The Game of Life

College football and basketball, in particular, are fully-subsidized minor leagues for the NFL and NBA. If the NCAA drastically changes the way it does business, those leagues will have to find another way to test and screen athletes. This won't hurt the schools at all; in fact, the schools will benefit. Good student/athletes will still get a college education (as many baseball players do today), and pure athletes will still have a chance to compete and become professionals.

This book substantially helped shape my opinions on college sports in a well-researched and documented manner.

I recommend this book for anyone who wants a balanced yet critical look into college athletics. jgalt5@yahoo.com

Sadly, for all the hype and all the praise the book has received, I am beginning to wonder if a) reviewers actually read the book, and b) if they did read it, did they actually question the merits of the authors research and conclusions. After having read most of it, I conclude that they did not.

I could go point for point, but alas, because of space I can not. A number of troubling points however -

First, the authors take liberties with anecdotes and too frequently back up their claims with them. For example the discussion about the Williams College Lacrosse team, or the Ivy League Lacrosse player.... I think it is a mark of dishonesty that the authors quickly point out the poor state of collegiate athletics because they read a story in a university newspaper... as was the case in the Princeton players instance.

Second, in graduate school we were always told never to overlook footnotes. After reading through most of them, I am glad I did. In a number of instances, there conclusions are based upon data that was compiled at one school in their universe of thirty. Or that an anecdote used as an illustration, was actually from a instance taken from outside the universe of schools they used.

Third, I think they demonstrate a disdain for athletes when they question at length their value to the diversity of campus. In their mind, because of a whole host of issues, they don't add to the amount of diversity in a university.... what are some of those issues? Political inclination (Not Liberal or Far Left), choice of major (economics or Poli Sci), tend to group with other athletes. Which begs the question, what type of student do the authors believe add to the diversity of university.

Finally, there is a terrible lack of balance. If you knew nothing else before you read this book, you would finish by thinking athletes are a lower caste of intellectuals that for some reason were admitted into these universities, not based on their academic abilities of course. That universities have made some sort of deal with the devil to accept these sort of intellectual anchors to improve their markting and PR machines that are built solely on athletics.... which begs to ask....

Where is the critique of these institutions and their pactices? And why is it only athletics that is responsible for losing money, while all the other departments are deemed as critical elements in the mission of the university? Sadly, these are questions that aren't answered but should... if athletics is going to be put under such scrutiny, shouldn't the rest of the university be submitted to the same rigours?

Anyhow, I will be back. If you are interested in my notes, feel free to email me ...

While I am struck by the depth of analysis and the thoroughness of their methodology, I am also struck by the sense that the authors have decidedly taken the view that college athletics, in of itself, is an entity unto itself. And that in the instances cited, are incongruent with the mission of an educational institution. While there certainly is merit in the academic performance analysis, it is unfortunate that they fail to see the merits of athletics in the educational environment. While it is easy to quantify the development of a student in a classroom, it is impossible to quantify the role of collegiate athletics in the development of the individual student. Does devoting 12 hours a week to studying for Western Civ. add something more, something more fundamental to the student that spending 10 hours a week on the practice field does not? Regretably, academicians have spent more time dismissing the value of athletics, rather than creating methodology to judge its worthiness. And while classroom performance remains something tangible and quantifiable, no one has endeavored to quantify the merits of working within a team for a common objective, experiencing leadership within a team environment, and all the ancillary benefits that are brought about from participating in collegiate athletics. Instead, they are quick to point out and highlight everything that is detrimental, but not unique to, collegiate athletics (alcohol, violence, etc.).

My overriding concern is one that may or may not have merit and could potentially be dismissed by the end of the book. Written by and for academics, it is with great concern that this will be adopted by institutions of higher learning to justify the alienation of student-athletes based upon quantified generalizations. This could very well become the classic coffee table book that so many quote and act on, but have never read.

I will be back for another review when I am struck with the additional thoughts that inevitably come from reading a book of this nature.

It couldn't have come at a more critical time. UC president Richard Atkinson has recommended abolishing the SAT I from college admission considerations. Seattle public schools are considering abolishing the letter-grade system. Defenders of Affirmative Action are calling the notion of merit, itself, into question. It should be obvious that we, as a society, have grown very uncomfortable with the very idea of intelligence. Yes, intellect can be subtle compared to a touchdown, but to read The Game of Life is to bear witness to pure genius.

Don't be fooled by the multitude of facts and figures. This book is a thought-provoking work of art. Bowen and Shulman commit blatant acts of philosophy regarding such subjects as the definition of "leadership." (Can a pushy leadership style compensate for a lack of vision?) They slay myths that fools so glibly declare, such as the myth that athletic success inspires alumni/ae giving. The book is worth every penny alone for offering a window into different professional strategies.

Everyone should read this book, but it is especially essential for anyone in a position to make important decisions in higher education. If one seeks to uphold the mission of a university, then it is important to learn from this book what athletics cannot do. Then, one should put down the book and consider what athletics does do. For instance, it is proven that athletes contribute to a culture of binge drinking on campuses. In recent years, I've watched in disbelief news reports of university students literally rioting in the streets for drinking privileges. How many more alcohol poisonings does it take before we shall change the culture of higher education?

The Game of Life proves that, in our current system of athletic scholarships, the stereotype of the dumb jock is absolutely true. So long as we continue to waste educational resources on these sub-par students, I can't believe that we are a truly civilized nation.

All that is good stuff but the authors make it very hard to find that out. They write in a tepid prose, full of passive constructions and qualifications, that makes reading the book very slow going. Often it is like reading against a full-court press. Although Frank DeFord endorses the book, the authors should have read a lot of his work before starting on theirs. BTW, author William Bowen is the head of the Mellon Foundation and author James Shulman is a financial officer with the foundation--no wonder they write bureaucratic prose!

The ideas in the book are very important but many readers will be put off by the prose.