Intercollegiate athletics undoubtedly enhance the university experience, and the following article does not attempt to contest otherwise. Invariably the most prominent extracurricular activities, these competitive sports provide vital services to the university community, fostering school spirit, fellowship and pride.
Furthermore, the regional and sometimes countrywide media coverage of sports frequently boosts the university’s name and credentials to a diverse population. But these extra curricular athletic groups are just that, extracurricular, and secondary to the university’s true purpose: to provide the best education possible according to its resources.
Much as I recognize sports’ benefits to the campus experience, the resources the athletics department drains from the university is ridiculous. This inflated budget diverts funds from more worthy areas of need, such as academic scholarships, professor salaries, academic and library resources, the university honors program and the general education program. If the university is truly committed to its 2001-2005 Strategic Plan (http://smu.edu/leadership/strategicplan.asp), then millions of dollars cannot be misallocated to athletics.
I don’t think most SMU students are aware of how grossly overindulged the athletics budget is; two of the four highest employees of the university are athletic staff. Phil Bennett alone makes almost half a million dollars a year.
Will a winning football team help SMU become “[take] its place among the top 50 universities in the United States?” I think not. Similarly, if SMU truly intends to maintain its “distinctive character as a small liberal arts college,” then why does it pretend it can compete with enormous state university athletic programs like Texas A&M, Oklahoma State, and Boise State? Clearly, the university’s own self-imposed goals are in conflict with the athletics financial appropriations.
Understandably, pride in previous achievements prevents certain members of the university community especially alumni, from allowing the athletics program to diminish-winning clearly takes money. Drafting funds away from athletics would eventually weaken the program to an even greater extent than it is at now. However, this issue opens up a greater question for the university: Does SMU want to be known for athletic accomplishment or scholarly excellence?
Personally, I didn’t make the decision to go to college, let alone SMU, because I wanted to enhance my athletic abilities, and neither did the bulk of the SMU population. I came for a degree; a piece of paper that qualifies me in a certain field. Like sports, the ability for that piece of paper to “win” a job clearly takes money, and I assure you no future employer will hire me based upon SMU’s basketball record football third-down conversion rate.
Although this article might suggest otherwise, I am truly one of Mustang athletics’ biggest fans. I have religiously attended the home football and basketball games, both men’s and women’s, and found each experience extremely entertaining. In fact, I encourage every student to make at least one appearance to a sporting event before the semester ends (student attendance at sporting events is another tirade for another article).
My issue is this: If SMU is truly dedicated to enhancing its learning experience, why does it continue to overindulge the athletics department? We claim to be the Ivy League of the South, yet still retain this antediluvian notion that a school’s worth is measured by its athletics programs. Hopefully, President Turner and the Board of Trustees will recognize their habitual lack of foresight in this issue and allocate university funds inline with the principles of the Strategic Plan.
Todd Baty is a sophomore history and political science major. He may be contacted at [email protected].
