Mr. Lewis, I enjoyed your article- what prompted my thinking about this was obviously the fact that college sports can't pay players, so the "fringe benefits" are everything. It is just that I have a hard time with the fact that location/coach (and afterall, if FSU can hire a good coach, why can't Harvard?) can overrule a more valuable degree, but maybe 1) top schools would actually require atheletes to do the work and so they might be unable to (either b/c of time consumed with football or because they just can't handle it) 2) Future employers would be able to discriminate enough so that degree from a top school is valued less because you got it through sports. 1) doesn't seem that likely in view of the Ivy League's "Gentelmen's C's". And the second is doubtful too- I have a hard time see employers delving that deeply into it, but maybe so.
Some more evidence for location- top schools on the west coast- UCLA, Cal, Standford- seem to do better in atheletics then other top schools in the northeast where the climate is not as nice. Perhaps this ties into the other discussion about higher education- atheletes may have much higher than average discount rates? Seems that could explain a good bit of both the schools they choose and the way they invest their time. Jason DeBacker
