Rutgers' football success is causing 'Scarlet Fever'; side effects include an inability to criticize the budget priorities.
By Jon Whiten
It was almost a month ago that Media Massage called your attention to a New York Times report on how "Football Brightens a Grim Year" at Rutgers. As the team continues to climb the AP rankings, the same bogus ideas keep popping up -- and you can bet your bottom dollar that it's only going to get dumber as the team continues its winning ways.
The latest piece of undadulterated R.U. boosterism was on the front page of yesterday's Star-Ledger. Headlined "Frankly Scarlet, They Give a Damn: Rutgers' football success attracting national, fan and corporate attention," the story by Ana M. Alaya and Matthew Futterman correctly noted that "the national spotlight is suddenly on Rutgers."
But where the story runs into problems is when it tries, like others before it, to connect the football team's success with "increased prestige" and, more specifically, with "elevating [Rutgers'] national image and attracting the highest caliber of students."
So, let me get this straight. ESPN's Kirk Herbstreit puts on a Rutgers mascot's head during College Gameday, and all of a sudden, you're attracting the "highest caliber" of students? I, for one, just don't see the connection. And that's because there isn't one.
If Rutgers wants to attract the "highest caliber" of students, maybe it shouldn't have cut classes and cut financial aid. Maybe it shouldn't have fired professors and cut administrative staff. Maybe it shouldn't have cut other sports.
At the very least, it shouldn't have increased the football budget 50 percent over three years (to $11.5 million) while making these devastating cuts.
The story also quotes Rutgers President Richard McCormick as saying, "Anytime you [call attention to the university], you likely will increase support and increase the number of applications."
But does Rutgers really need an increased number of applications? The university is already one of the ten most exclusive public universities in the country. In 2003, it rejected over half of the freshman applications, according to the New Jersey Association of State Colleges and Universities. With more and more programs being cut as a result of budget slashing from Trenton, we can only expect this number to shrink.
The story notes that attendance at games is up, "and so is corporate sponsorship," but these funds stay in the athletic department. They don't pay to rehire the fired professor, or to provide intellectually stimulating coursework.
Hey, I think it's great the team is winning. But all the mainstream
press is giving us is winning's benefits -- what are the costs of the
shift in focus? All in all, the press' treatment of New Jersey's
newfound "scarlet fever" could use a little cooling off.
Media Massage features insightful media criticism and reporting on the New Jersey press.
Yeah, so the football team is ranked 19th or something, which qualifies them to play in some meaningless bowl game. & folks in Knoxville may not ask,"What's a Rutgers?" I'm proud, so proud. Princeton is undefeated, but it's in 1-AA, I guess that means they won't necessarily increase their prestige.
Posted by: Rix | 10/19/2006 at 03:54 PM
Great commentary. This is exactly what I've been saying, but trying to make this point to some people is like arguing with a tackling dummy.
Name recognition didn't make K-Fed a platinum artist, and it won't make Rutgers a top 10 public school.
Hooray for us, we're gaining the "prestige" of schools like Ohio State, West Virginia and Arkansas.
Posted by: Jpsh | 11/14/2006 at 10:17 PM