Part of the reason that Harvard et al don't pay for big-time coaches is because the faculty would be up in arms. (Although Harvard's endowment is the size of a small nation, it hardly seems to matter.) Smaller, well-respected schools, academically speaking, probably can't afford the multi-million dollar coach.
I think you hit the nail on the head, though: differences in discount rates. It seems to me that, for a lot of college athletes, that last game as a senior is the end of their existances as they know it. It's... well, what they play for.
One other thing: There's a certain mentality held by non-athlete students of big-time schools that those of us (like me) who went to some prissy little liberal arts college don't have. It's rabid fandom otherwise seen only at Fenway Park. I wonder if some academically strong, non-Ivy schools (UVa, Michigan, UCLA, perhaps Stanford, specifically) developed strong sports teams in order to improve their academic standing. I mean, specifically for that purpose. Get the rabid sports fans that'd otherwise go to a Tufts, Rice or U. Chicago and put them into a school with a football team worth voting for.
And I further wonder if the US News and World Report rankings have anything to do with it. I'm willing to bet that Michigan's alumni donations -- both in number and size -- skyrocket when they have a good basketball/football season. This lends perhaps undue (here's my bias showing) academic credibility to the school, giving a double-bang for the donation buck.
Dan
At 09:51 PM 10/24/02 -0500, you wrote:
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
