Rutgers Pigskin Glory, a mild polemic

By now you know (0.00 / 0)

Rutgers lost last night.

But, to the question your post raises - what kind of talent pool RU expects to come for football v. tennis v. swimming - the answer is: the same kind as now, only bigger. Putting aside speculation of the academic quality of the athletes themselves for a moment, the number of actual athletes is too small to be of any significance to the quality of the overall student body.

That's the mathematics of college admissions: If the quality of applicant pool stays exactly the same, but doubles in size, the quality of enrolled students improves, because there are a finite number of incoming slots, allowing for a growing number of applicants accepted and enrolled at the high end (as at every part) of that talent pool.

---

by: Jeff Gardner @ Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 10:10:09 AM CST

but note the issue (0.00 / 0)

But how is the improvement to be realized?  Will excellent NJ students who were going to college anyway displace students with weaker backgrounds?  Are we admitting more stronger out-of-state students at the expense of NJ residents?  A state university has to balance excellence with access. 

I have to think of a witty signature about Frank LoBiondo

---

by: Hopeful @ Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 10:38:55 AM CST

[ Parent ]

noweeman and hopeful.... (0.00 / 0)

...i get both your points but i wonder if you're getting mine.  let me give you some back ground since i based my piece on (mostly) anecdotal evidence.

As a young highschool senior with an eye on college, i had -- in retrospect -- two main criteria for choosing schools: tennis program and price.  Now when you consider that the Lassiter family budget in 1990 meant that we could afford any in state school, my criteria became "any school in Maryland with a decent tennis program."  Looking back i might have done well to consider stuff like academic programs or something like that, but frankly i ended up going to the first college in my state that accepted me where i had a chance to play first string.  so yeah, the idea of slashing the tennis program at a university is totally personal to me, but fact is for any kid in a new jersey high school who makes sports like tennis or swimming a priority (and who have the need to stay in-state for finanical purposes) just lost an option for their ssecondary program.  It's one more compromise that those kinds of kid -- the kind of kid i was at 18 -- have to make.  and that sucks.

I think it's a mistake for universities to cut these kinds of programs.  some people are up in arms when artistic programs come under fire and i feel similarly when i see college sports programs under siege.  that's all i was trying to say with my post.

activist for hire.

---

by: Jay Lassiter @ Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 11:23:11 AM CST

[ Parent ]

But ... (0.00 / 0)

Suppose that there are students who have as part of their criteria an excellent football program because they are looking for the social and emotional connections that come from having a program like that.  I'm not talking about athletes, but good quality students who not only want an education like the one Rutgers can provide but also an atmosphere on Fall Saturdays.

These folks may have the criteria of "big-time football program and price" and decide to go to Penn, Notre Dame, Michigan State, University of Florida, etc. instead of Rutgers. 

I really don't see the difference between potential students wanting to attend a college for tennis or for being able to watch a big-time football team.  Either way it is a personal decision, and I am pretty sure that there are a LOT more high New Jersey school students who are interested in attending a big-time football school than in playing tennis or crew.

So, to summarize, my issue with your post is the suggestion that the focus of football over tennis (or crew, or whatever) will result in a negative impact on the student body.

Tennis and golf and crew and other sports with small student participation have value and I don't think should be cut, but I don't think cutting them hurts anyone but the individual students who want to play that sport.

---

by: huntsu @ Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 13:00:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

<snap> (0.00 / 0)

I don't think should be cut, but I don't think cutting them hurts anyone but the individual students who want to play that sport.

that was my point.  i was thinking about the individuals this would affect.  I guess i can't expect those of you who got picked last for dodgeball to possibly understand.
jay
p.s. that was  good natured snarking for those of you who are keeping score.

activist for hire.

---

by: Jay Lassiter @ Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 14:45:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

besides.... (0.00 / 0)

...there has been so much chatter on this site about the excitement surrounding the recent football success, i was just putting all this  talk into a slightly wider RU athletics context.

activist for hire.

---

by: Jay Lassiter @ Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 15:56:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Jay, I agree with you (0.00 / 0)

A broad athletic program is better and cheaper than spending money on football that gets cut from tennis, swimming, etc.  A USA Today last week said that the AVERAGE IA football coach gets nearly one million dollars in salary. 

ps.  How'd you guess I was always picked last?  :)

I have to think of a witty signature about Frank LoBiondo

---

by: Hopeful @ Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 19:30:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

no way jose.... (0.00 / 0)

....the notion that RU has cut its tennis and swim programs means that each varsity tennis player or swimmer at each and every highschool in NJ will now possibly look other than RU for their secondary education.  this eliminates a huge (instate tuition) option for many student/jocks.

activist for hire.

---

by: Jay Lassiter @ Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 10:31:28 AM CST

How many? (0.00 / 0)

How many students participate in tennis or swim at Rutgers?  And how many are from in-state vs. out-of-state?  That would help to make your point.

---

by: huntsu @ Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 13:04:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]