Buzz Bissinger recently wrote a piece for the Wall Street
Journal in which he made an argument against the perpetuation of college
football at universities nationwide, which you can find here. His argument
essentially states that football programs serve no academic purpose: the
players don’t go to class and/or study, so their description as “students” is basically
false; the programs themselves, barring a few outliers, aren’t particularly
profitable for the university; and the average student is harmed rather than
hurt when expensive buildings or exorbitant coaches’ salaries raise their tuition
rates.
As I chewed this issue over, the salient question that
emerged seems to be a little more fundamental: what is the purpose of the
college experience, both for students and for universities? This question must
be answered before a judgment can be made as to the necessity or value of
football, or any sport really, being associated with higher education
establishments.
So what’s the point of college? For students, the answer
that readily falls from their lips would be “to be educated in a particular
field of study so that they might get a well-paying job in that field.” Fine.
But why do they pick the institution that they attend? The elite students with
designs on becoming scientists, engineers, politicians, professors, or some
other profession that places great emphasis on one’s educational background
select their schools based on the reputation of the school. If you’re planning
on being a history professor, as a good friend of mine would like to do, then
going to a school like the University of California at Davis will facilitate
this ambition. She doesn’t care twopence about the quality of the football team
because her reason for going there is completely academic. Aside from the
top-level schools like Harvard, Yale, Berkley, etc, different schools boast
expertise in different areas of study. I’ve heard it said that the University
of Missouri is a well-respected journalism school, though not being interested
in journalism I have not researched it in-depth. The point is, for serious students with
definite goals in mind, ancillary considerations do not apply to their decision
to attend a particular university.
The rest of students who don’t really know what they want to
do after they graduate from high school, but who have been “encouraged” (read:
tuition has been paid for) by their parents to attain a college degree are more
likely to make choices based on criteria such as their friends’ presence at a
school, the location of the school (i.e., it is close to home, is it warm, are
there mountains nearby where they can snowboard or rock-climb), the cost of
attending, and finally, the reputation of the athletic program. If you’re a
Kansas City resident, the prowess of Missouri’s football program or Kansas’
basketball program may weigh heavily in your decision where to attend. Other
factors like family history (“Dad went to K State, KU’s not an option!”) may
also come in to play, but the point here is that for these types of students,
the experience of college itself is as important as the benefits and career
possibilities a degree will afford.
For example, I grew up on the University of Oregon’s campus,
surrounded by that culture. I attended a basketball game as a child where the
Ducks play Cal and I got to see the college version of Jason Kidd demolish the
Ducks on a sprained ankle. I attended Truman State University for 6 years, and
never went to a single football game during that time. I attended women’s
volleyball matches, because the team was excellent, and the one year the
basketball team made noise, I went to several games. The football team stank,
so the desire to contribute to team spirit was lacking. Now, there were other
factors in my decision to attend Truman; the fact that my father taught there
and thus allowed me to graduate with a Bachelor’s debt-free was the primary
factor, along with the close proximity of my family and the free room and board
that went along with that. What point am I making you ask? I am more of an
ardent fan of the Oregon football squad than any Truman athletic program,
despite the fact that I graduated from Truman with 2 degrees and Oregon turned
me down for their doctoral program twice. U of O football is nationally renown,
and thus I am a fan.
So my answer to the question What is the point of college for the average student, “to have a
good time”, requires us to factor in the experience of having a successful
athletic team. There is an undeniable sense of camaraderie that occurs even
with non-sports fans when their school’s football team is doing well. A sense
of pride and notoriety accompanies them wherever they go; a sense of
commonality among everyone on campus spreads like a happy virus. It’s a cliché,
but sports can bring numerous and disparate people together in ways that nothing
else apart from religion can. Which is why sports have supplanted religion in
many peoples’ hearts; the connection, the instant rapport that it affords
builds communities and gives a sense of belonging that most people desperately
seek. And the question then becomes: is it worth paying an additional 5% in
tuition to have such an experience, to have that shared community and sense of
loyalty that can transcend racial, social, ethnic, and even generational barriers?
Do Nebraska alumni react with delight and pleasure when they encounter a student
who graduated ten years later than them? Do Alabama grads yell “Roll Tide!” to
their grandparents or grandkids, instantly establishing a common ground among
separate generations?
The second aspect of the question, what is the point of
college from the perspective of the school itself, is more straightforward.
Money. Some might say Prestige, but prestige is the means to the end of making
the school more Money. Yalies might lord over Princeton students, but the board
of directors and presidents of schools care more about generating revenue to
expand their school’s scope of operations. In this I agree wholeheartedly with
Bissinger; if schools’ single focus was academic excellence and scholarship,
then they would completely sever any official ties with athletic programs.
Originally, a healthy mind was thought to require a healthy
body to go with it, which is probably why college athletics began. But quickly
the powers that be recognized the singular appeal of athletics to both students
and alumni, and saw an opportunity to woo potential students (more tuition
money) and coerce alumni to donate to the school’s athletic programs.
Bissinger makes the argument that smaller schools like New
Mexico or Alabama at Birmingham do not benefit from football programs, and the
risks to students’ health far outweigh the benefits they gain. I would be
curious to discover the ratio of players who make a profession out of their
athletic endeavors, as well as the GPAs and graduation rates at such schools.
For the main case made against college athletics at the big programs are that
the students aren’t attending classes or actually attaining an education; they
are merely showcasing for professional leagues. The players are exploited by
being unpaid laborers putting their health at risk for no compensation. The
schools grow rich off the players whom they exploit.
My answer to this issue begins with the nature of sports.
For most players know that their chances of becoming professional athletes are
virtually nonexistent. They have reached the pinnacle of their career in
football or basketball or tennis or weight-lifting. But most of them first
started playing sports because they loved to, and because of the bonds and
experiences sports provided to them. I never played college athletics, but I
played pickup basketball for years. It didn’t benefit me in any way other than
keeping me relatively healthy and making connections with other students and
professors. Plus, I loved playing basketball! Athletes play sports because they
love to, and the fact that risks are involved (which they are more acutely
aware of than anyone else) and that they may never go pro ultimately doesn’t
matter to them. They love to play, and the opportunity to play in front of
thousands of cheering fans, for high stakes, makes the competition all the
sweeter.
Moreover, those select elite who will go pro have the opportunity
to demonstrate their skills before scouts from professional teams. The current
system does benefit the pro leagues and colleges more than the players who fill
them, but as currently situated the players still benefit from college ball as
their exhibition of skills. If they insist on earning money straight out of
high school, there are developmental leagues or foreign leagues that will
compensate them. Whether or not that system should change is a different issue
than the original premise for this post, so we will not address it, merely acknowledge
it.
As for the argument that it subjects athletes to possible
injuries, the answer is simple: injuries are the risks of the business no
matter what level of play a person is at. High school athletes are injured
frequently, and as minors must have their parents’ permission to play. If
anything, ban high school sports with injury potential, but once a person turns
18, they become legal adults, and if they choose to roll the dice by playing
football or rugby, that is their right. Besides, since the players are bigger,
stronger, and faster in pro leagues, and more is at stake, the argument could
be made that college athletics is safer than professional athletics.
This is my argument to the issues raised by Mr. Bissinger.
College athletics benefit students, the athletes themselves, and the programs
who offer them. Keep them as they are. They’re jolly good fun.
