eagle Club member and season ticket holder can tell you for sure: Football is neither necessary nor sufficient for achieving World Class status.

Date: Jun 27, 2004

I forgot to mention one other thing: Universities such as Northwestern, Chicago, MIT, CalTech, and even Tulane, are not known as having a terribly good track record over the long run. I recall when a 70-0 LSU/Tulane score was not uncommon. Yet, nobody would challenge those schools' status as "World Class." They all made their reputation on academic scholarship, not on athletics. Although Amos Alonzo Stagg, the greatest coach in the history of college football, was the head coach at the University of Chicago, even Chicago's reputation is based on academic scholarship, not on athletics. This Former Eagle Club member and season ticket holder can tell you for sure: Football is neither necessary nor sufficient for achieving World Class status.

Well said. Look at the Ivy League, for example. Other than perennial NCAA tournament competitor Princeton basketball, few sports or Ivy League athletes are known outside of the Ivy League itself. But academically? Exactly.