A blog for the FHS Advanced Topics in Literature: Sports class. This blog is an open, moderated, opportunity for students of the class to share their feelings on modern topics in sports literature and beyond.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
NCAA for revenue or raising better student athletes?
What is the point of the NCAA? Do colleges have sports in hope of gaining money and getting publicity to draw students to their schools? Or is it to develop capable athletes as better people as well as creating school spirit and loyality?
only a certain amount of schools are making the big bucks on athletics really. most schools are running in the red as far as athletics and i'd say that title IX makes them have to get massive money from football and men's basketball to pay off the rest of the sports. personally i think it actually is a great marketing tool, whether thats the main focus or not. i believe in the so called "flutie effect" that started to be studied after bc admissions went up in the mid 80's. it really is free publicity for the school and a lot of people going to big schools would be lying if they said the college sports played NO impact.
and to say all of them arent turning athletes into better people is false, sure theres some prgorams out there that just have complete thugs and have coaches that dont care in turning them into better ppl like unlv in the early 90's but its hard to say that coaches like tom izzo and others arent making kids into better ppl. sorry for the MSU reference
It's all about the money plain and simple. If they were doing it to make athletes better people, they sure aren't doing a good job.
ReplyDeleteonly a certain amount of schools are making the big bucks on athletics really. most schools are running in the red as far as athletics and i'd say that title IX makes them have to get massive money from football and men's basketball to pay off the rest of the sports. personally i think it actually is a great marketing tool, whether thats the main focus or not. i believe in the so called "flutie effect" that started to be studied after bc admissions went up in the mid 80's. it really is free publicity for the school and a lot of people going to big schools would be lying if they said the college sports played NO impact.
ReplyDeleteand to say all of them arent turning athletes into better people is false, sure theres some prgorams out there that just have complete thugs and have coaches that dont care in turning them into better ppl like unlv in the early 90's but its hard to say that coaches like tom izzo and others arent making kids into better ppl. sorry for the MSU reference
ReplyDeletemaybe he should focus more on their on court performance first. Loss to Northwestern at home?
ReplyDeleteI think the question is whether or not the NCAA bring any value to the sports they represent. Financially, yes. But, I'd prefer quality over quantity.
ReplyDelete