PDA

View Full Version : Duke Basketball and Money



ugadevil
11-07-2007, 11:42 AM
I'm a senior at the University of Georgia and I'm taking a class called "Sociology of Sports." What the class has amounted to is really nothing more than the teacher rambling on about the negatives of college and professional sports and how it is harmful to society.

In an article that was assigned as a class reading, the author talked about the problems with big time athletic programs at high profile institutions. For a portion or the article, he focused a great deal on Coach K and the basketball team at Duke. He talked about how there is more money spent by the university on the basketball team than there is for almost the entire remaining student body. He mentioned scholarships money, facilities, travel expenses, etc. Also, the author wrote about how college athletes are capitalized on by coaches and endorsers and that too much emphasis is taken off of the student part of being a student athlete. The author mentioned the endorsement deals that Coach K has received because of his success at Duke, and made the players just sound like his tools. I found the article ridiculous because it makes Coach K sound like someone who could care less about his players and developing them as individuals, and there is nothing farther from the truth.

However, although I consider it baseless and untrue, it is an article that is being required in an upper level course at a major university. I respect the people who post on this board as being much more knowledgeable than me about college sports, especially Duke Basketball, and was wondering how you all would respond to critcisms of the Duke Basketball Program and if you feel like our athletes, or college athletes in general, are taken advantage of or not recognized enough as students?

hurleyfor3
11-07-2007, 11:53 AM
I would turn in a paper analyzing Jim Harrick's career at UGa, and be prepared to receive a failing grade. Then when I got an F I'd escalate it to the department head...someone higher up would have to understand the irony of a guy bashing Duke at a school whose own track record at prioritizing academics over sports isn't quite pristine, right?

YmoBeThere
11-07-2007, 12:11 PM
Just curious, is the article available for public consumption so that we could get a better look at it?

ugadevil
11-07-2007, 12:28 PM
I don't know if it's available. I had to buy it in my course packet for the class. "The Contradictions of Big-Time college sports" is the title. Also, in response to writing about the UGA Athletic Department, I think the teacher would fully agree in criticizing them. My teacher does not attend university sports events and often criticizes the athletic department here because of scheduling issues with courses and poor academic performance from athletes.

I have no proof to this but I personally think my teacher wanted to be a college athlete and wasn't good enough to make it. Now, he devotes his life research to showing how screwed up sports is since he wasn't good enough.

HaveFunExpectToWin
11-07-2007, 12:36 PM
p135 here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=59fXN_fT3c8C&dq=in+fair+and+foul+beyond+the+myths+and+paradoxes +of+sport&pg=PP1&ots=w4KGmIol8r&sig=e2L3j1Mo_8H4f379ZhuFod46vfw&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fq%3DIn%2BFair%2Band%2Bfoul%253A%2BBeyond% 2Bthe%2Bmyths%2Band%2Bparadoxes%2Bof%2Bsport%26ie% 3Dutf-8%26oe%3Dutf-8%26aq%3Dt%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26client%3Dfirefox-a&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPA135,M1

-jk
11-07-2007, 12:36 PM
I don't know if it's available. I had to buy it in my course packet for the class. "The Contradictions of Big-Time college sports" is the title.

Perhaps you could fully cite the article and maybe someone else can find it.

-jk

HaveFunExpectToWin
11-07-2007, 01:15 PM
p135 here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=59fXN_fT3c8C&dq=in+fair+and+foul+beyond+the+myths+and+paradoxes +of+sport&pg=PP1&ots=w4KGmIol8r&sig=e2L3j1Mo_8H4f379ZhuFod46vfw&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fq%3DIn%2BFair%2Band%2Bfoul%253A%2BBeyond% 2Bthe%2Bmyths%2Band%2Bparadoxes%2Bof%2Bsport%26ie% 3Dutf-8%26oe%3Dutf-8%26aq%3Dt%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26client%3Dfirefox-a&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPA135,M1

I only read the opening of this article. The rest of it isn't shown by Google Books unfortunately.

To someone with access to a library, the article is in the book Fair And Foul: Beyond the Myths And Paradoxes of Sport by D. Stanley Eitzen on page 135

YmoBeThere
11-07-2007, 01:20 PM
Hmmm, now the real dilemma, do you have a George C. Scott as General George S. Patton moment as you refute the claims made? "I read your book!" Or do you just ignore it and focus on other things?

LetItBD08
11-07-2007, 01:46 PM
Not that I'm anything special, but one of the primary reasons that Duke was by far my number one undergrad choice was because of Coach K and the basketball program. After 3 plus years here, I truly believe that that was an extremely valid criterion in my college search.

I sometimes imagine how monotonous college would be without constantly looking forward to and attending basketball games and socializing with fellow students who feel the same way. Honestly, if I wasn't a Cameron Crazie I think I'd go insane. Duke Basketball has kept me happy and motivated throughout my time here. I also know I'm not alone with these feelings.

So I guess what I'm saying is that basketball really does attract some really bright and motivated students to Duke who otherwise would have opted for the traditional cookie cutter institutions of higher learning. It also also keeps many of us upbeat and unifies us as an institution. Hopefully your professor hasn't overlooked these integral factors.

bdh21
11-07-2007, 01:48 PM
For a portion or the article, he focused a great deal on Coach K and the basketball team at Duke. He talked about how there is more money spent by the university on the basketball team than there is for almost the entire remaining student body. He mentioned scholarships money, facilities, travel expenses, etc.

As I understand it, the purpose of the Legacy fund is to endow the Duke Men's Basketball program, thus making it financially independent of the university. K has already convinced over 20 donors to give >1,000,000 dollars to the Legacy fund, so I don't believe you can criticize him for leeching funds from the University to the detriment of the student body.

Duke's situation is far from Ohio State's in the linked book. It was widely rumored that contingent upon K rejecting the Lakers in 04 was Duke committing to build the new practice facility. However, the capital expenditures on Duke athletics over the past 10 years has been dwarfed by the capital expenditures on new research laboratories/dorms/additions to fuqua&law.

I'd say Duke and K have set an example of how a university should allocate resources to its athletic teams.

LetItBD08
11-07-2007, 01:56 PM
As for the not recognized enough as students comment, I think Duke in particular does a really good job of integrating its athletes into the classroom. Especially here, there are only a certain amount of gimmie classes, most student-athletes will have to really put in a commitment to academics if they want a degree (and thankfully the overwhelming majority of them do leave with one).

Quick aside about Duke athletes and academics. My first semester here I took a first-year subatomic physics seminar taught by one of the pioneers of particle physics. One of my classmates was Dave McClure who was just as interested as anyone else in the class in the topic and contributed plenty. Coach K really does recruit some well rounded people. Duke Basketball players, although sometimes stuck in a fishbowl, definitely have a lot great resources if they are interested in using them.

darthur
11-07-2007, 02:13 PM
One thing that nobody's mentioned: Although this is not true for big-time sports in general, it is my understanding that Duke basketball makes more money for the university than it loses. If this really is true, it seems silly to bash the university for investing a lot of money in it if it is getting even more back.

OldSchool
11-07-2007, 02:16 PM
His point of attack, that schools like Ohio State spend too much money on football and Duke too much money on basketball, when those funds could be better spent on academic pursuits, is grossly misleading -- those programs are net revenue generators, creating revenue that would not otherwise exist and available to subsidize the non-"big time college sports" this professor claims to love or to spend it on whatever the university wishes. Further, the existence of prominent sports programs serves as a focal point for alumni loyalty and good-feeling about the school and undoubtedly has a positive effect on alumni giving. So this is essentially a dishonest argument the professor is making about "big time college sports" sucking up funds that could otherwise go towards building new libraries, etc. There are certainly grounds to criticize the way big-time sports is run at major universities, but his particular argument is wrong.

I wonder whether his first statement, "I love sports," is also dishonest, and whether he is simply in the same general class of far-left ideologues such as those at Duke who in the initial stages of the lacrosse scandal tried to use the event to attack college sports in general at Duke, and which we seem to have so many of these days in our faculty.

Wander
11-07-2007, 02:19 PM
Quick aside about Duke athletes and academics. My first semester here I took a first-year subatomic physics seminar taught by one of the pioneers of particle physics. One of my classmates was Dave McClure who was just as interested as anyone else in the class in the topic and contributed plenty.

This is probably the greatest class offered at Duke. Or anywhere. Ever.

snowdenscold
11-07-2007, 02:21 PM
His point of attack, that schools like Ohio State spend too much money on football and Duke too much money on basketball, when those funds could be better spent on academic pursuits, is grossly misleading -- those programs are net revenue generators, creating revenue that would not otherwise exist and available to subsidize the non-"big time college sports" this professor claims to love or to spend it on whatever the university wishes. Further, the existence of prominent sports programs serves as a focal point for alumni loyalty and good-feeling about the school and undoubtedly has a positive effect on alumni giving. So this is essentially a dishonest argument the professor is making about "big time college sports" sucking up funds that could otherwise go towards building new libraries, etc. There are certainly grounds to criticize the way big-time sports is run at major universities, but his particular argument is wrong.

Yeah, I don't buy the argument for sports who actually make money. However, I wonder if he could have made the argument for sports in general? Does anyone know if the athletics department as a whole makes or loses money? Not saying we should eliminate it if it does, but at least that would be a legitimate position, unlike what this guy seems to be saying.

Or maybe his point is that all the money spent on tickets, etc. that do make the bball program so much money would be donated to academic purposes instead?

bdh21
11-07-2007, 02:33 PM
Quick aside about Duke athletes and academics. My first semester here I took a first-year subatomic physics seminar taught by one of the pioneers of particle physics.

Moo Han!?!?

ugadevil
11-07-2007, 02:49 PM
I sometimes imagine how monotonous college would be without constantly looking forward to and attending basketball games and socializing with fellow students who feel the same way. Honestly, if I wasn't a Cameron Crazie I think I'd go insane. Duke Basketball has kept me happy and motivated throughout my time here. I also know I'm not alone with these feelings.

So I guess what I'm saying is that basketball really does attract some really bright and motivated students to Duke who otherwise would have opted for the traditional cookie cutter institutions of higher learning. It also also keeps many of us upbeat and unifies us as an institution. Hopefully your professor hasn't overlooked these integral factors.

I completely agree with this post and see it here at UGA as well. People may not come for our suspension filled basketball program, but people do come for the football. Our football program not only attracts major donors who will be treated to a day in a sky suite and shown all of the fine parts of the University in order to pursuade them to give millions of dollars, but it also attracts thousands of potential students. I feel like the dividends of a successful athletic program can not be measured on a yearly basis of how much the athletic department makes in donations or ticket sales. There are various ways that can't be measured about how a team can leave a lasting impact on potential students, which can eventually bring the university thousands of dollars.

Brian913
11-07-2007, 04:02 PM
I just read the article (its available on Netlibrary if you have access) I don't think the original poster properly explained the article. Aside from the introductory paragraph about K, there is only one other mention of Duke in the article. That football players scored lower than the rest of the students on the SAT. The article certainly wasn't directed at Duke or K.

LetItBD08
11-07-2007, 04:17 PM
Moo Han!?!?

You know it. The class wasn't difficult at all considering its subject matter. Moo was the man. Everyone looked forward to his class in my section.

ugadevil
11-07-2007, 04:28 PM
I just read the article (its available on Netlibrary if you have access) I don't think the original poster properly explained the article. Aside from the introductory paragraph about K, there is only one other mention of Duke in the article. That football players scored lower than the rest of the students on the SAT. The article certainly wasn't directed at Duke or K.


Sorry if I made it sound like it was entirely about Duke. I thought I stated that Duke was mentioned for a portion of the article and that it really focuses on big time athletic programs as a whole. The article does mention Duke on various occasions though; at the beginning and his references to K, Duke's graduation rates, K's endorsement deals.

greybeard
11-07-2007, 04:44 PM
Some things about big time college athletics annoy me. Mostly, it is product. Let's start with uniforms. Two are enough, don't you think. What is this nonsense with multiple uniforms? Wrong message. Ditto with shoes. I think that it is obscene that schools get their own colors on sneakers, oops, basketball shoes. This too is way over the top.

I do not mind coaches getting paid by shoe companies. I do mind the commercialization of college sports teams, making them walking advertisements for overcomsumption. Nope. I'm not being tongue in cheek here, I really mean it.

And, what is this business with the ACC and its commercial "partners." I do not think universities and their leagues should have such partners; I find it offensive. Nope, I am not kidding.

Who are they selling stuff to? Not the adults. The consumers, who, please, really have better things to do with their money then spend it on PRODUCT. And, if Nike or Walmart really want to PARTNER with someone, how bout they try some of the rundown high schools where a tremendous number of their "consumers" are trying to get an education. The kids at those schools are the one's footing the bills that the ACC and other leagues are enticing them to run up; how bout some ball fields at some of those rundown schools, with astroturf. They, the companies, can even have their names on the electronic score boards they install.

In the meantime, let the college players look like college kids and not pin up dolls for the suits.

On the other stuff, I agree with you guys completely, well almost, but I'm beginning to learn when and where to pick my fights. Later.

Uncle Drew
11-07-2007, 05:08 PM
With anything their are pros and cons when it comes to college athletics and UGA is a prime example. The basketball fiasco when Harrick was there and several football incidents tell you that many athletes come in with a sense of entitlement. And the schools cater to their needs / wishes more than it does a non-scholarship student. But I could just as easily look at UGA's womens gymnastics team and give a standing ovation. Not only do these young ladies excel on the mat, bars and horse but they get their degrees and go on to benefit the state of Georgia. My mom is from Georgia and my cousin lives in Athens, the facilities at UGA for EVERY sport are over the top. So I can see where this professor might have some resentment. (Especially with his / her pay!)

I look at it like this, you can go out and hire hundreds of people to be ditch diggers. But you wouldn't want anyone unskilled or at least good at their job working on a nuke. So coaches salaries are paying skilled laborer to do their job. And athletics makes UGA money, they want to recruit the best student athletes to succeed and make more money. What they choose to spend their winnings on the professor should take up with the school not make you read a one sided article and write a paper on.:D

juise
11-07-2007, 06:43 PM
You know it. The class wasn't difficult at all considering its subject matter. Moo was the man. Everyone looked forward to his class in my section.

I took an intro to Modern Physics with him my junior year. He was hilarious. He loved his own jokes. I still remember him going off on his illustration of Schrödinger's Cat. Awesome.

YmoBeThere
11-07-2007, 07:05 PM
You know it. The class wasn't difficult at all considering its subject matter. Moo was the man. Everyone looked forward to his class in my section.

He was teaching that class in my day...when one guy answered a question on something he had covered, he would say "Oooh, mind like a steel trap!" He was great and made it interesting.

Wander
11-07-2007, 07:16 PM
Did anyone else's class get some laughs at him for making the term "post doc" sound like "porn star"? Cuz I know mine did.

LetItBD08
11-07-2007, 08:27 PM
Didn't notice those two. Got a kick about how everything worked its way back to alcohol (phillips screwdrivers) and driving directions. I had him twice actually, two really similar classes. Did he call you by where you're from, not by your name, when you guys had him? Dave was Connecticut, and that always kind of disturbed me. Also did everything end with yeah right yeah right.

Wander
11-07-2007, 08:39 PM
Yeah... I actually had him the same semester as you, but the other section. I don't remember anything about phillips screwdrivers specifically, but I think I remember some vague story about him getting drunk while bowling or something like that. Also, every e-mail we ever got from him was at 4 or 5 in the morning.

I like how we've taken over this as a Moo thread... somebody should point this thing out to someone who's in his freshman seminar class now (he still does them, right?).

dukestheheat
11-07-2007, 09:27 PM
ugadevil,

I do think that there will always be some sort of 'rub' between athletics and academics at the college level; they both compete with each other for funding, top students (or, top talent if we're speaking about athletic performance) and attention/accolades. Anytime you pit two big boys that close together, sparks are bound to fly.

Also, college sports is a business. Duke will invest money in the basketball program because of the return that that investment brings back to Duke; the same issue exists with any successful sports program at virtually any school.

Now, some athletes may feel like they're 'tools' of the big-business program but if you asked them if they liked that level of attention, to a person I bet you'd find that they liked a) the scholarship and b) the attention that their status grants them.

So, just like with Doctor Doolittle, there's a little 'Push Me, Pull You' in every situation. Any business will work to increase the return on its investment; in turn, the staffers of the business will reap the profits of the business venture.

I honestly think that you have the privilege to read some stuff put up by a writer who's probably bitter and has some deep 'issue' (jealousy, missed a promotion, less money to the department b/c of funding the team, etc., etc.); realize that this exists and will probably always exist and revel in the chance to at least read it and analyze it, even if you don't like it.

just my $.02, and you know what they say about that.....dukestheheat.

SilkyJ
11-07-2007, 09:43 PM
was wondering how you all would respond to critcisms of the Duke Basketball Program and if you feel like our athletes, or college athletes in general, are taken advantage of or not recognized enough as students?

I think Dave chapelle said it best while impersonating R Kelly:

haters gonna hate
lovers gonna love
I dont even want
none of he above
I want to piss on you

DevilHorse
11-08-2007, 06:44 AM
Is that "J" Moo-Yung Han?
I'm glad to hear he is still teaching in the physics department.
He was a professor there 25 years ago when I was a grad student (in physics). He had the grad students laughing too in a Mechanics course he taught us. He is a gem!

Did he ever tell the story as to why he had the adopted "J" in front of his name?

Larry

bdh21
11-08-2007, 07:50 AM
Did he ever tell the story as to why he had the adopted "J" in front of his name?

Larry

Do share...

YmoBeThere
11-08-2007, 08:12 AM
CNBC just had a short piece on UGA selling game day condos to alums so that they could attend games. It was one of 4 projectst that they had completed to raise money for the athletics department. Perhaps your Prof should beware of the whole throwing stones while living in glass houses thing.

JasonEvans
11-08-2007, 08:57 AM
I don't even know why I am getting into this conversation with him but...

Greybeard, you are aware that without Nike or other corporations sponsoring the athletic teams Duke would have to pay for those uniforms, shoes, basketballs and other equipment, right? By striking a deal with a athletic equipment provider, Duke gets all that stuff for free and also makes extra money that can be put into non-revenue sports and other programs.

It has never bothered me one little bit to see a small swoosh on a college uniform because I know that swoosh means the school is able to spend its money on other endeavours and that the women's field hockey team (for example) gets uniforms and equipment too as a result. I fail to see why tehre is any harm in it. Your post said you were bothered by the "overconsumption" that is created by this practice. I would only say that even if this is contributing to overconsumption it is doing so in only the tiniest of ways and the good created by this realtionship faaar outweighs the bad of the overconsumption.

--Jason "idealism really only works in an ideal world... and we ain't even close to living in one" Evans

dkbaseball
11-08-2007, 09:27 AM
I don't even know why I am getting into this conversation with him but...

Greybeard, you are aware that without Nike or other corporations sponsoring the athletic teams Duke would have to pay for those uniforms, shoes, basketballs and other equipment, right? By striking a deal with a athletic equipment provider, Duke gets all that stuff for free and also makes extra money that can be put into non-revenue sports and other programs.

It has never bothered me one little bit to see a small swoosh on a college uniform because I know that swoosh means the school is able to spend its money on other endeavours and that the women's field hockey team (for example) gets uniforms and equipment too as a result. I fail to see why tehre is any harm in it. Your post said you were bothered by the "overconsumption" that is created by this practice. I would only say that even if this is contributing to overconsumption it is doing so in only the tiniest of ways and the good created by this realtionship faaar outweighs the bad of the overconsumption.

--Jason "idealism really only works in an ideal world... and we ain't even close to living in one" Evans

I don't know what Duke's contractual arrangement with Nike is, but I sure hope it doesn't contain a no-criticism clause. A few years ago, Adidas, I believe it was, struck a deal with the Univ. of Wisconsin that obliged the university to make sure that none of its faculty members, or anyone else connected with the university, ever publicly criticized the company in any way. Adidas could maintain all the sweatshops it wanted, and anyone at UW was bound to be silent on the matter.

This is just beyond the pale, though Bob McChesney found it surprisingly hard to get a substantial percentage of the faculty to sign a petition objecting to it. Eventually they prevailed, I think, and the clause was removed. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that Nike attempts such heavy-handed tactics.

greybeard
11-08-2007, 10:02 AM
I don't even know why I am getting into this conversation with him but...

Greybeard, you are aware that without Nike or other corporations sponsoring the athletic teams Duke would have to pay for those uniforms, shoes, basketballs and other equipment, right? By striking a deal with a athletic equipment provider, Duke gets all that stuff for free and also makes extra money that can be put into non-revenue sports and other programs.

It has never bothered me one little bit to see a small swoosh on a college uniform because I know that swoosh means the school is able to spend its money on other endeavours and that the women's field hockey team (for example) gets uniforms and equipment too as a result. I fail to see why tehre is any harm in it. Your post said you were bothered by the "overconsumption" that is created by this practice. I would only say that even if this is contributing to overconsumption it is doing so in only the tiniest of ways and the good created by this realtionship faaar outweighs the bad of the overconsumption.

--Jason "idealism really only works in an ideal world... and we ain't even close to living in one" Evans

I'm not against Nike paying for uniforms, just against colleges overdoing it.

Also, the free product to AAU teams, the paid trips to camps and tournaments, the high cost of commercial jerseys that everybody needs tons of, the school-colored shoes, etc, all feed a cycle that "takes" from the community without giving a damn thing back, except for some free clinics about how to dribble a ball between one's legs, an indispensible like skill.

Like JTII said on the radio yesterday about parenting, "I had everything I ever wanted as a kid. My parents just taught me what not to want. 'John, my Pops said, don't you want no bicycle when you get home for school, cause they're ain't gonna be one." Kids really don't need to want all this junk; better they save and get a bicycle.

Grey "just on one of my pet rants that you called me on again" beard

ugadevil
11-08-2007, 11:26 AM
It has never bothered me one little bit to see a small swoosh on a college uniform because I know that swoosh means the school is able to spend its money on other endeavours and that the women's field hockey team (for example) gets uniforms and equipment too as a result. I fail to see why tehre is any harm in it.

I think the major apparel companies are trying to keep a system in place where they monitor their competitors and, in a way, it benefits the universities. I believe it was in soccer (could be wrong) where Adidas and Nike had a dispute over brands being recognized on uniforms and they came to the conclusion that companies could not blatantly display their logos to where they dominate whatever the athlete is wearing. Hopefully, that will prevent companies from having giant logos on the front of jerseys and keep them in check.

Also, not saying it's good or bad, but the apparel contracts can also be appealing to recruits. It's definitely exciting to hear that you'll have a ton of free nike stuff if you come to play for a particular university. At Oregon, Nike works with the team so that the players can pick the uniforms that they use during football season. The major corporations could be taking advantage of the universities to promote themselves, but it seems like the universities are also learning how to market themselves through the major endorsement deals.

greybeard
11-08-2007, 11:42 AM
I think the major apparel companies are trying to keep a system in place where they monitor their competitors and, in a way, it benefits the universities. I believe it was in soccer (could be wrong) where Adidas and Nike had a dispute over brands being recognized on uniforms and they came to the conclusion that companies could not blatantly display their logos to where they dominate whatever the athlete is wearing. Hopefully, that will prevent companies from having giant logos on the front of jerseys and keep them in check.

Also, not saying it's good or bad, but the apparel contracts can also be appealing to recruits. It's definitely exciting to hear that you'll have a ton of free nike stuff if you come to play for a particular university. At Oregon, Nike works with the team so that the players can pick the uniforms that they use during football season. The major corporations could be taking advantage of the universities to promote themselves, but it seems like the universities are also learning how to market themselves through the major endorsement deals.

I get the marketing part. A good friend built Lanzara into a big deal in soccer by outfitting all the eastern schools. The guys he sold it to dropped the ball as it were. He tried to crack the market again with a new brand three years back but the biggies you mentioned had completely bought the market. There is free product and then there is free product. There are still some who swear by the old Lanzara shoes.

DevilHorse
11-08-2007, 12:44 PM
Do share...

Well, back in the day when Dr. Hon (sp?) was in his early years as a teacher, he mentioned how many important people had the 'J' at the beginning of their name (e.g., J Paul Getty, J Edgar Hoover {big names at the time}). And this in itself was a way to position yourself to accomplish great things.

Evidently his students were so taken by the compelling argument that they made a name plate, with the J, that was displayed on his desk or outside his office. And it was still there when I was taking classes.

I'm not surprized that the email from Dr. Hon was late. He used to tell his the grad students in class about how being a grad student should be done. This involved staying up late at night, writing back of the envelope calculations on napkins, etc.. Obviously he can still find a late night diner so he can continue with his research :^)

Larry

bhd28
11-08-2007, 04:08 PM
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/Departments/AdultLearning/?article=cansportschamp

Thoughts?

grc5
11-09-2007, 09:39 AM
As for the not recognized enough as students comment, I think Duke in particular does a really good job of integrating its athletes into the classroom. Especially here, there are only a certain amount of gimmie classes, most student-athletes will have to really put in a commitment to academics if they want a degree (and thankfully the overwhelming majority of them do leave with one).

Quick aside about Duke athletes and academics. My first semester here I took a first-year subatomic physics seminar taught by one of the pioneers of particle physics. One of my classmates was Dave McClure who was just as interested as anyone else in the class in the topic and contributed plenty. Coach K really does recruit some well rounded people. Duke Basketball players, although sometimes stuck in a fishbowl, definitely have a lot great resources if they are interested in using them.

In the interest of full disclosure, is that Moo Young Han's class? Where the tests are open-book and you grade yourself? I know that's a popular choice with athletes.

grc5
11-09-2007, 10:33 AM
I'm a dope. Should've read the whole thread.

The Gordog
11-09-2007, 10:38 AM
Yeah, I don't buy the argument for sports who actually make money. However, I wonder if he could have made the argument for sports in general? Does anyone know if the athletics department as a whole makes or loses money? Not saying we should eliminate it if it does, but at least that would be a legitimate position, unlike what this guy seems to be saying.

Or maybe his point is that all the money spent on tickets, etc. that do make the bball program so much money would be donated to academic purposes instead?

Rest assured the athletics program as a whole makes money. If it did not there would not be one.

Universities long ago ceased being institutes of higher learning and became, instead institutions deadicated to fundraising (the President's job #1) that use the shell of tax advantages accorded a University to that end. None of this is in any way meant to put down the fine people of Duke and other competitor schools, it's just the evolutionary reality of what's happened.

As to the question of whether sports sucks money from the school I would ask, why use special access to raise money just for sports capital improvements? You want to sit in the sky box, or get season tickets to Cameron? You should have to give to programs that support the acedemic mission of the school. Just my humble opinion.

willywoody
11-09-2007, 10:41 AM
Some things about big time college athletics annoy me. Mostly, it is product. Let's start with uniforms. Two are enough, don't you think. What is this nonsense with multiple uniforms? Wrong message. Ditto with shoes. I think that it is obscene that schools get their own colors on sneakers, oops, basketball shoes. This too is way over the top.

I do not mind coaches getting paid by shoe companies. I do mind the commercialization of college sports teams, making them walking advertisements for overcomsumption. Nope. I'm not being tongue in cheek here, I really mean it.

And, what is this business with the ACC and its commercial "partners." I do not think universities and their leagues should have such partners; I find it offensive. Nope, I am not kidding.

Who are they selling stuff to? Not the adults. The consumers, who, please, really have better things to do with their money then spend it on PRODUCT. And, if Nike or Walmart really want to PARTNER with someone, how bout they try some of the rundown high schools where a tremendous number of their "consumers" are trying to get an education. The kids at those schools are the one's footing the bills that the ACC and other leagues are enticing them to run up; how bout some ball fields at some of those rundown schools, with astroturf. They, the companies, can even have their names on the electronic score boards they install.

In the meantime, let the college players look like college kids and not pin up dolls for the suits.

On the other stuff, I agree with you guys completely, well almost, but I'm beginning to learn when and where to pick my fights. Later.

i agree completely!

Jarhead
11-09-2007, 11:54 AM
The Duke of Wellington was quoted as saying, "The Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton".

This is said to mean that in 1815, the British were able to defeat the French because of the discipline and ethics of organized games and sports, learned on the playing fields of Eton. This is somewhat akin to the interest in American universities rising on the success of its athletic teams. It all starts in elementary school with games like dodge ball. It all costs money, so some school systems dropped physical education for their pupils, to their discredit.

greybeard
11-09-2007, 12:24 PM
The Duke of Wellington was quoted as saying, "The Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton".

This is said to mean that in 1815, the British were able to defeat the French because of the discipline and ethics of organized games and sports, learned on the playing fields of Eton. This is somewhat akin to the interest in American universities rising on the success of its athletic teams. It all starts in elementary school with games like dodge ball. It all costs money, so some school systems dropped physical education for their pupils, to their discredit.

I always thought that you could do even better with great sports teams and beautiful chicks then you could with just great sports teams. :cool:

mgtr
11-09-2007, 01:02 PM
Rest assured the athletics program as a whole makes money. If it did not there would not be one.

Universities long ago ceased being institutes of higher learning and became, instead institutions deadicated to fundraising (the President's job #1) that use the shell of tax advantages accorded a University to that end. None of this is in any way meant to put down the fine people of Duke and other competitor schools, it's just the evolutionary reality of what's happened.

As to the question of whether sports sucks money from the school I would ask, why use special access to raise money just for sports capital improvements? You want to sit in the sky box, or get season tickets to Cameron? You should have to give to programs that support the acedemic mission of the school. Just my humble opinion.

First, I don't know the financial facts about Duke, but there are plenty of colleges and universities who make no money at all on athletics. But they still have athletic programs, because of the other advantages of the program.
Second, people are free to give money to any college program they choose, but many prefer to give to the athletic program, because they enjoy athletics. Most people do not enjoy a college's English program (for example).

Devilsfan
11-09-2007, 01:39 PM
student that Moo is probably the best teacher at Duke when it comes to actually teaching and captivating students' interest. Hats off to someone who makes the academic experience worthwhile.

ugadevil
11-09-2007, 03:15 PM
This is going in a little different direction than the original post about athletic departments and how they work with universities. However, I have a question about the commitment coaches should have to their athletic departments.

Do you think it's wrong or unloyal for a coach to leave a university without completing the amount of time he/she commited to in the contract? I've heard the idea that coaches should be treated like other staff members at a university and be offered tenure if they remain at a particular school long enough. Not sure if there are already places that do this?

I think it's reasonable that coaches look for other jobs and go other places even if they don't honor their original contract. Universities seem to have proven that they are willing to fire coaches before their contracts expire if the teams are not successful. Shouldn't a coach be allowed to leave if he/she is successful without being called on it? (Nick Saban doesn't count in this discussion because all he does is lie about it anyway)

dkbaseball
11-09-2007, 05:36 PM
Do you think it's wrong or unloyal for a coach to leave a university without completing the amount of time he/she commited to in the contract? I've heard the idea that coaches should be treated like other staff members at a university and be offered tenure if they remain at a particular school long enough. Not sure if there are already places that do this?

I think it's reasonable that coaches look for other jobs and go other places even if they don't honor their original contract. Universities seem to have proven that they are willing to fire coaches before their contracts expire if the teams are not successful. Shouldn't a coach be allowed to leave if he/she is successful without being called on it? (Nick Saban doesn't count in this discussion because all he does is lie about it anyway)

The rationale for tenure for academics is that they should feel free to speak their minds, even if it flies in the face of public (or university administration) opinion. Doesn't apply quite so aptly to coaches, whose thought on zone v. man-to-man, and the like, aren't considered to have the same value to society. They're stuck in a market model, and yes, given the vagaries of the marketplace, they should be free to establish their market value, just as any D-1 school would feel free to fire them for not producing enough W's.

Clipsfan
11-09-2007, 05:52 PM
This is going in a little different direction than the original post about athletic departments and how they work with universities. However, I have a question about the commitment coaches should have to their athletic departments.

Do you think it's wrong or unloyal for a coach to leave a university without completing the amount of time he/she commited to in the contract? I've heard the idea that coaches should be treated like other staff members at a university and be offered tenure if they remain at a particular school long enough. Not sure if there are already places that do this?

I think it's reasonable that coaches look for other jobs and go other places even if they don't honor their original contract. Universities seem to have proven that they are willing to fire coaches before their contracts expire if the teams are not successful. Shouldn't a coach be allowed to leave if he/she is successful without being called on it? (Nick Saban doesn't count in this discussion because all he does is lie about it anyway)

The schools do still pay the coaches the rest of the money they contractually owe the coaches. It's hard to figure out what exactly the coaches give the schools if they want to leave (termination fee?)