I am spending most of this week at the University of Nebraska for a talk
and a workshop. What does
Nebraska have to do with Notre Dame, where I visited last month? Both
are traditional football powerhouses, a place where the sport
dominates the school and more Americans know these universities for
their teams than their academics. I've heard most universities
actually lose money on their football programs (though Notre Dame is
an noted exception). Still schools use football to attract students, raise
school spirit and bring back alumni and their money. In many states
the highest paid public employee is the football coach. Notre Dame
attracted a star professor by promising him season tickets
"between the 45s" and Nebraska smartly has an admissions
office inside the stadium.
Many foreigners find the level of US college athletics surprising but
having grown up in this country I was shocked to find out European
universities, for the most part, do not play each other in any
sport, not even soccer. Where's the fun in that?
My next university trip will be to the University of Rochester, not a
football powerhouse and in the same Division III wannabe-ivy league as the
University of Chicago. Chicago used to be a football powerhouse, part
of the Big Ten and had the first Heisman trophy winner, Jay
Berwanger, in 1935. But then the new president Robert Maynard Hutchins
who has been claimed to say "Whenever I feel like exercising, I
lie down until that feeling goes away," eliminated the athletic
programs and focused the university on academics. Only in the past few
decades have they even had Division III teams.
With all this traveling, I won't be going to FOCS. But don't worry, I have
lined up a special guest blogger to bring us all the gossip from the
conference.
It's not a lecture on complexity. It's more like going to CCC and listening to Lance at the coffee-and-muffin table while waiting for the next session to start.
When I went to the University of Western Ontario, they were so go-hard on their football programs. I can't imagine being in an academic environment where sports plays a bigger role. Yet this is true at alot of universities in the States. Makes me kinda glad I'm at Hippie Central now... oops! I mean York University. :) Incidentally, I heard that U of Rochester is a hard school to work for. They don't encourage much individuality or creative thinking in their profs... or so ruomr has it.
College athletics, and football in particular, has always been seen by many US universities as a pump for alumni funding. A winning football season usually brings in significantly more alumni dollars than a losing one. I teach at a big state school in the Southeastern US that invests a lot in its football program, hiring big-name coaches at astronomical salaries, etc., but still has a mostly losing football team.
Personally, I could care less about college football. I like the fact that our team doesn't win much because that means less rowdy parties in my neighborhood on game days (I live near campus). But it is unfortunate that doing well on the gridiron correlates so strongly with getting better financial support for academics. What a racket.
I used to teach a big state university with a (usually) top 20 football team. The provost would track how the number of admissions applications from year to year varied with the success of the football team.