No agenda here... I just saw some comments on the Football board and was curious what the catalyst for dropping a sport would be? A scandal? Bad track record? Financial crisis?
What would cause you to drop a sport?
- Thread starter LookGoodInPurple
- Start date
The catalyst at Northwestern or another school? We have dropped sports before. Arnie Weber cut track & field and cross country in the 1980s because football was struggling to make the big bucks necessary to support the Athletic Department. Of course women's cross country has returned.
Wisconsin dumped baseball in 1991 after more than 100 years. The Badgers cited costs.
I have heard before that our baseball program has friends on the BoT and among important alumni. Based on the lead gift for the new field, we have seen it's true.
Wisconsin dumped baseball in 1991 after more than 100 years. The Badgers cited costs.
I have heard before that our baseball program has friends on the BoT and among important alumni. Based on the lead gift for the new field, we have seen it's true.
I would only drop a sport if there weren't enough athletes that wanted to come in and play that sport. For example, I don't know how many high school females are aspiring to be collegiate fencers? I've never heard of a high school field hockey team. Maybe I'm in the wrong area of the country. I never thought Lacrosse would get huge.
If a sport is dropped due to funding, I'd expect a lot of people in the athletic department to be fired immediately. They have to develop a budget and fund raise. If that doesn't keep all sports alive, I have a problem with the job that they are doing. It's not right to walk up to a kid and say, "sorry dude, you can't play ____ next year because we spent too much money on the football facilities."
If a sport is dropped due to funding, I'd expect a lot of people in the athletic department to be fired immediately. They have to develop a budget and fund raise. If that doesn't keep all sports alive, I have a problem with the job that they are doing. It's not right to walk up to a kid and say, "sorry dude, you can't play ____ next year because we spent too much money on the football facilities."
Football would have to crater again and the BTN would have to go bankrupt. As long as football pays the bills of the non-revenue sports and the BTN keeps chugging along, NU is happy to cash the checks and send its cross country team and baseball team out into the world.
It is also possible that the addition of Rutgers and Maryland to the conference will escalate travel costs to the extent that non-revenue sports become a huge albatross. But, as I said, we have wealthy benefactors who are willing to prop up baseball. Dropping baseball has given Wisconsin a bit of a black eye.
To me, a more interesting question is, what would it take to add two more sports? I'd love to see men's lacrosse or hockey, but you'd have to add women's hockey or gymnastics or bowling or something. I know a high rolling alum who told me that men's lacrosse will "never ever" happen because we're too cheap to keep adding sports to comply with Title IX.
If we ever do get a new multi-purpose arena, wouldn't hockey look nice in there, though? And the new lacrosse locker rooms would surely be used more with a second tenant (men's lax).
Loyola Academy, New Trier, Lake Forest... In my hometown area elsewhere in the Midwest, the wealthiest school districts have ladies' golf, bowling, lax, field hockey, etc.
Add North Shore Country Day to the list. Tiny school but is always in top 10 in the state in field hockey.
What if a sport was rapidly declining in popularity (youth participation and TV ratings) and another sport was heading in the opposite direction?
Also would you sacrifice being mediocre in two sports for investing more in one of those sports to be potentially top tier?
Obviously not or we would have done it. It's pointless to debate it because our "mediocre" sports have their backers. Some of the "mediocre" sports are there to balance out Title IX. Also, while I'm sure that plenty of people would prefer to have football and basketball at NU and that's it, if you want to be a Division I (not to mention a Big Ten) school, you have to field a number of teams.
Okey dokey. I still maintain that participation in field hockey is a very small percentage compared to basketball which is my point. If it gets to the point where recruiting players is hard because nobody plays the sport, then I would drop the sport. I'm not going to tell a bunch of kids at NU that are playing a sport that they can stay on scholarship until they graduate, but we're done with them participating in their sport.
Would hockey lose money? Would it lose money even with matching women's sports? I think building a rink would be really costly, but the TV deal with Big Ten hockey would be huge. Men's and women's hockey + additionally funding into the existing women's sports if Men's hockey's budget is bigger than women's.
Field hockey is a sport at which NU can excel, but you're right about how essential it is. It's around to help offset football scholarships and that's it.
I'm not sure I get your point about "Obviously not or we would have done it."
I'm just asking your opinion about what should ultimately drive why or why not we support a non-revenue sport. Is it history? Cost? Competitive advantage? Popularity? Something else?
There are a handful of folks who would shed a tear of fencing was cut. There are a handful more (including apparently some high profile boosters) who would be upset at baseball if it were cut. I'm agnostic about whether its "right" or "wrong", I'm just curious. At the end of the day, I'm a fan of NU sports. There are sports thy I will go out of my way to watch live (basketball, football, lacrosse, soccer and hockey... but that isn't necessarily the reason why you would ultimately keep or cut a sport. I'm just curious what you would determine is the ultimate arbiter of keeping a sport.
I'm just asking your opinion about what should ultimately drive why or why not we support a non-revenue sport. Is it history? Cost? Competitive advantage? Popularity? Something else?
There are a handful of folks who would shed a tear of fencing was cut. There are a handful more (including apparently some high profile boosters) who would be upset at baseball if it were cut. I'm agnostic about whether its "right" or "wrong", I'm just curious. At the end of the day, I'm a fan of NU sports. There are sports thy I will go out of my way to watch live (basketball, football, lacrosse, soccer and hockey... but that isn't necessarily the reason why you would ultimately keep or cut a sport. I'm just curious what you would determine is the ultimate arbiter of keeping a sport.
... I don't understand what you're hoping to accomplish. I pointed out that we have dropped sports in the past because of cost and Title IX. That's the precedent here at NU.
It's my understanding that fencing and cross country would never see the chopping block because they offset football. These sports are ladies only. (We have a men's club for rugby, rowing, hockey, and other sports, but they do not enjoy varsity status.) These sports are much cheaper than women's hockey from an equipment, travel, and facility standpoint (especially facility).
If you look at the sports that we offer, only baseball stands out as a sport in which we haven't had any success in a long while. Stevens is more than 100 games below-.500! Yet, NU baseball has produced dozens of MLB draftees, and Stevens has won 30+ games in a few seasons (1994, '95, '00). We also don't use the maximum allowable scholarships for baseball, so Stevens works at a disadvantage.
If we were to drop baseball, we'd be left with only seven men's varsity sports and only two men's spring sports, compared to eleven women's varsity sports (5 spring sports). That would not represent a good balance. Baseball is also fairly cheap compared to men's hockey and again we don't use the maximum allowable scholarships. Since we haven't been winning and haven't been giving Stevens a full complement of scholarships, Northwestern is apparently satisfied with the status quo.
If you were to ask me why we would keep baseball instead of developing a men's lax team, then we return to the issue of high-rolling backers on the BoT and prominent alumni.
I'm not trying to accomish anything. Just trying to gauge what others think is important. And I think you misunderstand my question. It's not what you think the administration would do... But rather what YOU would do. In other words, if you were the AD and you could build your perfect sports programs (that comply with Title IX), how would you go about figuring out which programs stay and which go.
Count me as someone that feels FB should be considered separately and all other scholarships should be balanced out. Especially since FB at many schools is where the funding for all other sports comes from. THat and the large number of scholarships requires about 5 women's sports before a single additional men's sport can be added. The second men's sport is men's BB which is the second revenue sport. THe result is that unless you play FB or mens's BB (where the vast majority of funds come from) male athletes get few opportunities for scholarships and are, in fact, discriminated against. That is why we cannot fund full teams of scholarship players for so many of our male sports
You can't count FB separately because the number of scholarships represents a significantly greater opportunity for men than for women. It might be heresy, but I think the number of FB scholarships should be dramatically reduced since the number of FB scholarships will always be part of the equation.
In fact, I could be wrong, but I think the number of FB scholarships used to be 100 or more until Title IX broke, at which time the number was dramatically reduced. It's time for it to happen again. For one thing, we would have greater parity in CFB (that's what happened when the last reduction took place).
And if you're a female athlete who doesn't engage in lax, field hockey, tennis, softball, fencing, cross country, swimming/diving, volleyball, golf, basketball, or soccer, you're being discriminated against, too. In other words, every school should offer every possible sport or else somebody is getting discriminated against...?
I think field hockey is bigger than lacrosse historically for females. Oak Park River Forest HS (IL) which is a powerhouse in field hockey did not have girls lacrosse until relatively recently. My high school in Connecticut back in the 80s had field hockey, but not lacrosse. I suspect we may see a decline in field hockey relative to lacrosse, possibly resulting in the long term of field hockey being canceled at NU.
Historically, I think that maybe was true, but not anymore. Over the last 25 years, lacrosse has grown rapidly across the country. According to US Lacrosse, the primary source for youth lacrosse, participation amongst youth females grown by 61% over the last 5 years. For boys it was 62%.
True dat. It's offseason messageboard mental masterbation in full effect.
I think this is another interesting topic. Parity, I think, is a very good thing (but not necessarily the most important thing). Will reducing scholarships accomplish more parity?
I feel like a talk show host. But I think Purplicious brings up a pretty good discussion point.
I grew up in Glen Ellyn IL and went to HS in Wheaton IL. If field hockey is bigger than I know, great. That and fencing were just my example of the sports we have that I just don't see a lot of HS kids playing. My main point is that if recruiting kids is difficult because there aren't a lot of kids out there to recruit then I would consider dropping the sport. I would be pissed if we dropped a sport for monetary reasons.
Every HS I've seen has these sports
Football: M
Volleyball: W
Basketball: MW
Softball: W
Baseball: M
Cross Country: MW
Soccer: MW
Tennis: MW
Track: MW
Cheerleading: W (although almost all high school open up tryouts to men)
Rising in popularity
Lacrosse: MW
Losing popularity:
Wrestling: MW
Facilities issue prevents HS from having the sport but kids can supplement from outside sources:
Swimming and Diving: MW
Golf: MW
Gymnastics: MW
Hockey: M
I just haven't seen it at the high school level but I'm sure it exists somewhere.
Field Hockey: WM
Fencing: MW
Hockey W
Wrestling W
Rowing: MW
Sailing: MW
I do think that we're going to get men's Lacrosse in the next 15 years as the popularity is going to get too huge. Not sure if that means something will get dropped, but Lacrosse may even break into the money making sports with a MAJOR professional league. I think as more parents are scared off of football, those kids will go to Lacrosse and that will lead to even more growth of the sport. I still think hockey turns a profit too.
As for a scholarship reduction to leave more parity, I would not be happy with taking away scholarship opportunities away from 18 year old kids. You'd also be looking at few redshirts like at the FCS level.
Every HS I've seen has these sports
Football: M
Volleyball: W
Basketball: MW
Softball: W
Baseball: M
Cross Country: MW
Soccer: MW
Tennis: MW
Track: MW
Cheerleading: W (although almost all high school open up tryouts to men)
Rising in popularity
Lacrosse: MW
Losing popularity:
Wrestling: MW
Facilities issue prevents HS from having the sport but kids can supplement from outside sources:
Swimming and Diving: MW
Golf: MW
Gymnastics: MW
Hockey: M
I just haven't seen it at the high school level but I'm sure it exists somewhere.
Field Hockey: WM
Fencing: MW
Hockey W
Wrestling W
Rowing: MW
Sailing: MW
I do think that we're going to get men's Lacrosse in the next 15 years as the popularity is going to get too huge. Not sure if that means something will get dropped, but Lacrosse may even break into the money making sports with a MAJOR professional league. I think as more parents are scared off of football, those kids will go to Lacrosse and that will lead to even more growth of the sport. I still think hockey turns a profit too.
As for a scholarship reduction to leave more parity, I would not be happy with taking away scholarship opportunities away from 18 year old kids. You'd also be looking at few redshirts like at the FCS level.
I could be wrong but I think FB scholarships have been reduced several times and it's always resulted in better competition. Do you remember when UM and OSU could offer 100+ kids? It meant that a guy would turn down NU to be the 6th string tailback at UM.
What is the basis for this? It's one of the cheapest sports and every school where I grew up has it. It's never been dropped anywhere in my hometown region.
Men's lax has TWO pro/semi-pro leagues already!
I don't think lax is as dangerous as football, but it's hardly safe, especially as the game has become more and more physical.
You wouldn't be "taking away scholarship opportunities away from 18 year old kids." You would be redistributing them to other sports.
What's wrong with fewer redshirts? Redshirting is not common in women's sports because the women are 4 and done, moving on with their lives to careers and grad student opportunities. Why should it be different for football? Why maintain the status quo of NCAA football as a pro minor league for NFL?
I'll reply to some of Purp's comments:
Men's lacrosse is far more violent than the the lady's game that NU fans may be familiar with. It does not have the same injury rate as football but concussions,shoulder and knee injuries are fairly frequent. Deaths are usually related to commotio cordis from shots hitting players in the chest. Every lacrosse game at the youth,HS or college level should have an automated defibrillator on site
There are professional leagues indoor, (NLL) and outdoor, MLL. The NLL is mostly stocked with Canadian that grow up playing the game on hockey rinks in the summer-it is a high scoring ,action packed game. The MLL is an outdoor league with mostly former NCAA stars that play a few years then move on. The game has great players that get together for games only, so team play is often lacking.
The NCAA allows 12.6 scholarships for men's lacrosse for about 40 players
Many good HS football players are not physically ready for D1 , so I would hate to see redshirting disappear. Women reach physical maturity at an earlier age than males, who can continue to grow till age 21 in some cases
Men's lacrosse is far more violent than the the lady's game that NU fans may be familiar with. It does not have the same injury rate as football but concussions,shoulder and knee injuries are fairly frequent. Deaths are usually related to commotio cordis from shots hitting players in the chest. Every lacrosse game at the youth,HS or college level should have an automated defibrillator on site
There are professional leagues indoor, (NLL) and outdoor, MLL. The NLL is mostly stocked with Canadian that grow up playing the game on hockey rinks in the summer-it is a high scoring ,action packed game. The MLL is an outdoor league with mostly former NCAA stars that play a few years then move on. The game has great players that get together for games only, so team play is often lacking.
The NCAA allows 12.6 scholarships for men's lacrosse for about 40 players
Many good HS football players are not physically ready for D1 , so I would hate to see redshirting disappear. Women reach physical maturity at an earlier age than males, who can continue to grow till age 21 in some cases
I have to echo what docrugby1 posted (well done, doc!). He is exactly right on the injury risk of lacrosse although deaths in lacrosse are extremely rare. Knees, collarbones and concussions are the major ones I've seen at the highschool and college level. He also characterized the professional leagues perfectly. If you're playing after college, don't quit your day job.
Right, which is why I'm not sure I buy dropping baseball, for example, in favor of lax with the idea that lax is so much safer.
Do we redshirt because we don't want to play young men who are not physically ready and we're looking out for their interests, or do we redshirt because they're not physically ready and we want to maximize their eligibility to win on the field? Maybe it's different at NU, but I think most programs redshirt for strategic reasons. For example, Walker seemed to play a lot more true frosh because he had to (i.e., he didn't have great depth at some positions), while Fitz prefers to redshirt guys so they'll be monsters in their 5th year. There is also some lip service paid to giving a kid a chance to build a good first year academically, but I don't buy into that as the primary basis for redshirting in modern collegiate sports.
If the NCAA gave kids only 4 years of eligibility, no matter what, it would be a fact of life. Broke your collarbone in week 3 of the football season? Tough luck. No redo. If you work for a architectural firm and you are assigned to be the point person on a big project, the project won't wait for you if you get struck down by a serious ailment. Redshirting is by definition an artificial scheme to extend athletic eligibility.
If football were to reduce scholarships again, a larger number of frosh would play at lower-level schools, but top-tier schools would continue to sit them out. The benched players would simply have only 3 years of eligibility left.
So I'm confused. Are you advocating the addition of men's lax at the expense of baseball? These facts don't support that decision. If it's not safer and if there are pro leagues but they're not wildly successful, how is lax better than baseball? From my vantage point, the only way it's better is that we at NU would have a chance to be more successful, but I'm not sure the same isn't true for baseball if we actually used all of the scholarships that we're allowed to use and if we had facilities on par with the rest of the conference, which we don't. It's no coincidence that we had some decent years before the park became completely antiquated.
The clear differences between our basketball and our baseball teams are that basketball gets to use all of its allowable scholarships (baseball doesn't) and that our basketball team has enjoyed recent success despite comparably poor facilities due to an offense that wasn't easy for our opponents to replicate in practice.
I would be interested to know how many other Big Ten schools refuse to use their baseball teams to fill the maximum number of scholarships allowed for the sport. I'm asking; I don't know the answer. But, it may be telling.
Like I said before, this is kinda mental masterbation in the off season. In other words, I'm not really advocating anything.
Now as a fan, I'd prefer MLAX because I simply find baseball mind-numblingly boring, but that is another story. I was just curious if you had a blank slate of paper and you had to pick which sports stay and which would go... what would be the criteria that folks would use. It seems to me that most people don't have a strong opinion on the criteria.
and P.S. Lacrosse is not a safe sport if that is the way you want to define it. I played it and love it. Now I coach it, so I'm biased... but I know in my heart that MLAX is probably not going to happen at NU in my lifetime due to Title IX. Which is fine by me. I have 3 daughters that play WLAX, so happy to root for the girls in purple. Besides, I'm kinda liking the women's game a bit more these days.
Now as a fan, I'd prefer MLAX because I simply find baseball mind-numblingly boring, but that is another story. I was just curious if you had a blank slate of paper and you had to pick which sports stay and which would go... what would be the criteria that folks would use. It seems to me that most people don't have a strong opinion on the criteria.
and P.S. Lacrosse is not a safe sport if that is the way you want to define it. I played it and love it. Now I coach it, so I'm biased... but I know in my heart that MLAX is probably not going to happen at NU in my lifetime due to Title IX. Which is fine by me. I have 3 daughters that play WLAX, so happy to root for the girls in purple. Besides, I'm kinda liking the women's game a bit more these days.
What is the basis for this? It's one of the cheapest sports and every
school where I grew up has it. It's never been dropped anywhere in my
hometown region.
A lot of schools where I grew up are dropping it. My high school did despite having a very solid wrestling coach. In my area, the public schools and a couple private schools still had it, but many were dropping it. These high schools were picking up men's volleyball and lacrosse.
Men's lax has TWO pro/semi-pro leagues already!
Did you miss the word "MAJOR." I put it in caps for you. Does the Major League Lacrosse have a national TV contract? Do they appear on sportscenter besides a great/terrible play going on the top ten/not top ten. What's their average attendance/salary? For these reasons the major professional leagues/associations in the US are MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL, NASCAR, PGA, ATP.
I don't think lax is as dangerous as football, but it's hardly safe, especially as the game has become more and more physical.
Umm, ok? And how many former lacrosse players are on TV saying that they wouldn't let their kids play lacrosse? How many parents aren't letting their kids play football? How many of those would be ok with lacrosse?
You wouldn't be "taking away scholarship opportunities away from 18
year old kids." You would be redistributing them to other sports.
What's
wrong with fewer redshirts? Redshirting is not common in women's
sports because the women are 4 and done, moving on with their lives to
careers and grad student opportunities. Why should it be different for
football? Why maintain the status quo of NCAA football as a pro minor
league for NFL?
How exactly would you be redistributing them to other sports? You have 85 scholarships. If you drop it to 65, are you going to increase other sports by 65 scholarships? How are you going to deal with the fact that you'd be dropping scholarships to a primarily black sport in football to primarily white sports in swimming, tennis, lacrosse...
How many majors/programs are on the 5 year plan to start with? I remember learning in a sociology class that colleges gained attendance due to the baby boomer generation. They added dorms, classes, professors, staff... Then all of a sudden, the next generation was smaller. In order to keep their classrooms filled and the universities running, they switched a lot of programs to the 5 year plan. Should athletes be banned from 5 year majors or should they have the opportunity to redshirt for a year and then play for 4? Seems fair to me.
Do you also see a problem with a 20 hrs of week of practice and games + film study + time in the training room... + academics schedule making it difficult for many people to graduate. I'm not saying that kids should take the Matt Leinert ballroom dancing schedule, but a slightly easier schedule in season isn't a problem for me. I did it. Would you prefer to force those students to take easier majors on a 4 year pace rather than the major they'd like on a 5 year pace? Those that have the ability to focus on both their academics and athletics can go on to graduate school opportunities.
Additionally, it allows players to sit out a year due to nagging injuries which could effect their play and future lives, but are not serious enough to grant a medical redshirt. Additionally, lineman especially need to develop their bodies before they're ready to play.
How exactly does redshirt lead to minor league for the NFL? Most teams don't want a player that has been in college for 5 years. He's 23 at that point and may not play his first NFL game til 24. That's exactly what NFL teams don't want. He'll be over the hill (27) by the time he should be signing his second contract. NFL teams want guys in at 21 and peaking in about 4-5 years. NBA teams are even worse. By 21, you're old and maximized on your potential. They want them at 19. I'd maintain redshirting players leads to more smart 5th year high achieving players and less NFL type/super athletic freaks
Are you from Illinois? Men's volleyball. Ew.
My point was that we already have leagues and they have gone nowhere. You missed my point.
How many former lacrosse players would have the popularity to get on TV in the first place?
Again, you missed my point. Com major? SESP maybe? Sheesh. If you have parents scared to let their kids play football, they're not going to let their kids play lax either. That's my point.
I'm confused. How does 85-65=65? If you cut the number by 20, why would you add 65 to other sports?
Now you've decided that some sports are "black sports" and other sports are "white sports?" Are you sure you want to dip your toe in those waters? Are you saying that besides Title IX, there should be an equal number of scholarships for black sports and white sports?
Yeah and boy it shows.
Redshirting has nothing to do with 5-year majors. Look up the very definition of redshirting. It was not designed with premeds in mind. A lot of McCormick students wind up doing an internship and graduating in 5 years instead of 4. Football players can't do that anyway due to the time crunch.
My comment about NCAA football serving as an NFL minor league refers to the fact that our football players are cattle, commodities for a big-money enterprise. Jim Delany was on to something when he said the Big Ten would drop to Division III if the NCAA loses the O'Bannon lawsuit. Delany was spewing hyperbole, but NCAA FBS football is so clearly a professional league that we can't even figure out how we could possibly get back to making it about education.
So football players shouldn't be allowed 5 year majors? Or should they have to pay the last year?
I don't really care why something happened. I'm more concerned about what it is, what effects (either direct or latent) it has, and how changing it will effect the kids that are playing college sports.
Are many majors accross the country 5 year programs? Yes
Do football players get to play on the field for 5 years given perfect health? No
Do football players stay on scholarship after their eligibility is over? No
Is that a disconnect? Yes
Does redshirting alleviate that disconnect? Yes
I don't really care why something happened. I'm more concerned about what it is, what effects (either direct or latent) it has, and how changing it will effect the kids that are playing college sports.
Are many majors accross the country 5 year programs? Yes
Do football players get to play on the field for 5 years given perfect health? No
Do football players stay on scholarship after their eligibility is over? No
Is that a disconnect? Yes
Does redshirting alleviate that disconnect? Yes
This is what we call a straw man. Can you name a few NU football players who have been enrolled in 5-year programs (not players who chose to stretch their undergrad years into 5 years, either)? If we don't have them at NU, then they're certainly not common at Ohio State.
What a load of cockamamie bullshit! Name a few 5-year majors. I can think of some McCormick programs but that's because they're spending a year basically working/interning. Our football players don't do that shit--they don't have time!
If you can name a few, then surely you can name the football players that have been enrolled in said programs as well. I'llput 10 minutes on the clock. Good fracking luck, cheerleader.
Hate to break this to you, but the world and NCAA policy do not revolve around Northwestern.
Nice, a cheerleader comment. You know you have the argument won when those comment. Yeah, yeah... umm, yeah, but you're a cheerleader so there.
Nice, a cheerleader comment. You know you have the argument won when those comment. Yeah, yeah... umm, yeah, but you're a cheerleader so there.
Wait, you mean you can't name some football players who had to deal with 5-year programs? But I thought you said these 5-year majors were so widespread?
I'm willing to apologize if I'm wrong but you have to back up what you're saying, which is that our football players need 5 years because of these 5-year major programs.
I'm willing to apologize if I'm wrong but you have to back up what you're saying, which is that our football players need 5 years because of these 5-year major programs.
I don't know what major most kids are and which majors around the country are 5 year programs. I don't use anecdotal evidence in arguments anyway, even if asked for it. 5 year programs exist all of the country. Are you denying that? Are there no 5 year programs? Football players and athletes should be ALLOWED to take 5 year majors. Whether a large percentage choose that type of major is again irrelevant. Redshirting keeps them on scholarship for 5 years. Seems to match up pretty well.
Congratulations, you're officially an ECat territory. You make stupid arguments that make absolutely no sense. Ecat does it out of stubbornness. I think you do it for the sole purpose of pissing people off.
Congratulations, you're officially an ECat territory. You make stupid arguments that make absolutely no sense. Ecat does it out of stubbornness. I think you do it for the sole purpose of pissing people off.
Actually what you did was give anecdotal evidence about the emergence of 5-year majors and said it should be an important consideration. So you apparently broke your own policy. Do you know what an anecdote is?
I don't buy your argument for a second. Most 5-year majors exist because of year-long internships or work opportunities. As I said, I would wager no football player has the time for that.
Waa-waa! Are you taking your toys and running home now?
Similar threads
