As my good friend used to say, you can't major in football. I attended a handful of Midwestern campuses that are all probably worthy of adding to this piece. Each had huge, shining, spanking new facilities for sporting events. Meanwhile, my university classrooms for subjects like English or education training or history looked like something out of Chernobyl, or maybe some crazed hermit's basement. And I never went to a single game.

People give money to things that make them feel good, rather than to things (or people) that actually need the money. This is why major college athletics get so many donations, and why the only charities that inspire many donations are centered around children. Think about it: When was the last time you gave to a retirement home in need? Now, when did you last give to Make-a-Wish, Boys and Girls club, or a child-focused charity? Hah, gotcha!

Sorry, changed the subject there, but that has always been a peeve of mine.

People who have lots of money don't usually give it away. They get their tax deductible "contributions" and help further reactionary causes.

"And the more excellent they get at OSU the larger are their necks and the smaller are their heads. What those pinheads should do is change the name of the dump to T. Boone Pickens U and kick out all the losers who can't make varsity."

This sort of generalization is incredibly insulting to any college football player. I might not have been very good at football, but I did get a good education. And I had fun. College football is a popular spectator sport and it generates alot of revenue. Enough of the money isn't spent on academics, but that isn't an excuse to call athletes pinheads and boneheads. We're not the ones who are charged with allocation of revenues.

correctivelens and ezeflyer,

As a fundraiser myself, I would say that there is a dangerous paradigm in colleges playing itself out today. People give when they are asked. And the really rich are asked all the time. So when the rich (or anyone) have to make choices, and the #1 thing people are interested in is themselves- think personalized groveling, names on stadiums, and names mentioned on TV. Now the schools go after athletic donations because there is big money and recognition to be made by the college- with comparatively less 'difficult' investment. You try to get the billion dollar nuclear weapons contract or prescription drug research contract, but the athletics game is a different playing field.

Every non-profit I've ever met salivates over 'the big gift'. They would rather spend all their efforts to solicit one Million$ gift, rather than asking a million people for a dollar. Both take considerable investment, but IMO a strong base of many people is safer and longer lasting (not that as a fundraiser you think long term… you're just trying to cover your ass for the quarter. Hey, welcome to the party!)

And mahaffey: I believe he was referring to the Athletic Department, Alumni Association and the University Administration… not the players. I only call athletes who ARE boneheads, boneheads. I've known many a football player who are now engineers etc., of course I know of many who are still losers. Stupidity doesn't pick a team (of course judgmental doesn't either)

The moral of the story is DONT LET THE ACCOUNTANTS/MONEY PEOPLE CALL THE SHOTS even though its really tempting- let those closest to the 'mission' run things (you know, teachers)

During today's MSNBC morning news they interviewed high school athletes that have had concussions...some have had as many as 5 concussions before their senior year. The newscaster cited a statistic that 3.8 million high school student athletes get concussions each year.

I worked at a public university in a state where the highest paid state employees were the football coach at $2 million, university president $520,000, and the governor at $246,000. The coach and university president were later canned for corruption.

Athletics and academia are corrupt enough without combining the two and creating compound corruption.

Dustinchicago,

Yeah, but he says the more excellent they get, the larger their necks and smaller their heads become. Isn't that a reference to beefed-up football players, and isn't the next sentence's reference to pinheads a continuation of the theme of larger necks and smaller heads? I agree that he was talking about administration, but I think the juxtaposition of the pinhead theme groups athletes in as the source of the problem. And while I'm back on here, this is something else I found offensive:

"Nor is there any apparent limit to the pandering institutions of higher learning are willing to do to get money to hire athletes to play games in their names."

College athletes are not paid to play college athletics. The perks might seem unfair and it is not uncommon for athletes to take money from all sorts of different sources, but the vast majority of college athletes do not receive monetary compensation for their efforts. This is another insulting generalization/characterization.

P.S. Regardless, I am all about education.

mahaffey said:

"College football is a popular spectator sport and it generates alot of revenue."

Yes, football generates a large amount of revenue, for the TV corps, advertisers and a little money to run nonrevenue sports. Little if any money goes into the general funds of schools. In the vast majority of schools, athletic programs are money losers.

I agree that just being an athlete does not guarantee that a person is stupid. However, there are many cases where good athletes have their academic records altered so they can play. There have been more than a few cases of illiterate college athletes being discarded after their eligibility ran out or they were injured. Unfortunately many of the players in major college sports are being used, and come out with little or, if injured they come out with less than they started with.

Majors college sports are a big business, that makes the rich richer. Few others benefit.

After "Triumph of the Will," Leni Riefenstahl's next project was the filming of the 1936 Olympics in Berlin. They comprised one ideological project: the athletic performer is an essential component in fascism. Against intellectual excellence or cultural accomplishment, the cult of force and the imperative of victory is literally em-bodied in athletic competition. The fuhrer of fuhreedom, the Smirk himself, went from vicious performer to wealthy cheerleader to sports team owner to being CEO & Cheerleader in Chief; so it's only the next step in the cretinization of the country that universities should be converted into training centers for athletes and (as they've been since the '50s) research centers for weapons, with a vestigial group of professors actually trying to instruct a few in humane arts.

DICTENFREUND: thank you for making the analogy between sports--Nietschze's worship of that oily muscle--and fascism. The degree to which the US focuses on sports--i.e. WHO gets the ball or has balls--is appalling and it does reflect on our culture becoming a 21st century Roman arena, a spectacle of all brawn and no brain, of force first, of macho toughness devoid of intelligence, compassion, empathy or diplomacy.

It all makes me sick. The focus on all the brute conquest is causing a spiritual devolution on a massive scale. It's not a huge ideological jump from team affiliation (color, uniform, simplistic binary duality) and overt nationalism. And while women now play major sports, it's just females identifying with the predominant male, sexist, competitive model. (Yes. I know many men also have more enlightened minds and characteristics, but we are talking about the sports nexus here and the amount of $ that goes into it, like war, while the finer things in life, the elements that make for a more enlightened, healthy society are abjectly neglected.

It's like a 21st century re-run of Planet of the Apes.

I just don't understand how European Universities can possibly exist without football and basketball teams. It's positively un-American! Oohhhhhh.....

What about soccer?

This must qualify for both the stupidest article and comment debate I've seen out here.

The article has a markedly false premise. The author implies that the university is focusing on athletic fundraising instead of academic fundraising. This shows a marked lack of knowledge of the organizations of these institutions. The universities I've seen have an athletic department that is almost completely independent of the university. So the university is still focusing on academic fundraising while the athletic dept does its own separate fundraising. The implication is that if the football program wasn't fundraising that all of this money would instead go to the art department. Yeah, right.

And of course this generates all the typical comments from everyone on the left who a) hate sports and b) say men are the problem to everything.

I really love the comment that implies that any woman who plays sports just identifies 'with the predominant male, sexist, competitive model). Cool how someone can tell exactly what they are all thinking. And that its just simply impossible that maybe they like sports and are having fun. And of course its absolutely impossible to accept that someone else might have different interests and likes other than those the left decrees that the rest of the world must have. Who's to say that some incomprehensible piece of modern art is a 'finer thing' than a beautiful play on a sports field? Oh that's right, we all have to think like you. Many on the left hate freedom and diversity as much as any nazi.

PS ... wasn't the Planet of the Apes was in something like the 23rd or 24th century?

PS ... anyone who thinks athletes are 'stupid' should be handed the playbook of a major college football program. I think most people would be shocked at how much these people have to know to do what you ridicule. So go get that playbook and study it to the point where you know exactly what you are expected to do when the Quarterback calls out 'Red Dog Right Fly Y Z 41' as opposed to 'Green Dog Right Fly Z 71'. Remember this will be called out in the middle of the game and you'll only have seconds to get ready for what you are going to do on this play. Oh, and those plays likely have several options based on what you see the defense doing as the play unfolds. Make sure you can pick the correct option on the fly as you read the movements of an opposing player. The test is not open book and has some 100,000 spectators who will let you know what they think of how you do on the test.

COMarc, the ability to follow detailed instructions in a physically complex setting is a matter of motor skills, not conceptual ones. The denigration of conceptual skills coupled to the exaltation of physical action & beauty is a key feature of repressive regimes.

Not only does the allotment of broadcast time to sports events at all levels dwarf any treatment of cultural, educational, or political matters, but the coverage of the latter has come to be nothing more than sports coverage.

William James promoted sports as a "moral equivalent of war", but it turns out that, despite the voice of the occasional literate or antiwar athlete, sports are little more than a perpetual priming of the citizenry for war -- not a substitute for it, but a stimulant.

COMarc-
I am glad that you are posting a dissenting opinion. Like you, I often wish that this comment section would welcome more contrarian views. Rational discourse is a lost art on so many of these forums.
However, the comparison of left wingers to Nazis has become a very overused and tired canard.
Also, when you refer to "some incomprhensible piece of modern art" you are dismissing with broad strokes whole areas of academic study. Two decades of cutbacks in funding for music education has resulted in a basically musically illiterate populace when it comes to such things as jazz and classical music, even among the college educated. Opinions like yours reflect this ignorance.
Finally, you also seem to possess a certain naivete regarding campus politics if you are making the claim that sports programs exist independently from the larger circle of power and influence on any campus in this country.
Best regards, and keep reading Common Dreams!

Sunny Jim: Excellent comments. As I was reading the article and comments though I too had many of the same thoughts rattling around in my head as expressed by COMarc. There is nothing intrinsicly wrong with athletics and sports, it just seems like much else in this whacked-out country that the true meaning of teamwork and competition has been completely twisted and distorted into something horribly grotesque.

I have two wonderful sons that seem to be the dichotimized expression of all the potential floating around in mine and my wife's genes. Our eldest from an early age was transfixed by sports - all sports, and as it turned out has a large dallop of athletic ability. Because I wanted to give this son something my father did not give to us, active involvement in our lives (it wasn't his fault as he worked about 16hrs a day to give us a good life and opportunity) I became involved in my son's athletic endeavors. Became a youth soccer coach, then an officer in the soccer league, and eventually a FISA and State HS socceer referee. My focus was always on the integrity of the game, protecting the players and ensuring that games I was responsible for were played fairly. Many of my bretheren referees had a different agenda. Tried to get themselves assigned games where they could influence the outcome of games affecting their children's teams prospects. I got so disgusted I eventually quit.

Our youngest son can't stand sports. And, as it turns out, is a fantastically gifted musician. (here too I have spent much of the last several years transporting, introducing, and promoting him - being involved.) At fifteen and sixteen he has already gigged with professional jazz musicians and everybody that has heard him play is amazed at his ability. One of the top professional saxaphonists here who has given him several lessons already told him that he was going to "steal" some of my son's improvisational riffs. Nothing wrong with that, actually a form of flattery.

Watching all this play out on a very personal level has been very enlightening. Our eldest, due to much success, was convinced he would get a full ride somewhere and consequently skated through HS not working very hard to graduate with a 3.4 or therabouts. The scholarships did not materialize. Though talented, he is not talented enough - it is very competetive and only the best of the best get that treatment.

Our youngest is a serious student maintaining almost straight A's in all honors classes. Attented a 6 week workshop at Carnegie Mellon University this summer for pre-college music. One of the profs there told my wife and I that there would no problem getting him accepted for admittance. When he saw our deer in the headlights expression, he realized that we do not have the financial ability to send him to CMU, Gerrard, Berkly, or almost any other top music school. Apparently you have to be the equivalent of a Bach or a Mozart to get any significant scholarship money.

Mitch (our youngest) is despondent. He would very much like to pursue a carreer as a professional jazz musician. Today going to college to pursue a carreer in music translates into becoming a "music educator," that is, becoming a HS band director to try to fashion a trophy marching band to give glory and service to the golden-haired athletes.

There is a poster who sometimes comments here that you can't pursue a jazz carreer through academia at any rate. I tend to agree, and hopefully Mitch will figure this out. It does however open many doors to have that degree appended to your name.

Not bitter, just perplexed, exasperated, and sad - VL

Fundraising is about Alumni!!!

I'll say it again, fundraising is about alumnni. So what attracts the most people and dollars? Yes, you know the answer.

My hometown U is spending millions on a new stadium (which they don't need- it's a long story, but it is all about the property purchase from the local utility) instead of say paying tutiton for local kids. That would endear them to the entire community. Probably esure their base for a long time. Sports can do that too, just where do we want to focus. And to say sports are independent... have you ever been to an alumni fundraiser? You know the answer there too.

I guess it comes down to what YOU participate in. Would you rather join a discussion at your local library or buy a football ticket. (don't freak out, just making a crazy absolute)

The college athletic scene is what it is, a reflection of a culture more impassioned by spectacle than substance. Not to worry, though. When energy costs spiral into the stratosphere, the jig will be up. How in the world can the University of Hawaii justify what it must be spending (investing?) on travel to the mainland for intercollegiate competition? Soon enough, the era of unlimited athletic junkets will be at an end, at both amateur and professional levels, as the planes are grounded and the busses sit idle. Or will we adopt the view that, regardless of cost, THE GAMES MUST GO ON!!! Maybe that's what's behind our futile grab for mid-eastern oil fields? Anyway, I say the business of million dollar coaches and multimillion dollar facilities has outlived its usefulness. Time to bring back intramural sports and put $50 million donations (UNC) toward academic pursuits. As it is, this sad empire is more apt to be remembered for its gladiators than anything else.

As a graduate student at UNC-CH and a native of Chapel Hill, I was tremendously disappointed that The Nation would publish a piece of such poor journalistic quality. There have been some excellent points made in this forum both about the problems with some aspects of university athletic programs and the challenges of funding academics. Before getting to the meat, I'd like to point out that the academic funding shortages come from lack of government support in a highly privatized market for education, and taking shots at folks who give money to public schools for athletics is missing the true villain here--federal and state governments who do not stand up for equal rights to accessing higher education for all. There are two points I want to touch on: one regarding the importance of university athletics and one about UNC as an institution of higher learning.

First, there is nothing progressive about Carolina's Athletic Association. Having dealt with them in negotiations over the licensing of university athletic apparel during the anti-sweatshop movement in the late nineties, I have no qualms about saying that it tends to be a male dominated good old boy run organization. However, my social and classroom experience with most of the varsity athletes at Carolina has been tremendously positive, and I would point out that football and basketball make up only a few of the dozens of mens and women's teams that we support. Team sports and athletics are incredibly important for women, particularly. Learning to have confidence in your physicality and being encouraged to break out of traditional gender roles on the field can change the lives of girls and young women. Just one example serves well--the investment that Carolina has made in having a world class women's soccer team has spawned programs all across the state to involve girls--some with a focus on low-income and immigrant girls--in soccer. Having worked with the immigrant population here, I can attest to the difference these opportunities have made in the confidence and self-image of these kids. Finally, not only do I agree that funding for athletics is often independent from academic funding, I would argue that each case is unique and at UNC, we may get more funding for academics because of our athletic programs.

Sports is one of the primary ways that alumni remain engaged in university life--it's not my culture, but it's important for a lot of people. Donors who give to athletics are usually not choosing between giving to athletics and giving to academics, they are choosing between giving to athletics and not giving. Since folks are throwing out unsupported hypotheses, I would suggest that we investigate the possibility that some of these donors begin to give to other parts of the university that they would not have otherwise, because of their engagement with the athletic programs. They come to campus for games and see other events and issues going on on campus. This is at least as plausible as anything else I've heard.

And I only need a few words for my last point. I am not a Carolina nationalist, but for the writer to suggest that accepting athletic gifts means the university is not supporting academics, or that we are not an outstanding research institution that funds thousands of graduate students to pursue cutting edge research in the social and natural sciences and humanities is just bewildering. As angry as I am at the way this country strands needy students to finance their education through loans, Carolina is still more affordable than any other school of its class and helps thousands of undergrads (many of them first generation students from rural parts of the state) achieve a college education. Not only that, but we have an outstanding transfer system so that low income families can put their children through two years of community college, and then as long as they have the grades they can transfer in to UNC as juniors.

Please don't insult all of us who are working, teaching, and studying at UNC with your ignorance of our university, and please don't insult progressives as a group by writing an article that's an easy target for anyone wanting to say that liberals don't know what they're talking about. The author raises real concerns about athletic culture and academic funding, but the way you chose to write your article makes it hard for many of us to take you seriously.

Comarc says, "anyone who thinks athletes are 'stupid' should be handed the playbook of a major college football program. I think most people would be shocked at how much these people have to know to do what you ridicule."

Yeah, but why are they using their mental energy on something so trivial? Alleged grownups running around a field, competing over who can put a ball somewhere, is the ultimate example of wasted time. Oh wait. Then there are the people who sit around and WATCH them do it.

Vince Lawrence -
Thanks for posting your story. I have worked with high school kids for 2 1/2 decades and don't often see a family with two brothers coming from such divergent viewpoints. Usually it's 'all sports, all the time' throughout the whole family, or it isn't.

It's a shame that a kid with such talent and dedication as your musical son has to continually worry about the marketable skills - or lack thereof - involved in the full time pursuit of musical interests. Jazz is one of America's greatest gifts to the world, yet it is pretty much now a museum music and especially all but lost on the under-35 generation. And how much of it do you ever see on any of the 140 cable channels most people have piped into their living rooms?

I know it sounds trite, but as a talented musician, he will at the very least have something special going on for the rest of his life, wherever he ends up.

Thought I'd heard it all, but now I know: playing sports is a waste of time! And watching is worse! Thanks for the enlightening wisdom guys. Is exercise a waste of time also, or is that cool? How about commenting on Common Dreams? Lots of people would say it's a waste of time, but I enjoy it. I guess everything is relative?

mahaffey, I don't think sports or exercise are wastes of time, but it is a little unsettling when they build gigantic, expensive facilities at a UNIVERSITY, and then don't do a thing about a deplorable classroom situation. But this issue is the fault of the planners, not the athletes.

Sunny Jim: my hat is off to you for working with kids as a career. Our local youth soccer league was recreational, but despite that many of the coaches were still out for blood all the time. Win at any cost, you know the routine. I was not, and it become standard practice to give Vince all those untalented, forlorn kids that no-one else would draft. Perhaps because of that experience Danny, our oldest, said one young day "When I grow up I want to be a soccer coach."

He's now nearing completion on a four-year teaching degree and is coaching youth and HS soccer. BTW he loves music too, but can't carry a tune in a bucket. (Yes both kids have both the same parents - life is strange, isn't it?)

Your comments on Jazz were spot on and I can't tell you how many of Mitch's music teachers have told their assembled students to go into something other than music. This used to make me very angry, and I guess it made those teachers angry also. So it goes.