Sports and academic success

I find it interesting that much is made about schools supporting football
teams as an advertising factor of the school's greatness. They justify the
expense in many different directions but try and relate success on and off
the field. Within the school they place the athlete as a near god status.

Of US News top 50 schools, only 4 of this weeks top 25 teams are in both
rankings:

Note Dame USA Today 14 US NEWS 19
Wisconsin 15 - 33
Wake Forest 21 - 28
Southern Cal 4 - 30

I think that maybe success in both is rare. Maybe misplaced as only 4
institutions have achieved early success in both the classroom and the grid
iron. Given the expense committed to football programs by many power houses,
is there room to ask why? Yes I understand Michigan and other programs are
often there in the top 25 - but a school like Wake is an offset as they are
seldom in the top 25 (Wake also has NO general studies programs for student
athletes).

When the ACC and Big East went through the fight this winter the revealed
the related expense - excluding scholarships - and it was in the millions.
Could that be better spent in the class room? reduced tuition? greater
community and humanity programs? better out reach programs? Just looking for
peoples responses.

FYI - I am an season ticket holder to the pros and go to college events so
please understand that I live sports. I will also grant the US News and USA
Today are not without questions to the rules and calculations. But, they
have to be close in a general area for concept purposes.

We see schools like UConn and now UMass expending millions to upgrade - is
this really a good thing?

My kids have both avoided all sports schools (wouldn't even take a look at
them), so the idea that sports schools have more interest to students is
false in our case and I'm sure in many other cases. -B
"EJ" <ewjames DeleteThis @comcast.net> wrote in message
news:RB17b.291084$Oz4.80479@rwcrnsc54...
> I find it interesting that much is made about schools supporting football
> teams as an advertising factor of the school's greatness. They justify the
> expense in many different directions but try and relate success on and off
> the field. Within the school they place the athlete as a near god status.
>
> Of US News top 50 schools, only 4 of this weeks top 25 teams are in both
> rankings:
>
> Note Dame USA Today 14 US NEWS 19
> Wisconsin 15 - 33
> Wake Forest 21 - 28
> Southern Cal 4 - 30
>
> I think that maybe success in both is rare. Maybe misplaced as only 4
> institutions have achieved early success in both the classroom and the
grid
> iron. Given the expense committed to football programs by many power
houses,
> is there room to ask why? Yes I understand Michigan and other programs are
> often there in the top 25 - but a school like Wake is an offset as they
are
> seldom in the top 25 (Wake also has NO general studies programs for
student
> athletes).
>
> When the ACC and Big East went through the fight this winter the revealed
> the related expense - excluding scholarships - and it was in the millions.
> Could that be better spent in the class room? reduced tuition? greater
> community and humanity programs? better out reach programs? Just looking
for
> peoples responses.
>
> FYI - I am an season ticket holder to the pros and go to college events so
> please understand that I live sports. I will also grant the US News and
USA
> Today are not without questions to the rules and calculations. But, they
> have to be close in a general area for concept purposes.
>
> We see schools like UConn and now UMass expending millions to upgrade - is
> this really a good thing?
>
>