FanNation

Haven't you figured out how Christianity works? You can lie, cheat, kill, and anything else you want to do, as long as you do it in the name of Christ Jesus.

CPA_4_Real | 01/16/08, 03:01 PM

Just as mega-churches bear little in common with your neighborhood sanctuary, the big Division 1-A schools mentioned bear about the same resemblence to their namesake denominations as Big League Chew does to real chaw. For small Christian schools, where theology rather than athletics provides the "curb appeal", athletics is a side pursuit at best.

Look at itty-bitty Gardner-Webb, which knocked off Kentucky in basketball this year: barely Division 1, but without a huge booster network or gleaming facilities, they knew where their priorities really were: academics and character. That they got some damned good basketball players out of the deal was just gravy.

Ted Striker | 01/16/08, 05:12 PM

As a graduate of SMU, I would like to first point out to you that SMU is NOT a "christian school." It was originally founded by the United Methodist Church, but it has been only loosely affiliated with the church for decades--meaning, it's religious affiliation is in name only and a minority of the members of the board of trustees are from the UMC. This in no way makes it a religious institution. In fact, less than 25% of students who go there are methodist. There is a religious studies department, but that is an academic field in which people study religions, not a seminary. No students are required to take any religion classes, and no classes on religion which actually preach religion instead of studying world religions in an academic context are even offered on campus. I can tell you with full authority that there is nothing religious happening anywhere on that campus.

Second, why pick on SMU and TCU? Duke (also loosely associated with the methodist church) is not held to the same standard for basketball, and they also just hired a high profile football coach. (By the way, I never saw one mention of this religious affiliation during the lacrosse scandal.) There are countless catholic schools--Notre Dame, Chreighton, Georgetown, Marquette, Xavier, Villanova--that all have big athletic programs.

Finally, what is it to you if the SMU boosters want to bring our football team back out of the gutter? It isn't like the school is spending this money. The money came almost entirely from 20 individuals in the Dallas community. Plus, this is one of the most storied football programs of the past 50 years--yes, both good and bad--and our fans are tired of losing. This will be a good thing for the university, not a bad thing, as it will increase the university's profile--resulting in an increase in enrollment, the quality of students who apply, the number of donations from alumni and local supporters of the university, and in the end, the ranking of the university. Why does this bother you so much? Who are you to tell these individuals what they can spend their money on or our students and alumni that we don't deserve to have a decent football team?

Even if SMU was a "christian school" and was funding the athletic program with school or church funds, wouldn't it be more offensive for a public university to spend tax payer dollars on athletic departments than a private university? Lots of public school football coaches are at least partially paid by the state (Joe Paterno gets $500,000 a year from PA and half of June Jones $800,000 salary at Hawaii was paid by HI.)

For someone who writes for Sports Illustrated and the New York Times, you sure don't do very good research and obviously have a vendetta out for either athletics in general or specific athletic programs for some reason.

Besides, as President Dwight D. Eisenhower said--""an atheist is a guy who watches a Notre Dame-SMU football game and doesn't care who wins."

peruna | 01/17/08, 11:37 PM

As an SMU alum, let me first inform you that SMU is NOT a "christian school." It was founded by the United Methodist Church, but has only been loosely affiliated with the church for decades--as in that it is pretty much affiliated in name only. A minority of seats on the Board of Trustees is reserved for church officials, but they do not have the power to override any decisions the school makes. There are no religion requirements for the students, nor are there even religion classes offered. There is a religious studies department at the school, but this is an academic department which examines world religions, not the preaching religious ideology. SMU is purely a private university just like anywhere else, and to put SMU in the same category as Jerry Falwell's school is an insult to tens of thousands of SMU alumni around the country.

Second, why pick on SMU and TCU? Duke (also loosely associated with the methodist church) is not held to the same standard with its basketball program and also just hired a high profile football coach. Countless catholic universities--Notre Dame, Crieghton, Georgetown, Marquette, Villanova, etc.--all have big athletic programs and are much more affiliated with the catholic church than SMU has ever been with the methodist church.

Third, what is it to you if the SMU boosters want to re-establish a winning football program? It's not like it is the university spending this money. The salary for the football coach was raised almost entirely from the private donations of 20 boosters. Who are you to tell them what to do with their money? This is one of the most storied football programs of the past 50 years--yes, good and bad--and our alumni are sick of losing. This is also of benefit to the university as a whole--it raises the profile of the university and results in more applicants, higher quality of students, more donations from alumni and local supporters of the university, and eventually a higher ranking for the school. As a sports writer, you should understand this.

For someone who has written for both Sports Illustrated and the New York Times, you don't do very good research and obviously have some sort of vendetta against athletics in general or specific athletic programs.

Even if SMU were a "christian university" and the money was being paid by the university or even by the church, what difference does it make if they want to spend their money on football? Isn't it more offensive that many public universities spend tax payer dollars on their football coaches' salaries? Half of June Jones previous $800,000 salary was paid by Hawaii, and he was the highest paid public official in the state while the facilities at the school are in shambles. What do you care what a private university wants to do with its money?

Besides, as President Dwight D. Eisenhower said, "an atheist is a guy who watches a Notre Dame-SMU football game and doesn't care who wins."

peruna | 01/17/08, 11:39 PM

Ms. Roberts, you're the reason that nobody trusts the media anymore. Please, do some homework.

peruna's response was excellent. As a TCU alumnus, I have little to add, but I will say this: TCU is not in the same business as Jerry Falwell's Liberty University. TCU is a secular university with historical ties to the Disciples of Christ Church. Its students come from all sorts of religious and ethnic backgrounds. Yes, TCU does have a divinity school, but it does not have as a mission to convert students to Christianity or even help Christian students somehow become better Christians. It has as a mission to educate future leaders. Just try to find the word "Christ" somewhere in TCU's mission statement: http://www.tcu.edu/mission.asp.

Schools such as Notre Dame and Baylor are affiliated far more closely to churches than are TCU and SMU, but you choose--as the NCAA did--to pick on the "little guys" and let bigger programs or programs form higher-profile conferences go free.

I also don't appreciate the insinuation that TCU must be running a dirty program. Do you have any evidence at all to back up those subtle barbs? Beyond that, keep in mind that state universities, at least to some extent, are spending YOUR tax money on athletics. Private universities are spending their own money and that of their boosters.

I'm sure that as someone who has spent time working for the New York Times, you're used to having stories handed to you on a silver platter (when you're not just making things up, as at least one of your former colleagues did). Do try to do some better research next time, though. Please, drop the hypocrisy routine. And, please, judge not...lest ye be judged.

Boston Frog | 01/18/08, 03:56 PM

But wait, there's more...

Furthermore, you seem to insinuate that genuine Christians have no place in college football because college football can be a nasty business. Perhaps you forgot???or just didn???t know???that Jesus himself made a point of hanging out with sinners. Just because there is a lot of greed and excess in college football doesn???t mean that every person or school that participates in it is somehow especially sinful by association (although the Bible tells us that we???re all sinners???even boosters of state schools). You make a lot of assumptions about why private universities and their boosters support 1-A football programs. Have you ever considered that if TCU and SMU didn???t have big-time football, they would about as well-known as Austin College and St. Edward???s? Texas is a football state, and schools need to have big-time football in order to get press and attract students???even good students. Why do you think Rice???an Ivy League-quality school???bothers to compete in 1-A football when most of its academic peers compete at lower levels or shun the spot altogether?

Boston Frog | 01/18/08, 04:22 PM