On 9/29, the S&B Sports section ran an opinion piece written by Mark Japinga ’09 that argues Grinnell College should drop the football team. I disagree with Japinga’s argument and feel that he fails to take a fair look at the team’s on-field performance, Grinnell College’s finances, and campus-wide interest in football. He also does not address many key benefits of having the football team and, in focusing on win-loss record and finances to begin with, misses the mark on the real purposes of a Division III sports team.
Firstly, to clear up any misconceptions, Grinnell is not a perennial football cellar-dwellar. The Pioneers posted a 40-30 record from 1998-2004 and had a winning record (6-4) in 2004.
The past year and a half has been the exception, not the rule. Even if on-the-field performance was the judge of a college team's value (which it is not), it would be far too early to talk about dropping a traditionally competitive program. If Grinnell was this quick on the trigger a few decades ago, our most dominant program today—cross country—would have gotten the axe.
Instead, we should be supportive of getting a team that has proven it can be successful back on its feet and rallying for a repeat of the undefeated 1998 season.
Secondly, it is off the mark to criticize the football team for having “only” 400 people in attendance at the games, or around 2400 over six home games. Try to name even three of the other 17 sports that warm up 2400 seats per season.
400 people attending a sporting event here is very good. In comparison, the top-notch women's soccer team (6-1-1, 3-0 MWC) drew 100 versus a good Beloit team last Saturday. Contrary to Japinga’s claim, attendance figures make it obvious that a lot of Grinnellians would, in fact, miss football.
Thirdly, it makes no sense to bring up the collective finances of other colleges to claim that Grinnell’s football team is stealing funds from other sports, as Grinnell obviously differs greatly financially from the vast majority of colleges that go into such statistics. The facilities, equipment, jerseys, coaches and accommodations for all of our sports are tremendous compared to other schools at our size and level of competition. With a brand new athletic center and a staff of full-time coaches (something few colleges Grinnell's size can boast), the rest of the sports here are not at all being held back by football.
But the most important point to this discussion is that college athletics—especially non-revenue sports at the Division III level—are not about money and not about win-loss records and athletic accolades. All of Grinnell's sports lose money every year. And in the vast majority of years, no Pioneers become professional athletes.
Our teams should take pride in win-loss records and individual athletic accomplishments, but those accolades are not vital to the functions that athletics serve our small-college community.
Grinnell athletics should be about opportunities for students to play sports that they love. Football gives that opportunity to several dozen people.
Grinnell athletics should be about giving the student body entertainment. Football does that more prolifically than any other sport here outside of basketball.
Grinnell athletics should be about attracting unique, diverse students. Our athletic department considers football a “blue-collar” sport because it helps to bring in the working-class students that Grinnell so desperately needs for diversity. Football also brings in students from all over the country, as only a handful of roster members are from Iowa. The football team is one of our most valuable tools for admissions diversity.
What we have with the Grinnell football team is a program that has won half of its games over the past decade (including an undefeated season), a team that gives anywhere from 35 to 60 students an opportunity to compete every year, a sport that attracts more spectators than almost any other sport, and a sport that adds to student body diversity and recruiting. I see no good argument for eliminating the program but see many good reasons for keeping it.
Note: For those who use grinnellplans.com, Mark Japinga has posted more of his thoughts under the account [japingam].
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
Well-thought out, sensible, straightforward rebuttal. Bravo, Pat.
Also, don't forget, many people in the Grinnell community outside the college enjoy going to football games. I don't know the exact numbers, but I would guess it's at least the 2nd most popular sport for Grinnell residents to attend, which promotes better town-gown relations.
Thought I told myself that I'd wait until the end of the season to chime, I agree with Pat. I chose Grinnell over Miami, USC, NC State, and several others mostly because of football. There's no way I'd even consider being on the practice squad at the other schools. Here, I'm able to play the one sport I'm actually decent at. If you take that away from me or any of the other 40, 50 of us, you'll just have 50 more people on this campus miserable because they've been deprived of their opportunity to say something that others can't: I'm a college athlete.
And on the matter of revenue and all: Grinnell doesn't charge for any athletic activities. (The women's regional soccer matches' admission fees are decided by the NCAA; I'm sure the college would rather let the games remain free.) I'm fairly sure that none of the teams actively markets themselves.
I've got much more to say on this, but realizing that i could become inappropriately emotionally charged, I'll hold my tongue.
Excellent points!
Great response, Pat. As a non-athlete, I believe that all the reasons you gave in defense of football are the right ones. There is no reason to get rid of football, because we would have to get rid of half the other sports as well. Thanks for putting up the defense.
but "football" is such an ugly sport. its only saving grace is that a Very Small number of football players are also decent kids. most "football" players are jerks. have you ever stood in line behind them? who else but a "football" player makes a "faggot" joke here in this school??
i don't see why we need to be competitive in such a stupid sport. why not just scrap the programme and give academics the money? we need more interdisciplinary professors...
and i recommend picking up cricket if another sport must be found to replace "football". what a sight for sore eyes!
Since I'd rather not clog up the comment space with a lengthy rebuttal to the rebuttal, I have posted many more thoughts on my plan. Peruse them, comment on them, feel free to e-mail me [japingam]. Ben, if you could throw this at the bottom of Pat's post, I would greatly appreciate it.
oops, plan link needed: http://www.grinnellplans.com/read.php?searchname=japingam&myprivl=1
GC needs the FB team because its part of who we are as a college and it helps draw some great people to our school.
Football is an ugly sport. If sweat, bruises, blood, and extreme physical stress are not your thing, then you should not play football. If you don't play football, don't talk about football, because you cannot understand it. Football is a way of life for most devoted football players, because it takes an extraordinary amount of willpower to participate in. Yet, many outsiders who have never reached beyond a very minimal and stereotypical view of football constantly feel the need to speculate on whether football is really right for Grinnell or not.
In the same way that the gay community is persecuted, football players are marginalized as incensitive jocks, both in Grinnell and elsewhere. So, when posts are made like the one above, which attempts to reinforce the prevailing stereotypes about football players, I cannot help but wonder how much of a hypocrite this person is, and why instead of approaching people when they hear offensive language they choose to resort to angry, marginalizing attacks on a group of people who have no bond outside of a passion for sport.
If you'd like an opinion from someone who knows exactly how ugly of a sport football can be, then go check out my plan at [ryangera]. Believe me, I've endured the "blood, sweat and bruises" that I apparently need to make my opinion valid, and you'd probably be surprised by some my experiences.
I agree with Pat's argument that attendance and win-loss records are pretty unimportant for a small school like us. Just like high school sports, it's never going to matter five years from now if we have a trophy from a state championship sitting in the display case. Sports at schools like Grinnell should be played for love of the game, and winning is just icing on the cake.
However, I disagree with the claim that football's finances shouldn't be examined. Like other people have mentioned, football costs far more than most other sports, and we should ask if all these expenses are necessary (we should ask this about every team, for the record). As a member of the Ultimate Frisbee team, I can assure you not every sport at Grinnell gets all the funding it needs. We pay for a lot of things out of our own pockets, and what funding we do get comes from SGA, not the sports department. If one of our players gets hurt on Mac field, we aren't even allowed to visit the trainer. So it doesn't cut it to say "our finances don't matter because everyone gets as much funding as they need." Every sports team should be able to offer a convincing argument for why their budget is necessary and well-spent.
Ian Young, Football needs the money they get to keep the players safe. If the pads and helmets are not up to date or broken, you are risking lives. Its not like football gets new gear every year. Usually a set of uniforms lasts every 4 years. They also alternate between getting new home and away, split into 2 years.
On frisbee, You get no funding from the Athletic Department because you are not a school sport. How many colleges have a varsity, backed by the Athletic Department, Ultimate team? Very few if any I am guessing. That is part of the reason why you cannot use the trainers or training rooms. Their budget is set and payed through the athletic department. if they allowed all students access to the facility, we would need to expand and the training buget would go through the roof. Thats why they offer the Health Center for everyone else.
Here is a fact: The Trainers are not ALLOWED to treat non-intercollegiate athletes. It is a rule set down by their national organization. It doesn't have any thing to do with funding.
and why should football be in this hallowed league of varsity sports, but not ultimate? frisbee is a real game, not one in which players are "risking death." what sort of person would choose to play football? the sort who likes to get rough and get the chance to beat up others. i think that stereotypes of footballers have some basis in reality. what sort of person does the sport shape? do we want that sort of person in grinnell? N-O. one does not need to play such a stupid game to be able to say, look here, this is NOT what grinnell is about. and anyone who thinks grinnell is a football place needs to get with the program.
I see more than wins loss or finances the tough guy images or the attendance numbers I have seen many people come in and out of the football program all atheletic programs as far as that goes, and I'll tell you that the charicter,
poise, maturity, leadership, comrodery, ect. that the athletes have developed through their 4 years of collegient athletics is to me overwelming. I have nothing but respect for the colleigent athlete. I also have respect for the club sports that are here on campus, that have access to funding from the college. May everyone enjoy their wants and desires without undue retoric to others.
Its a matter of NCAA, inorder for A sport to be considered Varsity, it must be first acknowledged by the NCAA. Also, not all violent people play football, I know of many football players that are just as passive off the field as they are aggressive on the field. the sterotypes are right in some cases but most the guys who come here are coming for the chance to play football and still manage to get one of the best educations in the Country.
Well, ultimate frisbee aside, the water polo team IS a NCAA sport, and the men are constantly at the top of the conference. Last I heard (this may have changed), they still had to go to SGA for funding. I feel that, as a NCAA sport, they should be recognized as a varsity sport, and funded through the athletic department. This would both give the Turkeys and the Blacksheep more funding, and it would let SGA use its funds for other groups. I'm not saying that football should be removed, but if trimming its (and other) budgets would help water polo, I would not be opposed.
The other issue I must address are the sweeping generalizations and general rudeness from posts 6 and 15. These posters are taking their irrational dislike of the football team, and attaching it to a rational argument (right or wrong) made by Mark Japinga. Sports funding is the least of our worries if dialogue between our various social groups really has degenerated this manner of slander and stone-throwing.
To throw my two cents on this fun rant:
The Water Polo team here on campus isnt Varsity, its a club sport. We go to SGA for funds because we dont compete through the NCAA or the atletic dept. The Turkeys compete through the Colegiate Water Polo Association. Their is no real intention of making the Turkeys a varsity team, because the Midwest doesnt have enough teams to compete against. (actually none, their are only three WOMENS polo teams in the midwest). Id like to see us garnering more funds so our players didnt have to pay gas money out of our own pockets but I dont see how cutting the football program benefits me at all.
Football like many of the sports here is endowed. That means if we cut it, the money isnt going anywhere. Its going to sit and accrue interest and do nothing. Someone gave money to the school for a footbal team and its not going to find its way into the tennis team or swim team or the polo team no matter what people would like to think.
Whether football should or should not exist, I'll leave to the rest of you to debate. But I would like to say that perhaps the Athletics department should put more time and money into supporting non-varsity sports and intramurals. Club sports like Frisbee and Water Polo should retain their autonomy but it would be nice if their budgets from SGA could be supplemented by some funding from Athletics. Also, intramurals are great for this campus but the school lacks a organized and permanent structure for them.
short and sweet:
04 oct 23.28--i'll concede that it is nice to be able to take out the pressures of the week out on people you'll see once a year. but NO ONE plays because they enjoy GETTING beat up. you play football for all of the reasons mentioned by 05 oct 09.12--camaraderie, character, poise, maturity, leadership. in fact that's why ANYONE plays ANY sport (i would imagine). if everyone played a sport because they'd love nothing more than getting beat up, that would make us suicidal maniacs. (so much for short and sweet.)
and instead of OUTRIGHT ATTACKING FOOTBALL, try to give the sport at least half of a chance. if you don't like football, that's completely fine. but don't go around calling the sport AND THE PLAYERS--probably friends/acquaintances of yours--stupid. that's disrespectful. (side note: ultimate and football, from what little i know, aren't much different in gameplay. feel free to correct me if i'm wrong.)
05 oct 09.12--very well said. i'd say more but i don't have much, other than this:
why is it that as athletes--at ANY level--can't get along with each other? 05 oct 09.12 has the right attitude--i don't know who he/she is or what sport(s) he/she prefers or dislikes--if any, but he/she has the right idea. some campus unity. it better be better than this tonight, because as much as we love to talk about "campus unity", i'd hate to show these first-years on the first major event of the year that we, as upperclassmen, are full of it.
agreed, 06 oct 15.41.
Post a Comment