Beer and Circus

[DoctorB]

Again, I am just trying to locate sports culture in the big picture. I really urge anyone seriously interested in these issues to read Beer and Circus by Murray Sperber. Murray is one of my former teachers, a good guy, extremely knowledgeable, and a big sports fan. He wrote a great history of Notre Dame football, and has been on ESPN regularly over the years.

I am very sympathetic to his basic arguments. It is important to note that I am a fairly outspoken critic of many aspects of undergraduate education in America today. It has gone downhill for many reasons, and sports is only a very small influence, in my opinion. Murray believes otherwise.

From the liner notes to Beer and Circus:

A generation of students is at risk.

Acknowledged for years as the country's leading authority on college sports and their role in American culture, Murray Sperber takes us beyond the headlines and the public controversies to explore the profound and tragic impact of intercollegiate athletics on undergraduate education. Sperber explodes cherished myths about college sports, particularly at "Big-time U's," the large public research universities with high-profile men's football and basketball teams playing at the top level of the NCAA.

Using original research culled from students, faculty and administrators around the country, he proves that many schools, because of their emphasis on research and graduate programs, no longer give a majority of their undergraduates a meaningful education. Instead, they offer a meager and dangerous substitute: the party scene surrounding college sports that Sperber calls "beer and circus," and which serves to keep the students happy and distracted while the tuition dollars keep rolling in.

Sperber explains the evolution, over many generations, of the beer-and-circus scene. He describes how Big-time U's spend ever greater amounts of money on their athletic departments - most of which operate in the red - and pray for the "Flutie Factor," the phenomenon of increased admission applications based on national exposure through athletic triumph. He details the pernicious roles of both the media, primarily television, and corporations looking to tap into the lucrative student market. Of particular concern is today's epidemic of student binge drinking, in many ways a result of these complex factors.

Beer and Circus is ultimately a devastating critique, not only of big-time college sports and the universities sponsoring it, but also of the national sports culture and its values. It is an eye-opening look at a generation of young people deprived of the education they deserve, and a must-read for all students and parents, educators and policy-makers.

Murray Sperber is widely recognized as the nation's foremost critic and commentator on the subject of college sports and culture, and is in constant demand by the media. He is the chairman of the National Alliance for Collegiate Athletic Reform (NAFCAR), an intercollegiate faculty committee advocating reform in athletic policy. A professor of English and American Studies at Indiana University, Bloomington, his previous books include College Sports, Inc.; Onward to Victory: The Crises that Shaped College Sports, and Shake Down the Thunder: The Creation of Notre Dame Football.

peace, Dr.B

[Scoop]

Move this to the off season board and let's talk some hoops.

[bonwich]

The new arena has nothing to do with "talking hoops"? Perhaps your opinion has just validated one of Dr. B's premises.

[kshoe]

lets create an "academic board" where DoctorB can invite his fellow professors to post and they can continue this thrilling discussion of how sports are ruining this country, from the highschool level on up.

[kshoe]

the arena but rather is a blast of sports in general.

[Billiken Rich]

nm

[bonwich]

It's simply a follow-up post to his prior posts about the athletic department budget. God forbid we allow any context to influence our discussions.

[DoctorB]

That is pretty funny stuff, kshoe. My compliments on a thoughtful response.

To whatever extent you are serious, it simply is more proof of my point. Sports fans have divorced athletics from the reality of the universities today. It is much easier to ignore the other problems and root on the bills!

It would be nice if we could do that, but as I said, it completely ignores my main point. Athletics must be understood in the context of the university.

PS-- if you actually read my posts, you will note I am a big sports fan, and I doubt that sports has anything meaningful to do with ruining our country.

[billiken_roy]

doctorb said, "I doubt that sports has anything meaningful to do with ruining our country."

first doc, i want to tell you i really enjoy your posts. i hope you continue to banter with us. refreshing outlooks are good. regardless of each of our positions.

other than your apparent lack of enthusiasm for the arena, there has been very little i am in vehement disagreement. your above statement is one we could all probably throw around for ages. for the most part, i guess you are right. and maybe it is my level of nostalgia that flips me, but one cant argue that it seems to be the rare sports figure in this day and age that seems to be the ideal icon and role model. yeah, yeah, athletes shouldnt be role models. but regardless of what we do or say to try to dispel that, there is no denying that impressionable young boys and girls idolize high profile professional athletes.

gone seem to be the days where ahtletes in general cared or go out of their way to to embrace that role. and i guess i can understand this aversion. still it is a fact it happens and i cant help but wonder if a difference might be made if the likes of allen iverson was more like david eckstein. or dennis rodman hadnt went crazy somewhere along the line. anyone that doesnt think kids imitate that type of lifestyles and action is naive. and that then helps set the foundation of what that generation might turn out to be. can they change? sure they can. probably the vast high majority do. still the question is asked.

or let's look at it from the other side. instead of reaction by the athletes, what if, the extremely well paid athletes, used this new found wealth and position to spread good will and charity to a much much higher degree. i know many of the athletes do. but probably more do not. i dont understand why they dont, but they dont.

count me as one of those that believe that the root to "fixing" not just america, but the world, is in fixing the changing for the worse, the moralistic and ethical changes that the world in general has seen over the last decade or so. if one thinks back to what society considered acceptable just 25 years ago to what is considered acceptable normal behavior today, how can anyone not believe it all starts there? and when todays athletics seem to dominate negative headlines more than positive, again, the question becomes how can they (the professional athlete or big time sports) not have an influence in the world problems. they have to.

[davidnark]

See also http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=v251364r036218r5

I haven't read the publication, but the abstract indicates that this may provide a different perspective.

[bonwich]

Posting the abstract itself might be instructive:

Among large universities, success in high-profile intercollegiate athletics appears to be one factor among several in the college choice process for aspiring undergraduates. Winning a national championship in one of the two most visible college sports— football and men's basketball — is routinely accompanied by significant positive attention for an institution. That attention appears to translate into increases in applications received for undergraduate admission in subsequent admissions cycles. We compared year-to-year and multiyear changes in the number of applications submitted following winning a national championship with changes in parallel sets of data from peer institutions that did not experience a championship, thereby isolating athletic success as a factor in the college choice process. We found that notable increases generally occurred in admissions applications received-both in absolute terms but more importantly relative to peer schools — in the years following the championship season.

(The italics seem to parallel exactly what others -- I'm not sure if it was Dr.B. or kwyjibo -- have been saying. As for the bold face, let's assume that SLU fulfills and then continues its commitment to the mythical "top 50." That means that 49 other teams have also made such a commitment, and that for any given year, the odds are going to be somewhat less than one in 50 that we win a national championship. So perhaps once in the next 75 years or so we might get this "notable increase" in admissions applications? We might as well just all become Cubs fans.)

[davidnark]

I admittedly haven't read either article; however, the basic premise of this article--that significant success on the court or field positively impacts the admissions and economics of universities--appears to provide a thoroughly researched counterpoint to Dr. B's cited article (your details notwithstanding).

[DoctorB]

Again, a "notable increase" in applications is really not needed, and may not even be desirable. Are they good applicants? Anyway, as I mentioned, we are pretty much enrolling the number of students we are targeting--around 1500 freshmen per year.

[davidnark]

>Again, a "notable increase" in applications is really not

>needed, and may not even be desirable. Are they good

>applicants? Anyway, as I mentioned, we are pretty much

>enrolling the number of students we are targeting--around

>1500 freshmen per year.

Based on the above statement, I will conclude that you aren't a professor of business or economics.

[Scoop]

Not so much bewitched. I log on here to read useful insight about our beloved bills, not to read a philisophical air ball. Has anyone seen Obi in the Gym? That's what I want to know. If you're into the thread, cool. It's just not "hoops".

[big al]

Roy, were you on Chanel 5 last night regarding the Belleville West dress code?

[billiken_roy]

yes see the other board for a discussion about it al.

[kwyjibo]

I haven't read the report in question but it seems very reasonable on its face. It says that teams that win championships (note Bonwich's and my earlier point on this) get an increase in a number of admissions. Nothing about how to win championships (and sadly even in that discussion arenas would be a small appendix).

But again you want to have a discussion without any real alternatives (either you spend XXX bazillion on an arena or your touched by the Noodly Appendages of the Flying Spaghetti Monster). In the real world, OTHER cheaper things more directly contollable by the university--you know like actually running a university instead running a shell game for capital projects--increase the number and quality of admissions as well. Having a professor win a Nobel prize increases admissions, I bet SLU could buy one for less than a couple million.

The U.S. News Rankings have an enormous impact on admissions. I know someone who works admissions at Smith College and he says besides all the obvious effects of getting more and better applications with higher rankings, the dirty little secret is if your DENIAL rate published in US News goes up MORE people want to apply to your school (which boosts your denial rate). You know how people like to get into places that keep out the riff-raff.

If you are truly interested in the facts surrounding the impact of athletics on university you should read (it is not as polemical as the other book mentioned by Doctor B and is rooted in data):

The Game of Life: College Sports and Educational Values

James L. Shulman and William G. Bowen

http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/6903.html