Is this pathetic?...When your religious or educational message won't work, try football!

davesdatahut: All I can say is wow....
Check this out. Liberty University, the evangelist Christian college in Virginia, has decided that it must use football to advance its cause. Not its message. Not its educational program. Football.
In perhaps the most egregious mix of football and higher education, this school is essentially saying that football is the way to achieve its goals as an institution of higher learning. What does this say about the state of things in our society? Or at least about the state of things in the higher education system?
Pathetic. Just pathetic.
Here is the story....
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/11/sports/ncaafootball/in-virginias-hills-a-football-crusade.html?pagewanted=4&hp&_r=0

davidk14: .

Liberty University's annual enrollment is 12,500 residential students and 80,000+ studying through Liberty University Online. When including the number of people taking its online courses, LU would be ranked as the largest Christian university in the world, the nation's 7th largest four-year university and the largest university in Virginia.

Perhaps, just perhaps, the New York Times, a liberal progressive publication, has a negative slant since this college is “…. ranked in the Top-10 most conservative colleges in the U.S.”

In August 2011, Liberty announced a 120 million dollar campus expansion. The expansion included more dorms, greener space, more academic buildings allowing the campus to hold 20,000 resident students.

Liberty University is scheduled to open a new Observatory Center in the Spring of 2013.

As of August 2011, Liberty offers 148 residential and online undergraduate programs and among those offered are Aeronautics, Philosophy and Religion, English, Worship & Music Studies, Business, Criminal Justice, Education, Nursing, School of Engineering and Computational Sciences, and Theological Seminary. Liberty also offers 87 graduate programs and 11 doctoral programs within the residential and online programs.

Why is it that liberal progressive love to trash conservatives so much?

No mention of the hundreds of non-religious universities and their football programs.
Perhaps Penn State should be brought up.

This thread is a disgrace.

.

davesdatahut: So if they are so successful, why the need for football and its corrosive influence? This is the issue. Why the need for football? Football has NOTHING to do with the values of higher education and has become a cancer on too many colleges and universities.
And if you need some mention of the many other colleges whose academics have been corrupted by football, the list is long and tortured. Penn State, Baylor, MIchigan, Arkansas, Miami...and this list goes on and on and on. I have no particular bias toward Liberty. What I have a problem with the absurdly outsized importance football, and basketball, has taken on in our educational system.

davidk14: .

Competition...winning and losing....it's ALL abut the game...it's about the rules...how you play...how you try your best yet someone out there is better than you...you at times are better than them....team spirit...win together...lose together...Getting along in the face of adversity.

Haven't you ever played in a team sport? Great learning experience.

.

davesdatahut: I have played team sports for many years, still do, still plan to for many years. Recreational sports...softball and other sports several times a week during warm weather. That is not the point. The point is that major college sports have become a cancer on our educational system because of the incredible money at stake. They have invaded the purpose of education - to teach and to learn - so much that they trump all else at some schools.
Why, if Liberty is doing well, do they need to go there? What is to be gained? And if indeed they are not so successful, then attaining success through something that has nothing to do with higher education is pretty sad.
If it's ALL about the game, as you say, then our higher educational system is in big trouble. I sure hope it is NOT all about the game.

davidk14: .

IF sports like football were not making money for the college, football would not be played now would it. Anytime you can charge for a sport and it makes money, especially in these times, who are you to say a damn thing.

And it's all about the GAME....It's called life. Some say it's not about how you win or lose, it's about how you play the game. Some say, it's all about winning. Some say it's learning how to be a leader, and about how to be a follower. Some say playing the game, builds character.

What has become a cancer to our higher education system is the politics of the liberal progressive approach to education. That is what has happened to our higher education system. Football is not the issue in educating our children. If anything, football is a danger to the existence to the liberal progressive agenda.

.

davesdatahut: Well, in most colleges, sports do not make money. And still, this is not the point. What are our schools supposed to be? Sports entertainment venues or educational institutions? I have no problem at all with sports being a part of the life of a college. Not a problem with that at all. But when it gets outsized, or is the end unto itself, or is the means to give a school a big name, as opposed to great academic achievements, THAT I have a problem with. And so should anyone who cares about the state of our educational system. A college should build its reputation on academics, not on something that has proven to be less than savory at too many insitutions.
As for the so-called "liberal progressive approach" being the cancer in our higher education system, you're going to have to provide some specifics on that. What cancer do you refer to, with specifics?
In addition, I have no clue what you mean by football endangering the liberal progressive agenda. For what it's worth, I like football. I played it recreationally until the guys I played with all had kids and we couldn't get a game together any more on Sundays. I have a lot of "liberal progressive" friends (as opposed to me, who is way more of a centrist) who like football, too. So you're gonna have to elaborate on that one, too.

davidk14: .

datahut said:

I have no clue what you mean by football endangering the liberal progressive agenda.

Davidk responds:

Football and other sports like it played on college campuses "suggest" lessons on winning and losing. Most of us know, there are winners and there are losers not only in sports but in life. Some win more than others. Some lose more than others. Which one are you? Like me, I would hope you win more than you lose in anything you do. Liberal progressives don't like winners. Basically, they believe winners take advantage of losers. The rich take advantage of the poor. Big successful corporations always take advantage of the needy or the less fortunate so they want to level "the playing field". No winners or losers...everyone is equal and they have the 'plan' to make it all work.

.

davesdatahut: Ok, I have no idea where this is going....liberal progessives don't like winners? What? Say again? Where does this come from, if not from your head? And sports teach lessons that liberal progressive don't want taught? Oi. What in the WORLD are you talking about???? This is schlemiel talk.
Before this conversation goes of the deep end, let us return to the point. The point is - again, let's get back to the point - that you build a university's reputation and integrity on that which a university was set up to do. Teaching. Learning. Academic achievement. Advancements in the pursuit of knowledge. Advancing the marketplace of ideas,from which winners emerge.
Not on football.

davidk14: .

You are missing the point of your own question.

Football IS a lesson in life. It teaches what the real world should be. Work hard. Be a team player. You won't always win. You sometimes get your teeth kicked in however you get up and do it all over again. If it's worth doing, do it. If you fail, get up and try, try again. What in academia teaches that?

I work with a lot of young folks (18 year olds and up) and many if not most have no real reason to even wake up in the morning... much less get to work on time.

Sports in college is an educational experience. Sports in high school as well.

.

davesdatahut: Let there be sports in the colleges. Again, I have no problem with that. But in perspective. NOT as a means to put a college into the big time.We have seen way too many times what that does to corrode the main purpose of a school, which is academics. If football is what it takes to do that, then something is wrong with the school. And with society. Very wrong.
And I am still curious as to how you come to the conclusion that liberal progressives don't like winners. Can you elaborate on your evidence of this?

davidk14: .

The amount of evidence to post would be enormous. Just look up the definition of liberal progressive. What if comes down to is this....If you have winners....you have losers and that is unacceptable to L.P.'s

davesdatahut: I am not asking myself to look up this enormous amount of evidence. I am asking you to provide some examples. You have offered up the proposition that liberal progressives don't like winners and are damaging our higher education system. So it is incumbent upon you to provide examples, just as it was and is incumbent upon me to provide examples of how big-time football programs are a corrosive influence on the higher educational system. I have provided them and can provide more.
You need not provide the full length and breadth of the enormous evidence you cite. A few well-reasoned examples would suffice. Have you got these well-reasoned examples?

davidk14: .

Then be the ignorant dork that you are. You provide a progressive liberal website and think that it is providing examples. I need only to tell you what I believe and if that is not enough, go look for yourself. It's a complicated topic and for you to debate the issue, you first need to do your due diligence, and educate yourself.

.

davesdatahut: Ignorant dork? This is how you discuss things? By getting angry and calling names? Jeeeezis, David...I thought you were rational and debated from intelligence, regardless of whether someone disagreed with you. You prove this view incorrect.
My examples were of the schools where big-time football led to big-time problems. I asked you to provide examples supporting your view. You provide none. Instead you call me an ignorant dork!
Really? An ignorant dork? Perhaps you qualify to be one of the children you work with?
Ignorant dork indeed.

Sarcastic Dots: If you think this is bad, you should see what Celtic and Rangers fans do to each other over a game of soccer -- that protestant bomb threat sure was fun.

davesdatahut: I'm missing this connection...can you elaborate?