Dave, I remember it well, even though I didn't go to a toney liberal arts undergrad school. Back in the 1960s, having a good football team was usually considered a sign of academic indigence. Two incidents stand out: 1. There used to be a Bottom Ten list printed in the sports section, and it was some of the funniest stuff I ever read. The author lumped Army, Navy and Air Force together as The Pentagon. Kentucky and Northwestern were called the Mildcats. One of the schools from this state was referred to as The University of Texas at El intercepted Paso. 2. Somebody gave Michigan a plaque for being the only school consistently in the top twenty schlastically and in football.
Then, when we had the cold fusion scandal, one top academic made the cutting comment that it was odd that the only researchers who were able to create fusion in a bottle were from "football colleges." <g> And somebody from Texas A&M, which was able to "reproduce" fusion in a bottle, said, "let's not turn on each other."
I have mixed feelings. I believe that athletic superiority should be rewarded in higher education. After all, PE is a legitimate course and it was once a required course. But it has obviously gone way beyond rewarding those with superior athletic abilities. It is now a major source of income, though, somehow, most of it gets sucked up within the athletic dept. |
