[BostonCard]

About 30 people post on Cardboard football threads.   This is a very small echo chamber.    The prevailing attitude seems to be. “I’m interested in football so all students should be interested in football”.    Do a handful of 70 year old, die-hard football fans know what 18 year old students are interested in?

There is a website College Confidential about college topics.  It has a very big message board.  I’ve frequently posted on this board for twenty years; particularly on threads involving Stanford.   Many threads are discussions by students about what top colleges they will be applying to.   I’ve never seen a post, “I’m thinking of applying to Stanford but I’m concerned about how many games the football team will win”.

I agree with you, though to take the other side a moment, many people have made the point that if Stanford were a better team, attendance would follow.  You can view this in two ways; either there are lots of closet football fans who are so put off by the quality of the product that they don’t show up; by this measure the number of (potential) fans should be measured by what the school does when it is successful.  Or you can look at things by saying that there are a lot of bandwagon fans who will bother to show up in the instances where Stanford is successful, but that true fans, the ones who show up thick or thin are very rare.

The other argument that has been made is that while no one will say “I am considering applying to Stanford due to its football team”, a successful football team with a rabid fanbase contributes to the overall environment, which contributes to the “gestalt” as to how people feel about the school, which does drive how people apply or decide to go to the school.  I think Mick has provided some data to back up the fact that schools see a bump in applicants after successful sports seasons.

I buy into the idea that athletic success when it happens has positive downstream effects on the campus environment, student satisfaction/happiness, and “campus togetherness” for lack of a better term.  My issue is that we should acknowledge the costs associated with these benefits and that the University should decide whether these costs (financial, but also to the University’s values), which are increasing as collegiate sports evolves.  Where I differ from many on this board is that I seriously question whether the marginal benefit is worth the compromises we need to make.  While collegiate sports is a way to improve the campus environment, produce more well-rounded students, etc., it is not the only way.  For example, my employer has an annual “Gives Back” which culminates in a concert with well-known acts (this last year, it was Imagine Dragons; last year, Dua Lipa was the headliner) and of course generates a lot of excitement and is nice for morale, even as it is expensive to put on.  Now, I’m not saying that the University should get Taylor Swift to perform at the Stadium or Coldplay to put on an extra show that is free to students and faculty and staff.  But there are a lot of different activities that can be used to improve the campus environment and make students excited to be at Stanford.  Privileging sports just because a lot of 70-year-olds (hey, as a still sub-50-year-old, I resent that) want to be associated with a school with a better football team reflects a somewhat skewed view resulting from self-selection of people on this board.

BC

[BostonCard]

About 30 people post on Cardboard football threads.   This is a very small echo chamber.    The prevailing attitude seems to be. “I’m interested in football so all students should be interested in football”.    Do a handful of 70 year old, die-hard football fans know what 18 year old students are interested in?

There is a website College Confidential about college topics.  It has a very big message board.  I’ve frequently posted on this board for twenty years; particularly on threads involving Stanford.   Many threads are discussions by students about what top colleges they will be applying to.   I’ve never seen a post, “I’m thinking of applying to Stanford but I’m concerned about how many games the football team will win”.

I agree with you, though to take the other side a moment, many people have made the point that if Stanford were a better team, attendance would follow.  You can view this in two ways; either there are lots of closet football fans who are so put off by the quality of the product that they don’t show up; by this measure the number of (potential) fans should be measured by what the school does when it is successful.  Or you can look at things by saying that there are a lot of bandwagon fans who will bother to show up in the instances where Stanford is successful, but that true fans, the ones who show up thick or thin are very rare.

The other argument that has been made is that while no one will say “I am considering applying to Stanford due to its football team”, a successful football team with a rabid fanbase contributes to the overall environment, which contributes to the “gestalt” as to how people feel about the school, which does drive how people apply or decide to go to the school.  I think Mick has provided some data to back up the fact that schools see a bump in applicants after successful sports seasons.

I buy into the idea that athletic success when it happens has positive downstream effects on the campus environment, student satisfaction/happiness, and “campus togetherness” for lack of a better term.  My issue is that we should acknowledge the costs associated with these benefits and that the University should decide whether these costs (financial, but also to the University’s values), which are increasing as collegiate sports evolves.  Where I differ from many on this board is that I seriously question whether the marginal benefit is worth the compromises we need to make.  While collegiate sports is a way to improve the campus environment, produce more well-rounded students, etc., it is not the only way.  For example, my employer has an annual “Gives Back” which culminates in a concert with well-known acts (this last year, it was Imagine Dragons; last year, Dua Lipa was the headliner) and of course generates a lot of excitement and is nice for morale, even as it is expensive to put on.  Now, I’m not saying that the University should get Taylor Swift to perform at the Stadium or Coldplay to put on an extra show that is free to students and faculty and staff.  But there are a lot of different activities that can be used to improve the campus environment and make students excited to be at Stanford.  Privileging sports just because a lot of 70-year-olds (hey, as a still sub-50-year-old, I resent that) want to be associated with a school with a better football team reflects a somewhat skewed view resulting from self-selection of people on this board.

BC