Quote:
Originally Posted by SeattleUte
It's not irrelevant at all, and your example is silly and inapposite. Schools like Michigan, Illinios, UCLA and others that are uppermost tier in both academics and athletics debate internally and soul search all the time about achieving a proper balance, and the negative impact of big time sports on a university's real mission. There is even a great deal of internal tension sometimes errupting into civil war
|
... characterized by lingering Nerd resentment at being mocked by the Jocks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeattleUte
The fact is, apart from morality, the really big money and name recognition comes for academic and research superstardom, not athletics. The academic administrators and academic superstars are the center of the universe at any respected university. Athletics, in terms of even dollars, is a flea on the hound's rump. In fact, private schools like Georgetown, Stanford and Duke generally are very candid about thier ambivalence about being even associated with big-time athletics, and generally publically rationalize that it helps raise money and attract applications from desireable students.
|
So your question is really more about money than prestige.
__________________
"Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?"
"And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..."
- Cali Coug
"Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got."
- Brigham Young
|