My knowledge of universities outside of California is greatly due to their sports teams. Like many sports fans, watching college teams play has a certain emotional investment that watching professional teams does not always evoke. People, for the most part, enjoy watching college sports and it gives universities recognition that they certainly wouldn’t receive if there were no sports.
The first issue I’d like to address is that of whether or not colleges should have sports. I could not imagine school without sports teams. I just can’t see the cons of having sports teams within a school. I guess the financial burden can be abundant, but not always, some schools make money off their sports teams and the schools benefit tremendously. Being a student athlete requires a lot more than being a student and an athlete. It requires time management, prioritizing, being healthy, and being smart. These are all things that an employer looks for when hiring a new employee. If the only benefit the student receives is being more attractive on the job market, that’s still a great, but in my experience the benefits reach far beyond this. And for the schools, it gives their student body something to have pride in. School spirit and coming together to cheer your school on to a victory is a great way to build pride in your institution. This is why I agree with Brands, “Integrated View” of sports in the institution. The student athletes should be given academic credit for balancing these two very important aspects of health, sound body and mind. Like Brand states, if playing an instrument, which is essentially performing an intricate skill, is considered academia, then why isn’t pitching a baseball? Both require great time and practice, both have careers outside of the university. For some, sports are not intellectual, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be. Yes, the stereotyped, “dumb jock” may have some truth to it, but not every musician is Mozart, the kid who plays the drums in his parents garage is still a musician. Is there a difference in the level of understand between the punk kid and Mozart, of course! Same as there is a difference between the dumb jock and quarterback at Yale. There is no question that sports are a beneficial component of schools, are they essential? No. Not essential, but definitely motivate athletes to go to school who may not have necessarily been interested in going to college otherwise. I can honestly say that my first priority for going to college was to play Division 1 soccer. It was the next step for me in my athletic career and getting a Bachelor’s degree was an amazing bonus. It sounds naive, but I didn’t realize how important school was for my future, I excelled in sports so that’s where I wanted to put my time and energy. I think this could be a considered a con for many of the universities, that students are present only to be athletes, but at least they are there when they otherwise wouldn’t be. And for me, I am now coaching, making money off my investment of being an athlete and learning the sport at the university. Did I receive any academic credit? No, but I would do it again in a heartbeat.
Akron Men’s Soccer winning National Championship
Student athletes are a different type of student, they are students, they are athletes, and they are the school. I remember going on a recruiting trip to the University of Iowa and one of the ladies on the team told me, “we are the school”, when speaking about the athletes at the university. I think she was on to something. These athletes get the school recognized in a public forum. People who never attended college or are not interested in academics can still be interested in the university. That being said, fans have a reason to buy paraphernalia and these sales benefit the schools as well. Like I said in the beginning, I would never know what Auburn University was if Cam Newton didn’t go there, or Akron University if they didn’t have one of the best men’s soccer teams in the entire country. Sports give these places something for the public to connect with.
The schools make some money off their sports teams, if not directly from game attendance, indirectly from their memorabilia sales. Even if they didn’t make money off the athletic department, they are investing in their students and making them better, well-rounded people preparing them for the real world. There are, however, some schools that make tons of money off of their athletic teams. From TV contracts, to video games, to all sorts of media, schools can and do make a lot of money off certain teams and athletes. The NCAA insists they are protecting the athletes by enforcing the laundry list of rules required for compliance. The NCAA felt like a big lists of “no’s” to the athlete. The entire premise of it had an almost big brother feel, controlling what we all do so what does not receive any benefits over the other. WHAT?!! How does that make sense? I am fairly familiar with this issue, not only from hearing about it on ESPN, but my dad has always been a proponent of allowing these athletes get the benefits they deserve. Taylor Branch also argues that athletes should not be punished for receiving “benefits” and I would tend to agree with him. Why can’t the NCAA and the schools find a way to control and distribute the financial benefits to those that deserve them? If they stopped spending all this time, “protecting their athletes” from agents and started teaching their athletes how to deal with the media, it might just prepare them for the next phase of their professional career. Maybe if the NCAA taught the athletes how to cope with the abundance of money and gifts thrown at them when they become a pro, many of them would not go bankrupt after their multi million dollar careers.
College and sports go together like peanut butter and jelly, they are a great fit, but they could use some serious restructuring.
rachelsthoughtsonsports 