bob, you owe me a beer. could've said something, didn't.
BUT...
if you look at 100+ years ago, athletics was a legitimate part of education; it was essentially a physical curriculum entwined with the academic one as a fully integrated education.
today, it's little more than an entertainment industry -- football and men's basketball in particular. you could also argue that intercollegiate sports is a social necessity and outlet for students, but more than that it's these two sports that gain an otherwise relatively unknown school true national notoriety. that's why a solid FB and BB program results in dollars for a school, and why those who lose money are using it as little more than a marketing tactic for the university, albeit a powerful one.
now, that's not the case with some schools; the ivy league is a great example. for instance, how many kids know about harvard because their football team is a winner?
the answer, i hope, is none. particularly since their football team SUCKS. but they gained national recognition long before sports rose to unprecedented popularity, sociological importance and widespread credence.
universities today realize this truth. which is why they'd invest -- and frequently lose -- enormous amounts of money on football and men's basketball programs solely in hopes of boosting their school's recognition, because that more than just about anything else is what draws potential students into their institution.
otherwise, you'd see the SJSU's and Idaho's and Northwesterns and WSU's of the world eliminating unprofitable spectator athletics, selling the facilities and focusing exclusively on academics.
JMO.
where was i.
oh yeah.
broncobob, STAY OUT OF MY BOOZE.
you too, TUfan...
no. wait. drink up, TUfan. you have much love to give, i hear....
