This blog printed on 100% recycled electrons.
Today's Argus editorializes about the costs USD faces if it pursues the recommendations of Inter-Collegiate Athletic Consulting and its own task force to follow SDSU into Division I athletics. the consulting firm's study cautions that the move would require an increase of the athletic budget from the current $5 million a year to $7 million a year.
I find it remarkable that we pour even $5 million into athletics at a public university. Imagine if instead of using that money to support the throwing of balls, we eliminated intercollegiate athletics from the budget, maintained funding for intramural sports and workout facilities to meet the wellness needs of the student body as a whole, and poured the remaining money into academics. Perhaps South Dakota should experiment with converting one of its universities (as a Madison resident, I volunteer DSU) to a purely academic institution. No intercollegiate athletics, no sports scholarships, no money for athletics of any sort that are not open and directly beneficial to every student on campus. Let this one institution focus our money entirely on students who are students first and athletes solely for recreation.
I know SDSU justifies its move to D-I from a marketing perspective: big-time football can generate big-time revenue, not to mention good brand buzz. But USD shouldn't buy into this thinking. If USD is serious about being South Dakota's "academic showcase," President Abbott should send a strong message that athletics should be an afterthought. That's the way it is at the academic showcases of the nation. No great intellectual gun enrolls at Harvard or Yale because of their football teams' records. The same could be true of USD. A university staking its claim to academic superiority should have the courage to put brains over brawn and abandon the rush to Division I. Students with their eyes on the future know that the amount of time they spend at SUD playing ball will have much less impact on their future success than the time they spend hitting the books.
Hide Fido (by Andy Horowitz)
-
I coined Noem as the ‘Palin of South Dakota’ when she ran for the state
house, seems I nailed it; America: meet your new Secretary of Homeland
Security. Sh...
2 hours ago
Harvard and Yale ARE Division I programs though. They have reduced the emphasis on athletics, but if those schools can have athletics, USD surely can't say that it can't be D-I and academically rigorous. Likewise, schools like MIT. Cal Tech and U of Chicago are D-III (no athletic scholarships) but still have sports.
ReplyDeleteGetting rid of sports as USD would be a bad idea.
Alumni and college kids want sports. They can have a positive impact on the campus.
Look at NAU, which is a for-profit school (but trying to seperate itself from other for-profit schools). They sponsor athletics (not a full load), but if the school's main purpose is to make money, why do they spend money on rodeo and volleyball? It's good for the school.
USD needs to send a message to students: we are a big-time state school. That means recognizing that it is time to go to D-I, rather than dropping to D-III. USD does not have the academic reputation of MIT, and dropping down won't create. Given the declining number of HS students in SD, USD will need to recruit out of state for students; D-I gives them a better chance of getting those students.
Finally, while I have great respect for the value and the education offered by South Dakota universities, having attended schools both in SD and elsewhere, people outside of South Dakota don't have that respect. It's perception and snobbery, but if you want to change that attitude, and boost the academic reputation of the U, dropping athletics won't be enough. You're going to have to put a lot of money into the U for professors, facilities and so forth.
I think most of the sports in high schools and colleges should be eliminated. There is way too much money spend on athletics on both levels. Kids are supposed to be getting an education and not worry about winning championships in sports. My niece went to a state college in Minnesota that didn't offer atheletic scholarships to girls---I don't know about the boys, but I thought that sounded like a good deal.
ReplyDeleteThere needs to be a distinction between being big and being strong. Not having a strong athletics program will absolutely mean a loss of something to draw large numbers of students. Being a school that stakes its reputation on the caliber of its graduates means having the courage to turn away the dollars, tightening its admissions requirements, and aggressively looking out for the wefare and future of the students. If students and alumni want sports at the cost of education I consider it a symptom of something broken not an impetus for falling in line. If a school has a huge football program like UNL, the program supports itself and a lot of the other sports without costing the school anything and drawing dollars and fame for it in return. If USD could expand its program without losing academic integrity I see no problem doing it. If it creates a group of athletes that think they are gods to be knelt down before with platters of steaming A's in classes unattended...like UNL...screw that.
ReplyDelete