Dowling Quoted in LA Times Article-Separate College Sports / Universities
- Thread starter Knight Shift
- Start date
Mal,
MBB and FB are enriched with African American students relative to the NB campus. You could easily infer from Dowling's comments that he is stating that MBB and FB players are not worth educating. Thus, one could draw the conclusion that he is inferring that it is not worth educating these African American students. Furthermore, as others have pointed out, he has been very respectful and encouraging of student athletes competing in sports other than MBB and FB, which are often enriched in white students as compared to the NB campus. That is how I "got any type of racial element from his quote".
I am not stating that I think he is purposefully making racial comments. However, many people harbor racial biases without even knowing/understanding that they do. This might be a good example of that phenomenon.
Furthermore, once you willing make yourself a public figure and make public pronouncements then I no longer need to know you personally before I judge. Dowling is an educated man that willingly and knowingly made these comments to the press. In other words, he should have known better.
Oh not at all. Having high standards in life is an exceptional thing. Just because you are an athlete doesn't mean you can't excel in school. Like I said, I have seen it.
Soccer is a horrible example. Universities worldwide typically don't have any sports, so playing soccer at a high level or cricket or handball isn't an option. It all happens outside of school, which seems to be your angle. America is unique in this regard, and awesomely so.
No - you got it right. America is unique. I don't really see what awesome about it, other than you get cheaper tickets to second rate sports by way of taxpayers.
Its a system who's time has come and hopefully will soon be gone. Rationalize the system. Let the NFL and NBA take over the development of their minor leagues. Or at least stop pretending we need to educate tomorrows future FB and BB players. Soccer doesnt and its doing just fine. BB doesnt in Europe. No need to go through the charade of pretending to be a college student for a year or two. Just go pro when there is a team willing to pay you to play.
This post was edited on 3/24 1:24 PM by derleider
Its a system who's time has come and hopefully will soon be gone. Rationalize the system. Let the NFL and NBA take over the development of their minor leagues. Or at least stop pretending we need to educate tomorrows future FB and BB players. Soccer doesnt and its doing just fine. BB doesnt in Europe. No need to go through the charade of pretending to be a college student for a year or two. Just go pro when there is a team willing to pay you to play.
This post was edited on 3/24 1:24 PM by derleider
Because I like too. I just dont pretend that it is what it isn't. And while I like it, I wouldnt be too shook up if 20 years from now college FB and BB were replaced by professional minor leagues, and the college versions were more like Olympic sports or Ivy level sports - a nice distraction for locals who want to pay cheap rates to see more or less real students play fourth rate versions of sports they like.
Let me add, I also think its pretty hypocritical of the NCAA to be so anti-gambling, when the only reason its second sport (MBB) has any relevance is people gambling on the tourney.
This post was edited on 3/24 1:51 PM by derleider
It is what any school wants it to be. Just because Kentucky sells their soul for hoops success doesn't mean Rutgers has to. It is very possible to have success on the field and in the classroom. I like that we strive for it, and our graduation rate in football is proof of this.
Frankly speaking, given your position and clear distain for college athletics, it is surprising that you like to follow it. Seems hypocritical.
Lastly, those Ivy sports you talk about aren't much different in practice than big time sport schools, just on a different scale. Kids are being admitted that can throw footballs or score lacrosse goals that wouldn't otherwise be. Again, maybe they have more to offer than some kid with a slightly higher GPA.
Exactly. If he wants to talk about OSU or bring up the UNC scandal, fine. Maybe he isn't a total jerk or horse's butt, I don't know, never met the man, but making a blanket statement essentially saying Div1 athletes are stupid is self serving and flat out wrong.
We all know some schools don't have the best records of bringing in kids with the best academic histories. How about talking about ways to improve the situation rather than trying to tear down DIv 1 athletics. No reason to smear the athletes who are doing a great job academically.
If he wants to talk about schools trying their best to bring in real student athletes, you think he could mention how proud he is of Rutgers and their APR record. Has he ever done this?
Again, maybe to most people who know him personally think he is a decent guy. But from everything I have read over the years, he comes off in public like a self serving, elitist, disingenuous bore who operates outside of the real world. That's just my opinion.
But he's not wrong. The players you need to field a winning team, by and large don't exist (i.e. college ready students more interested getting a degree than playing football). You cant field 65 Stanfords. Teams full of kids who would largely get into the schools at which they play on their own non-athletic merit.
You want to improve the situation - the only realistic way is to take the money out of it. Otherwise the primary incentive will be to win, and not to educate. If the money is there, most schools who are competing will take it as far as their fan bases will let them in terms of playing to win and ignoring the student part of student athlete. The better a team, the less percentage of its fans are alums, the higher percentage don't care that much about academic integrity. That should be pretty much obvious.
Since football is so popular, there is no really good way to get the money out. So you either la la la with your fingers in your ears about the issue (which is what most of this board is doing right now), or you cut cord between college and sports, at least at the big schools, and accept that schools like Rutgers, who care, will have to go back to playing in front of 15,000 people.
You want to improve the situation - the only realistic way is to take the money out of it. Otherwise the primary incentive will be to win, and not to educate. If the money is there, most schools who are competing will take it as far as their fan bases will let them in terms of playing to win and ignoring the student part of student athlete. The better a team, the less percentage of its fans are alums, the higher percentage don't care that much about academic integrity. That should be pretty much obvious.
Since football is so popular, there is no really good way to get the money out. So you either la la la with your fingers in your ears about the issue (which is what most of this board is doing right now), or you cut cord between college and sports, at least at the big schools, and accept that schools like Rutgers, who care, will have to go back to playing in front of 15,000 people.
Rutgers plays in front of 50,000 people because it plays against schools who don't care, or care to a lesser extent. The money that makes the BCS experience possible doesn't come from the RU's of the world, and Im pretty sure you know that too. We are a relic, and even a good chunk of our own fans would trade out top 10 APR and top 50 team for a top 50 APR and top 10 team.
And you probably exaggerate the extent to which RU cares. We arent willing to cheat, or create athletes only majors - probably because we found out that PR wise its much easier just to pay a good deal in academic support and shove the weaker students into a communications major.
This post was edited on 3/24 3:57 PM by derleider
Re: PROFESSOR of FRENCH LITERATURE
His specalities are Enlightenment-era British, early American literature, and literary theory. While there were indeed crossovers with French thought and influence during his era of expertise and although he is well-versed in French, he is not a professor of French Literature.
His specalities are Enlightenment-era British, early American literature, and literary theory. While there were indeed crossovers with French thought and influence during his era of expertise and although he is well-versed in French, he is not a professor of French Literature.
Again, Rutgers athletes take the same classes as other students, many of whom aren't athletes. They take the same majors as other students, many of whom aren't athletes.
I don't care what goes on at other schools. My school, Rutgers, does it right., which is the point to take away. That is all I care about.
Dowling is simply wrong as it relates to Rutgers, his employer. If he wants to rid the world of the OSU's, then leave his post and start an organization to do so. Squawking about something that his actual employer doesn't do is just like his athletic wishes- small potatoes.
I wish Rutgers had a thousand Dowlings -- if they would just do their jobs and not get up on a soapbox and broadcast their ill-conceived attitude toward things they only think they understand.
Rutgers is a university first and foremost, and just because we "do it right" does not mean it is without flaws. Would every Rutgers athlete be admitted to Rutgers if he or she did not play a sport? Of course not. Does that mean we have idiots who can't earn a degree playing sports? Same answer.
There is a legitimate fear -- especially at a university that had to take phones out of professors' offices and could come up with enough money for a simple "greening" of a hideous campus -- that all of that money to athletics (that much-discussed subsidy) is diverting us from our real mission. You know, the education thing. (Apologies to G.H.W. Bush)
We know that most athletics spending is a different pile of money, but we also have to admit that the subsidy does leave us vulnerable to legitimate attacks when it comes to spending. Can we defend ourselves? Yes, we actually can, largely because that investment helped land us a Big Ten invitation, which is the most valuable asset Rutgers has right now. (Except for -- maybe -- the medical school.) But do we? No, we just attack those who "hype" the subsidy and act like they are somehow wrong for valuing education.
Dowling's problem is he acts like he's at Williams. (I know someone said this above, but that's the school I've been using in conversations about him for years.) When you point out that Berkeley and UVa are outstanding schools that happen to compete at the highest level of sports, he'll say "Harvard doesn't, and Harvard's a better school.:" (That was directly from an email exchange I had with Dowling about 15 years ago, maybe more.) I pointed out that Harvard is a private school and thus has a different constituency. The brilliant scholar couldn't -- or wouldn't, obviously -- grasp that.
He is a douchebag. No way around it. But I would want a faculty chock full of people who don't care about sports, who are devoted to "elitist" educational standards, and who take the time to actually know their students. In fact, that's ALL I want in a faculty in disciplines where research has little financial value.
But, as also noted above, the decision has been made. We are Big Ten. We play big-time sports. And we are in the Big Ten, the CIC and the AAU.
The problem is Dowling made a name for himself by spouting bullshit masquerading as genuine concern about higher education on the wrong path. He's not 100 percent wrong, either. And if we didn't get into the Big Ten and were left in the American with Tulsa and Houston, it would be tougher to argue that all of that investment -- and there has been a lot -- was worth it. But now, thanks largely to nothing we actually accomplished, we have the golden ticket that not only will guarantee that Rutgers sports will eventually be solvent but will boost the academic profile of the university. To me, that makes the case clear that the investment was worth it, however much of a struggle it might have been during some of the lean years to believe it.
It is very, very hard to ensure that a university isn't tainted by some of the problems that have plagued big-time sports. UNC Chapel Hill is known as being a fine state university, but how many years will pass before we stop equating it with the academic scandal involving athletes? The University of Miami has made great strides in academics over the past two decades, but does it matter when you think about Miami sports? All it takes is one coach a little too scared of another sub-par season, one booster who wants to make his mark, one player who makes a really, really bad decision and gets in a lot of trouble to get yourself lumped in with them.
Look how much crap Rutgers took for its problems in recent years. Would you be proud to teach at a university that didn't fire Mike Rice? (No, I will not go into the whole Barch-didn't-do-his-job-at-first rant at the moment.) That video had to make every professor cringe. And that was small potatoes compared to some of the things they fear happening.
Just because our APR is good now, our scandals have not been institutional and we graduate our players today doesn't guarantee anything tomorrow. And you have to assume the pressure to win only will increase with more at stake, so I believe the fears are justified. Dowling has every right to worry about what might happen in the future.
But he's been worrying about this for decades and our APR is still there, we've had no recruiting scandals and our only probation was because holdover employees couldn't handle modern office procedures.
Sorry for the length, but I generally find Dowling's personality and attitude, not core beliefs, to be the problem here. He cannot believe that an educated person can be a Division I athlete and truly wishes all athletes on college campuses just decided to go that school and then decided to play a sport.
Actually, I wish that could be the case, too. But that ship sailed longer ago than most of us realize. Living in a fantasy world, even from the safety of an ivory tower, it simply unrealistic. And the world he wants is unrealistic at a major land-grant research-based state university.
BIlly, do your job and shut the hell up.
Rutgers is a university first and foremost, and just because we "do it right" does not mean it is without flaws. Would every Rutgers athlete be admitted to Rutgers if he or she did not play a sport? Of course not. Does that mean we have idiots who can't earn a degree playing sports? Same answer.
There is a legitimate fear -- especially at a university that had to take phones out of professors' offices and could come up with enough money for a simple "greening" of a hideous campus -- that all of that money to athletics (that much-discussed subsidy) is diverting us from our real mission. You know, the education thing. (Apologies to G.H.W. Bush)
We know that most athletics spending is a different pile of money, but we also have to admit that the subsidy does leave us vulnerable to legitimate attacks when it comes to spending. Can we defend ourselves? Yes, we actually can, largely because that investment helped land us a Big Ten invitation, which is the most valuable asset Rutgers has right now. (Except for -- maybe -- the medical school.) But do we? No, we just attack those who "hype" the subsidy and act like they are somehow wrong for valuing education.
Dowling's problem is he acts like he's at Williams. (I know someone said this above, but that's the school I've been using in conversations about him for years.) When you point out that Berkeley and UVa are outstanding schools that happen to compete at the highest level of sports, he'll say "Harvard doesn't, and Harvard's a better school.:" (That was directly from an email exchange I had with Dowling about 15 years ago, maybe more.) I pointed out that Harvard is a private school and thus has a different constituency. The brilliant scholar couldn't -- or wouldn't, obviously -- grasp that.
He is a douchebag. No way around it. But I would want a faculty chock full of people who don't care about sports, who are devoted to "elitist" educational standards, and who take the time to actually know their students. In fact, that's ALL I want in a faculty in disciplines where research has little financial value.
But, as also noted above, the decision has been made. We are Big Ten. We play big-time sports. And we are in the Big Ten, the CIC and the AAU.
The problem is Dowling made a name for himself by spouting bullshit masquerading as genuine concern about higher education on the wrong path. He's not 100 percent wrong, either. And if we didn't get into the Big Ten and were left in the American with Tulsa and Houston, it would be tougher to argue that all of that investment -- and there has been a lot -- was worth it. But now, thanks largely to nothing we actually accomplished, we have the golden ticket that not only will guarantee that Rutgers sports will eventually be solvent but will boost the academic profile of the university. To me, that makes the case clear that the investment was worth it, however much of a struggle it might have been during some of the lean years to believe it.
It is very, very hard to ensure that a university isn't tainted by some of the problems that have plagued big-time sports. UNC Chapel Hill is known as being a fine state university, but how many years will pass before we stop equating it with the academic scandal involving athletes? The University of Miami has made great strides in academics over the past two decades, but does it matter when you think about Miami sports? All it takes is one coach a little too scared of another sub-par season, one booster who wants to make his mark, one player who makes a really, really bad decision and gets in a lot of trouble to get yourself lumped in with them.
Look how much crap Rutgers took for its problems in recent years. Would you be proud to teach at a university that didn't fire Mike Rice? (No, I will not go into the whole Barch-didn't-do-his-job-at-first rant at the moment.) That video had to make every professor cringe. And that was small potatoes compared to some of the things they fear happening.
Just because our APR is good now, our scandals have not been institutional and we graduate our players today doesn't guarantee anything tomorrow. And you have to assume the pressure to win only will increase with more at stake, so I believe the fears are justified. Dowling has every right to worry about what might happen in the future.
But he's been worrying about this for decades and our APR is still there, we've had no recruiting scandals and our only probation was because holdover employees couldn't handle modern office procedures.
Sorry for the length, but I generally find Dowling's personality and attitude, not core beliefs, to be the problem here. He cannot believe that an educated person can be a Division I athlete and truly wishes all athletes on college campuses just decided to go that school and then decided to play a sport.
Actually, I wish that could be the case, too. But that ship sailed longer ago than most of us realize. Living in a fantasy world, even from the safety of an ivory tower, it simply unrealistic. And the world he wants is unrealistic at a major land-grant research-based state university.
BIlly, do your job and shut the hell up.
Re: PROFESSOR of FRENCH LITERATURE
Those sound like nice hobbies. I might take them up when I am not being productive in the workforce.
Is everything we don't like "racist" now? There are plenty of athletes, black and white, who go to college to play sports instead of playing sports while in college. Do you think Jeremy Shockey would have attended college if he wasn't a talented TE? I think the only time he would have stepped foot on a college campus would have been to pick up a date if it weren't for football. Do you think Cardale "Why should we have to go to class if we came here to play FOOTBALL, we ain't come to play SCHOOL classes are POINTLESS" Jones wants a college education? The problem with Dowling's attitude is that he wants to burn down the entire system to get rid of about 5% of the athletes.
Re: PROFESSOR of FRENCH LITERATURE
And you are on here talking about how the school should spend money on athletics - the very definition of recreation?
You might. But without professors like him to do the research you would basically not be able to. And without the school sponsoring the whole program, you wouldnt have professors like him.
And you are on here talking about how the school should spend money on athletics - the very definition of recreation?
Re: PROFESSOR of FRENCH LITERATURE
I'd live. I feel pretty confident I could do it myself if interested.
I'd live. I feel pretty confident I could do it myself if interested.
Is there any measure by which Dowling is not fulfilling his academic obligations, or are you merely inferring that anyone who has an expressed thought outside of his field of professional engagement must -- therefore -- be goldbricking?
May I also infer, therefore, that you are a professional Internet poster, and that this is your primary vocation? If not, then would it not also be fair to admonish you to get back to work and "shut the hell up?"
Re: PROFESSOR of FRENCH LITERATURE
I'm almost certain he's got him confused with the late President Fran Lawrence.
