Big time obsession with big time NCAA football and basketball, and tolerance of compromised priorities that harm education, reflects poorly on our society. Choose your college carefully, and reward quality teaching at fair prices. And forget big time sports, it's just noise.
The Big 12 made a huge mistake by not expanding and ading Houston, and it will untimely cause the conference to dissolve. The BIg 12 (which doesn't even have 12 teams) has the worst leadership in college football.
5
I guess the goal is a school the football team would be proud of versus a school where education comes first
1
Ahhh Yes, Texas & football. If you think the commitment Universities make to sports is insane, try- just try- to see what local High Schools take out of district budgets !!
4
The Power 5 label is a marketing scheme to perpetuate a profit driven monopoly in college sports. Decisions on those invited into the monopoly are not based on athletic merit, academic achievement or fairness, but on maintaining recruiting advantages and distribution of profits. Government interference is not the first choice, it is now time for Congress to step in and restore sanity to intercollegiate athletics.
1
Why a university like U of H, and many more around the country, continue to measure their success by the success of a football program continues to dismay me. I tend to doubt that the amount of "profit" these institutions garner really benefit the entire student population...unless of course you equate that benefit as a larger student section at the new stadium.
1
Texas was not averse to adding Houston due to recruiting issues. Of all the major recruiting areas in the state of Texas (Houston, Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, East Texas, Pan Handle), Texas has relied on Houston recruits the least (outside of Vince Young, which I grant is a major exception). Houston is largely TAMU and even LSU's territory. UT was the a huge proponent of Big12 expansion initially, with UH being their favorite candidate. Other schools in the Big12, most notably OU and OkSt, were the biggest opponents of adding UH. They did not like the idea of going back to 5 Texas schools.
I do think that UT stopped being in favor of adding UH when UT football started to show signs that things weren't going to last with Charlie Strong. UH had the most eligible coaching candidate in the country with Tom Herman. He was the only surefire hire to replace Charlie Strong. Adding UH would have eliminated Herman as an option. You can't blame UT for doing what's best for UT without regard for another program, especially if that program is not in conference. When UT's actions affect Big12 teams (i.e. Longhorn Network), then maybe criticism is due, even though they are still fulfilling their primary duty of doing what is in the best interest of their own school and program (not the conference, and not some unaffiliated program).
I do think that UT stopped being in favor of adding UH when UT football started to show signs that things weren't going to last with Charlie Strong. UH had the most eligible coaching candidate in the country with Tom Herman. He was the only surefire hire to replace Charlie Strong. Adding UH would have eliminated Herman as an option. You can't blame UT for doing what's best for UT without regard for another program, especially if that program is not in conference. When UT's actions affect Big12 teams (i.e. Longhorn Network), then maybe criticism is due, even though they are still fulfilling their primary duty of doing what is in the best interest of their own school and program (not the conference, and not some unaffiliated program).
Let's see you agree that the Univ. of Texas voted to not add the Univ. of Houston to the Big 12 so it would be easier for them to poach the Univ. of Houston's coach, but you see nothing wrong with that?!
2
It's remarkable that athletes don't get some piece of millions of dollars generated by the Super 5 conferences. A head football coach is like the CEO of a big bank or pharmaceutical company earning a huge salary except the underlings receive nothing other than exposure that gives them an infinitesimal chance of going pro. They all think they have a shot at pro riches, but most don't make it.
1
Money, money, money. The Big 5 conferences are little more than subsidiaries of the NFL, EPSN and NCAA Inc. Rather than have a minor league football organization like baseball does, the NFL has convinced higher education institutions in these conferences to operate and fund one for them--with the financial and other support of ESPN and the NCAA.
Sometimes I am surprised that these schools even bother to run a little educational institution on the side.
Sometimes I am surprised that these schools even bother to run a little educational institution on the side.
2
Seems to me the Big 12 made a very poor decision in passing up the chance for a foothold in Houston. I have no doubt that Texas, who seems to run the Big 12, was responsible for that decision. Sooner or later Texas $$ will turn the Big 12 into Snow White and the 7+ dwarfs.
3
Actually, it was OU that led the opposiiton to Houston, as it recruits heavily in that area. I agree - big mistake not to expand.
1
Real problem
UH is in the ghetto.
UT is not.
UH is in the ghetto.
UT is not.
It is next to a neighborhood that is revitalizing. Plus how does the area affect the quality of education or the sports? Miami is in a horrible area yet somehow thrives.
1
Hmmm,
"Khator concluded by saying, “I like challenges.” "
I wonder where on her list of challenges she might place "providing a quality education?" Obviously not at the top.
"Khator concluded by saying, “I like challenges.” "
I wonder where on her list of challenges she might place "providing a quality education?" Obviously not at the top.
1
Khator turned the school into a Tier 1 research university. So there that.
1
Khator has explained multiple times that having a nationally known football program attracts a diversity of students from all over the country which can only be good for the university. It also helps in recruiting good faculty. It is true that she replaced the dilapidated old football stadium with a new stadium at the cost of $120 M, but she also built about $1.5 B worth of other buildings on the campus and made other improvements with led to the Univ. of Houston being recognized as a Tier 1 Research Institution and increased enrollment by 30%
Once again Nocera has written a surprisingly insightful article. I would like to point out one more reason for freezing the Univ. of Houston out of the Big 12. Currently, UT is a good draw in the Houston television market since it is a nationally known football power. If the University of Houston were to become equally well known, UT would loose some of that lucrative TV market.
1
Joe, do your homework for a change. Rutgers was 8-4 in its first year in the Big 10 including wins over Michigan, Indiana Maryland and North Carolina in a bowl game. With few exceptions (Alabama) even well-established programs experience down years (Texas, Notre Dame, Oregon).
Excellent essay and it's fantastic to see a critical, journalistic engagement of these deeply covered up and contentious issues largely ignored, if not propagandized against, by local Texas newspapers. A significant, if not disproportionate percentage of the editorial boards and editors at the top state newspapers and magazines, are UT alumni. They consistently turn a blind eye to these structural inequalities in athletics and academics in the oligopoly of state schools. Your next article should look at the PUF in state schools and see how UH and other state schools outside of UT and Texas A&M have been largely mistreated and neglected- again - in regards to state academic funding.
According to the recently released 2014-15 collegiate athletic budgets of D1 public institutions, 12 universities/colleges out of 231 ran in the black - I would speculate private schools probably have even a smaller percentage who run their budgets in the black. UH deserves far more academic funding, in total, and universities in P5 conferences are using this new caste system - if not cartel - to dismantle, if not destroy, the athletic programs of schools who all share a membership in the non-profit NCAA organization. I would also suggest looking into the role of ESPN in perpetuating this system - which is much closer geographically to the NYT - for better discerning this nasty dynamic.
According to the recently released 2014-15 collegiate athletic budgets of D1 public institutions, 12 universities/colleges out of 231 ran in the black - I would speculate private schools probably have even a smaller percentage who run their budgets in the black. UH deserves far more academic funding, in total, and universities in P5 conferences are using this new caste system - if not cartel - to dismantle, if not destroy, the athletic programs of schools who all share a membership in the non-profit NCAA organization. I would also suggest looking into the role of ESPN in perpetuating this system - which is much closer geographically to the NYT - for better discerning this nasty dynamic.
12
Excellent essay - -really smart. Good to see Nocera back on the sports pages.
2
As a faculty member at UH, I would point out that the estimate of $80 million a year in revenue lacks a factual basis. The university sacrifices a great deal to subsidize athletics to the tune of $24-25 million dollars a year. Since I arrived at UH 27 years ago we have been awash in red ink, as are most Division I schools. At what point do we say enough and turn our attention and resources to the problems of an underfunded state university with limited resources?
12