Is Your School Crazy About Football?!?

[little_late_MD]

but osu is going to build their oh so important and necessary athletic village, so they fulfill their most important mission as a public university -- win football games. honestly, we do have misplaced priorities when universiites can get funding for cr@p like an athletic village but no one donates to scholarship funds and for hiring faculty.

Generally, football is the only sport that pays for itself. Not only that , it also pays for the hundreds of other scholarships given to student-atheletes in other sports. Not to mention the millions in alumni donations a good football program brings in. Look at many of the top schools in the country, most of them got were they are today at least in part by their football programs.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Fantasy Sports]

Generally, football is the only sport that pays for itself. Not only that , it also pays for the hundreds of other scholarships given to student-atheletes in other sports. Not to mention the millions in alumni donations a good football program brings in. Look at many of the top schools in the country, most of them got were they are today at least in part by their football programs.

Im calling BS on this. Football only pays for itself if you are a dominant football school and your other sports are mediocre. Most schools barely break even or lose money on football. Think about it. With the number of players and coaches and equipment, as well as the need for a large stadium and massive facilities, running a football team is expensive.

Very very few conferences have an attractive enough TV package to make money off football. The ACC, SEC, Big12, Big10, and Pac10 are the only conferences that have huge paydays from TV. And even the Big12, Big10, and Pac10 are trying to renegotiate their TV contracts because their member schools that are not elite programs are pissed they are losing money to football.

Also, with escalating college coaching salaries, faculty who are already underpaid at state schools are now even more relatively underpaid. So on the one hand you have new stadiums and coaches getting huge contact extensions, while faculty are being laid off or denied tenure or are leaving for other schools since the pay is better.

The worst offender is the Big12, at least the other conferences have some academically oriented schools such as not to look like a pure football moneymaking enterprise, but the Big12 is all about the football tv contracts (and I would know having attended a Big12 school).

I love football and watch it regularly, but you have to have priorities.

 

[OSUdoc08]

Im calling BS on this. Football only pays for itself if you are a dominant football school and your other sports are mediocre. Most schools barely break even or lose money on football. Think about it. With the number of players and coaches and equipment, as well as the need for a large stadium and massive facilities, running a football team is expensive.

Very very few conferences have an attractive enough TV package to make money off football. The ACC, SEC, Big12, Big10, and Pac10 are the only conferences that have huge paydays from TV. And even the Big12, Big10, and Pac10 are trying to renegotiate their TV contracts because their member schools that are not elite programs are pissed they are losing money to football.

Also, with escalating college coaching salaries, faculty who are already underpaid at state schools are now even more relatively underpaid. So on the one hand you have new stadiums and coaches getting huge contact extensions, while faculty are being laid off or denied tenure or are leaving for other schools since the pay is better.

The worst offender is the Big12, at least the other conferences have some academically oriented schools such as not to look like a pure football moneymaking enterprise, but the Big12 is all about the football tv contracts (and I would know having attended a Big12 school).

I love football and watch it regularly, but you have to have priorities.

Um, hello?

Baylor?

 

[Doctor Bagel]

The worst offender is the Big12, at least the other conferences have some academically oriented schools such as not to look like a pure football moneymaking enterprise, but the Big12 is all about the football tv contracts (and I would know having attended a Big12 school).

i'd say that university of texas is an academically -oriented school at least on the graduate level. for example, the law school was highly ranked, had great faculty and one of the biggest law libraries in the nation. their business school is really good, and the mls program is one of the top ten in the country. i'm by no means a longhorns fan, but i do think they do an okay job at academics

 

[Doctor Bagel]

Generally, football is the only sport that pays for itself. Not only that , it also pays for the hundreds of other scholarships given to student-atheletes in other sports. Not to mention the millions in alumni donations a good football program brings in. Look at many of the top schools in the country, most of them got were they are today at least in part by their football programs.

the problem is that the alumni donations are usually earmarked specifically for football (or other athletics at the school), so even if football pays for itself, it doesn't bring any net financial benefit to the school. also, again, why the hell do people donate money to their college's football team? of all the things in the world that are important, a college football team is pretty much at the bottom of the list.

 

[Doctor Bagel]

I think the faculty makes enough as it is. I've seen some of the salaries.

As far as scholarships are concerned, they are readily available if you are an Oklahoma resident.

at osu, the high salaries are all for engineering and business professors. history, philosophy, art, etc. professors aren't bringing in the big bucks. since a university is designed to broadly educate its undergraduate students and leave them knowing more than just engineering or accounting, it's a shame the professors in these less profitable areas get the shaft. it makes osu look like a trade school and not a true university.

as for scholarships, maybe. i got a full scholarship to osu, but i knew people who were pretty okay students who just got like $500. if you weren't a valedictorian (the big osu scholarship), or if you didn't break 30 on your ACT, the scholarships weren't that big.

 

[OSUdoc08]

at osu, the high salaries are all for engineering and business professors. history, philosophy, art, etc. professors aren't bringing in the big bucks. since a university is designed to broadly educate its undergraduate students and leave them knowing more than just engineering or accounting, it's a shame the professors in these less profitable areas get the shaft. it makes osu look like a trade school and not a true university.

as for scholarships, maybe. i got a full scholarship to osu, but i knew people who were pretty okay students who just got like $500. if you weren't a valedictorian (the big osu scholarship), or if you didn't break 30 on your ACT, the scholarships weren't that big.

I didn't realize we were talking about the undergrad. I'd have to say I don't know much about it, since I went to Baylor.

 

[Fantasy Sports]

Um, hello?

Baylor?

Um, hello I was thinking about schools ranked, I dunno, maybe in the top 50? UT-Austin is the best academic school in the Big 12 (as well as the best athletic school). A&M is second in both (doh). Colorado is probably around here too. Most would then then say Baylor.

And Im talking mainly about undergraduate education (since we are talking about college football, where most allegiances are forged during undergrad-- and more importantly that is where the donors have their allegiance).

UT's professional/grad schools are excellent, but Im referring to undergraduate programs here.

But then again, my main point is that the Big 12 doesnt have that one school you can point to and pay lip service to being academically oriented (Pac 10 = Stanford, SEC= Vanderbilt, ACC= Duke, Big 10= Michigan/Northwestern)-- which is bothersome because our schools are pretty darn good if you ask me, it is just there is not one top-flight school that the announcers would mention that would make the conference seems like it cares about graduating players as opposed to just getting new TV contracts.

 

[OSUdoc08]

Um, hello I was thinking about schools ranked, I dunno, maybe in the top 50? UT-Austin is the best academic school in the Big 12 (as well as the best athletic school). A&M is second in both (doh). Colorado is probably around here too. Most would then then say Baylor.

It depends on what you are talking about for Baylor:

Engineering is ranked 21st.

Entrepreneurship is ranked 10th.

Yes, it is 78th overall.


For Comparison,

Texas = 52nd

A&M = 60th

(Those are the only 2 Big 12 ranked above Baylor.)

 

[Fantasy Sports]

It depends on what you are talking about.

Engineering is ranked 21st.

Entrepreneurship is ranked 10th.

Yes, it is #78 overall.

No one cares about individual rankings though, because random schools have good random programs (UH and creative writing, etc). The conference loves pulling out those US News rankings though on TV.

I also have no idea what entrepreneurship as a major is. Im guessing it is offered as part of business at most other schools.

 

[Doctor Bagel]

But then again, my main point is that the Big 12 doesnt have that one school you can point to and pay lip service to being academically oriented (Pac 10 = Stanford, SEC= Vanderbilt, ACC= Duke, Big 10= Michigan/Northwestern)-- which is bothersome because our schools are pretty darn good if you ask me, it is just there is not one top-flight school that the announcers would mention that would make the conference seems like it cares about graduating players as opposed to just getting new TV contracts.

tell boone pickens about it and maybe he'll donate some money to academics at osu instead of to the football stadium and to this stupid athletic village. i'm sure he'll be responsive.

you're right, the big 12 is embarrasing in comparison.

 

[jackets5]

Virtually all schools in the BCS confrences make money on football, thats a fact look it up. Big time basketball makes money as well but thats about it. All minor mens sports and all Womens sports lose money consitently. If it wasnt for Football and Basketball alot of schools would have to cut their minor sports teams. Football and Basketball give back more to the schools then they get from the school so its more than a fair trade.

Im calling BS on this. Football only pays for itself if you are a dominant football school and your other sports are mediocre. Most schools barely break even or lose money on football. Think about it. With the number of players and coaches and equipment, as well as the need for a large stadium and massive facilities, running a football team is expensive.

Very very few conferences have an attractive enough TV package to make money off football. The ACC, SEC, Big12, Big10, and Pac10 are the only conferences that have huge paydays from TV. And even the Big12, Big10, and Pac10 are trying to renegotiate their TV contracts because their member schools that are not elite programs are pissed they are losing money to football.

Also, with escalating college coaching salaries, faculty who are already underpaid at state schools are now even more relatively underpaid. So on the one hand you have new stadiums and coaches getting huge contact extensions, while faculty are being laid off or denied tenure or are leaving for other schools since the pay is better.

The worst offender is the Big12, at least the other conferences have some academically oriented schools such as not to look like a pure football moneymaking enterprise, but the Big12 is all about the football tv contracts (and I would know having attended a Big12 school).

I love football and watch it regularly, but you have to have priorities.

 

[little_late_MD]

Im calling BS on this. Football only pays for itself if you are a dominant football school and your other sports are mediocre. Most schools barely break even or lose money on football. Think about it. With the number of players and coaches and equipment, as well as the need for a large stadium and massive facilities, running a football team is expensive.

You can call BS if you want, but what I said still remains true. The big conferences are not the only players in this game who make the $$$. Most of the mid-majors, as well as many Division II schools all see black because of their football programs. For most programs, the television rights make up a small percentage of their revenue. Usually the largest benefits of these contracts go to the marquee schools in the conference (think USC, OSU, Oklahoma, Tennesee, UF, Miami, etc...) For the "regular" schools, the revenues are generated by attendance, merchandising, and liscensing. Atheltic scholarships come from an entirely different account than the general scholarship funds, so there is no zero-sum going on here with regards to other students.

The coaching staff's salaries have nothing to do with that of the adjunct/tenured faculty. Once again, these accounts are completely seperate, so you are not taking from one to pay another. Football programs do run in the red to pay for certain things (especially new programs), but more often than not they recoup these costs from future revenues. Running a football/basketball program is very expensive, but the amount of money in college sports is unbelievable. If schools weren't making money hand over fist, they wouldn't pump resources into athletics. There are several great books on this topic, including "The Game of Life: College Sports and Educational Values" and "Beer and Circus; How Big Time Sports is Crippling Undergraduate Education in America." These books really opened my eyes to both sides of college sports influence on our educations.

You can't really debate the importance of football in the collegiate academic landcape. Having quality programs has "made" many of the top academic institutions in this country. A large degree of the academic success many universities have obtained (Princeton, Stanford, Harvard, Yale, Notre Dame, USC, UF, Miami) has been made possible, to a large extent, becuase of the national spotlight shining on these schools excellent (or once-excellent) football programs. You don't have to like football, or any athletics for that matter. However, it is silly to underestimate the importance this one little sport has had on the American collegiate landscape.

 

[Fantasy Sports]

You can't really debate the importance of football in the collegiate academic landcape. Having quality programs has "made" many of the top academic institutions in this country. A large degree of the academic success many universities have obtained (Princeton, Stanford, Harvard, Yale, Notre Dame, USC, UF, Miami) has been made possible, to a large extent, becuase of the national spotlight shining on these schools excellent (or once-excellent) football programs. You don't have to like football, or any athletics for that matter. However, it is silly to underestimate the importance this one little sport has had on the American collegiate landscape.

The academic success of a college related to football is almost nil. There was a study done about Boston College following Flutie's amazing season and what impact it had on admissions. It increased the number of applicants-- but those applicants were on average inferior to the student body. Makes sense... if you pick to apply to a school just because it won a football national championship, you're not too bright.

I think Princeton, Stanford, Harvard, and Yale are doing just fine with getting students with their football teams being completely useless-- its their academics that make them good (MIT doesnt have football as far as I know... it has no problem being an academic power)

All the stats about football making money don't take into account the construction costs, which the university pays for, or the additional facilities that the university pays for. Which is why most people fall for the misconception that football makes money (which is true at places like UT and OU, but not so true at most schools that dont compete for a BCS spot yearly or are in a major conference)

 

[Mr. Tee]

I go to UGA....the Bulldogs are big and you know it...

I used to be disinterested in football as well. Then I started watching UGA football games...and I instantly changed my opinion. I found football to be one of the more exciting sports because exciting/anxious moments can happen at any second. Compare this to baseball when it's boring to watch the pitcher throw balls, or to see the batter hit foul balls . Football is a high-octane sport and can be very emotional, especially when it's your team down there on the field.

Represent,

Later

 

[jackets5]

A high profile football program has helped schools to raise its academic standing. Perfect example is Boston College after Doug Flutie threw the hail mary pass against Miami and BC became a national football program the number of applications at BC rose dramatically as well as the students GPA and SAT scores that wound up enrolling at BC and BC's reputation improved. Could it be coincidence maybe, but probally not. However, look at any public school that is considered an Elite school or "public ivy" they all have big time football programs (Cal, Michigan, Virginia, UCLA, Texas) name one elite public school that dosent have big time football, also do you think a school like Notre Dame would be as highly ranked as it is without its football program and the revenue and exposure it brings to the univeristy. To totally dismiss athletics impact means your not looking at the whole picture.

The academic success of a college related to football is almost nil. There was a study done about Boston College following Flutie's amazing season and what impact it had on admissions. It increased the number of applicants-- but those applicants were on average inferior to the student body. Makes sense... if you pick to apply to a school just because it won a football national championship, you're not too bright.

I think Princeton, Stanford, Harvard, and Yale are doing just fine with getting students with their football teams being completely useless-- its their academics that make them good (MIT doesnt have football as far as I know... it has no problem being an academic power)

All the stats about football making money don't take into account the construction costs, which the university pays for, or the additional facilities that the university pays for. Which is why most people fall for the misconception that football makes money (which is true at places like UT and OU, but not so true at most schools that dont compete for a BCS spot yearly or are in a major conference)

 

[ROBINHO]

hehehe..I am a student at a Medical School in Sao Paulo,Brasil...hence the answer is obvious. 80% of the med students love football and I don't see any problem with it. It somehow promotes school spirit. During the Copa America...a football game was an excuse for us to come together and throw parteis...drinking beer and cheering the Brazillian NT. Each year there is a Inter Medschool Games in the state of Sao Paulo...and it is something that is serious. we train in the various disciplines through out the whole year to show what we can do in October. It is just beautiful and unites the student body. apart from that u can't forget the fact that we get to excercise the body whether cheering or participating.

I don't think that Medicine is only about studying and cramming your brains. Sports is an important component. Ironically Drs easily pescribe exercising but find it dificult to practice it on a day to day basis...lol

 

[minimega67]

Oh, good Lord.

C'mon, dude...if you don't like it, then tough titties. What the heck did you think you were getting into?? hahahaha Give it time, we'll convert you yet.

FOOTBALL RULES!!!! (and no, not so much a douchebag here )

--former Sooner player/national champion-turned med student OUCOM class of 2007.