As you'll no doubt have heard, SIUC named Bill Hinson as our new basketball coach. I've learned too much about the seamy side of college athletics, and the fact that well over half of the budget for athletics at SIUC (as most schools) is diverted from academics, to remain much of a college sports fan. But if one grants, as I'd rather not, that SIUC should divert over $10 million per year to provide entertainment in the form of athletics, then you can recognize better and worse decisions about athletics on campus. If you buy that premise, then the decision to pay our new coach less than half of what Chris Lowery was making is most welcome. It is also good to hear administrators were full of praise of Hinson's job promoting academic success among his players; that may be just talk, but talk is a start.
Hinson's salary is still a rather respectable $1.5 million for five years. But Bruce Weber, who many in Carbondale would have liked to see return to his former stomping grounds after he was fired by Illinois, will earn $1.5 million each year at Kansas State going forward, again on a five year contract. By my math, that means that SIUC will have $6 million dollars more on hand after five years than it would have had with Weber back in town. Is he a six million dollar man? He's charming and all, but I rather doubt it.
Put otherwise: you could pay 20 Associate Professors of Classics for the price difference each year between Weber and Hinson. Of course this doesn't mean that SIUC will hire 20 more professors. Most, after all, would be rather poor basketball players.
If only it were this easy to undo some of the lavish spending on Saluki Way, which our students will be paying off in the form of bonds for years to come. But give Cheng, and perhaps Moccia, credit where credit is due. They seem to have realized that we shouldn't continue to spend ourselves silly on athletics. In contemporary American academe that puts them ahead of the curve.
Sunday, April 1, 2012
30 comments:
I will review and post comments as quickly as I can. Comments that are substantive and not vicious will be posted promptly, including critical ones. "Substantive" here means that your comment needs to be more than a simple expression of approval or disapproval. "Vicious" refers to personal attacks, vile rhetoric, and anything else I end up deeming too nasty to post.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with your sentiment that too much is spent on athletics (at all universities), but I disagree with your reduction of athletics to mere entertainment. Many (most) of our student athletes don't entertain because they are involved in sports without large followings. For these student athletes, sports are an opportunity to further their education.
ReplyDeleteYou make an important point, but there are of course far more efficient ways to promote education than by providing athletes in non-revenue sports with scholarships--and then demanding so much in the way of practice time that they find it very difficult to attend to their education. Nothing against such athletes, many of whom have done well in my classes, but I'm not sure why universities should single out good tennis players for scholarships and other forms of support--especially when many come from out of state, and many may not have otherwise qualified for aid based on academic merit or financial need. Why give a rich kid a scholarship because she has a good backhand--especially when you could fund a poor kid with more academic potential instead? Does funding the tennis team (sorry to pick on tennis--it is actually a game I play a bit, if badly) serve some greater societal good? That is, just because no one watches Saluki tennis matches, that doesn't justify their expense.
DeleteI haven't looked back at our athletics funding numbers, but I'm pretty sure that football and basketball account for the bulk of our spending (especially were one to consider their pricey facilities). They also bring in more revenue, of course, but I don't believe they break even.
In a time of economic depression, sports should have no place in any university, especially this one where it is taking money away from academics. Until conditions improve, all athletics departments should be axed and the money returned to academics. Education is what really counts and should be the No.1 priority here.
ReplyDeleteTony lives in another planet.
DeleteTony, that is just dumb...
DeleteTony - I'm not sure that the economy could ever improve enough that you would be supportive of athletics.
ReplyDeleteI suppose faculty will always whine about money not spent on them. If you get rid of athletics, pretty soon faculty will be wanting to do away with a concert series, or something else that they deem inappropriate at a university. Such is the way of the world I suppose. Never mind that SIU just spend some $40 million renovating the library, spent millions on renovating Altgeld, spent millions on a new transportation center, and millions on classroom improvements. Geez, these people just went on strike to get a 1 percent pay hike.
ReplyDeleteYou, like Herrin and Poshard (and probably Chancellor Cheng), don't really seem to grasp what we went on strike for.
DeleteI think athletics is and should be part of a balanced curriculum. There are and should be scholarships for all aspects of that curriculum. But let's not fool ourselves when talking about (men's!) basketball and football. That is not about balanced curriculum or the place of the physical in the academy. That's about "business" (as usual!) at the university. And frankly, at SIU, that is about lack of vision in our investments.
Mr. Jonny...
DeleteYou might be better off teaching at a Division Three school.
And I'm surprised you're not a chancellor or president at some other institution. For some reason, you may be the only one who has the proper "vision" to make things work.
???
DeleteJonny Gray's comments reflect the majority of FA's thinking way. Only in their small circle people are smart. Outside of it, everyone is stupid. Dear Jonny Gray, do you apply the same idea to your research? If yes, you are supposed to apply a position at Harvard or Stanford.
DeleteJonny Gray is too smart to apply other big schools even though he came to a wrong school.
DeleteA dummy always views himself the best in the world.
DeleteSpeech communication == criticism ?? ``Dr. Gray’s interests include activist rhetoric and protests, nature writing and performative writing, and cultural criticism.''
DeleteAnonymous 6:49 PM:
DeleteCriticism:..."3. the act or art of analyzing and evaluating or judging the quality of a literary or artistic work, musical performance, art exhibit, dramatic production, etc. "
Roger Ebert's interests include film criticism.
Wow. Thanks for the confirmation. I guess I said something a little too true for comfort.
DeleteThanks, Joan, for making it clear that SIU's status (and vision, apparently) depend upon it being a division 1 school...a status we cling to, lately, by the skin of our teeth. Maybe we should double down on that. How about hockey? An ice rink could be our next building priority, too. Because we could really boost our enrollment by tapping into the Canadian student surplus.
Why on earth would I leave? You folks crack me up!
``I guess I said something a little too true for comfort.''
DeleteYou are too 'smart'.
``How about hockey? An ice rink could be our next building priority, too.''
You are a boy who cried wolf.
''Why on earth would I leave?''
Who care!
Jonny Gray: why you don't go to Anthony Hall to tell the chancellor that she ``is about lack of vision in our investments'' and you can offer a better one?
DeleteDon't forget your specialty: speech communication, so you have a big chance to convince her.
Or you can run for Faculty Senate and present your ``better vision (than anyone else)'' on the meeting. It would be better for you to be here by showing your are superior to others without credit.
Offering a "better" vision to the chancellor would imply that she has vision to compare to Jonny's. What's that vision? Where can I see it?
DeleteObviously because you are blind.
DeleteAnon. 5:39 AM
DeleteCould you describe it to me then?
I know Jonny Gray, he used to be my neighbor. What I can say is: he is a very unfriendly person. You will find it out if you talk to him.
DeleteI thought this thread was titled "On Coach Hinson" and not "Ad Hominem Attacks & Disciplinary Derision".
DeleteI know Jonny Gray; he is my colleague. What I can say is: he is an invaluable disciplinary, institutional and departmental asset, holding the largest student-service position in our dept (basic course director) and was awarded the Outstanding Scholar at our regional conference last week for his work in cultural criticism (critical analysis of the social meaningfulness of communicative phenomena). He is also friendly. If you want to find that out, perhaps you might talk to him.
Might we return, then, to the issues at hand, regarding expenditures, priorities, and reasoned, evidentiary discussion?
Thanks, Elyse. This has been the sort of comment "thread" (if it has that much coherency) that leaves me to wonder why we ever started this blog. Anonymous, semi-literate, ad hominem attacks are a lovely example of how the internet can bring out the very best in people.
DeleteThanks, Elyse and Dave. What an impoverished institution this would be if its participants didn't care enough to have opinions. I know my opinions are just that, and I accept that they are not shared by all. Despite the vitriol here, I welcome the space to share opinions, and the freedom encouraged by anonymity.
DeleteIt is a sad truth of the academy that different disciplines doubt the epistemological claims of others. Lost in all the sniping, though, is that my original comment espouses a considerable value in athletics and physical education as part of the academic mission. My criticism is more about the disequilibrium in athletics where some sports and some genders are privileged considerably more than others, less for educational reasons than for business. But then, this disequilibrium of resource and reward is hardly unique to athletics in the the academy.
I welcome the call to get involved in the construction of the vision of this institution. I take my university service very seriously. I believe I do my part to contribute to the crafting of our collective vision. But as with other criticism, those lobbed from behind the protection of anonymity and with little substance besides snipe carry very little credibility with me. So much hot and smelly gas, that, but better out than in.
At the risk of "feeding the trolls," I post this response because, in the end, I think the good of the conversations here outweigh the bad. And I encourage continued critical debate and discussion. We can negotiate the ratio of signal to noise. We always do.
I'm inclined to agree with Tony, we spend far too much money on athletics; the two primary functions of a good University should be teaching + research. I disagree with Anon 5.46; scholarships should be given to academically inclined students, not athletically inclined ones (as a general comment).
ReplyDeleteWhy must every comment revert back to "Love it or leave it?" perhaps the declining enrollment is an example of that. Athletics have been built up, but still no one came to SIUC - at least not at the high numbers of the past.
ReplyDeleteWhy not attack Canadian "diversity" to our population? Their economy is recovering way better than our's, Canucks are scooping up foreclosed properties. Perhaps when they foreclose on SIUC, the Canadians may own and run this place, eh?
ReplyDeleteI meant: Why not ATTRACT Canadian diversity - not "attack." Who would attack a Canadian? LOL
ReplyDelete"Who would attack a Canadian?"
DeleteThe President: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109370/
The country's great musician: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_TfBbR6L0M