Let the recreational athletes play

I would like to suggest that our intercollegiate sports program go small time for three reasons.

First, we don’t have the space for a big-time program. I got here at the beginning of 1984. Columbia had just become co-ed and had no women’s basketball team or volleyball team. The existence of these teams has greatly increased the demand for space by the sports program, while the space has not increased at all. I believe that the amount of time an individual program spends in the gym has increased as well. Certainly, men’s basketball did not have organized year-round workouts at the time, and I don’t recall ever finding the baseball players occupying the gym.

We have lost other recreational resources besides the gym time which has gone to the varsity program. For example, the tennis courts on top of Levien, which were crummy eyesores, were better than nothing; the lap pool, which used to be more or less always available has been turned into the varsity athlete’s weight room; the center court of Levien has been permanently reserved for varsity athletics. I believe that some of the rooms around the track in the blue gym which are now dedicated to crew were once open.

Places that have big-time athletic programs have dedicated facilities for varsity athletes, or, from a different point of view, they have dedicated facilities for the rest of the university. But Columbia’s facilities are not good. They would not be great if they were devoted solely to either purpose. There aren’t enough of them for both of us. This problem is exacerbated by an apparent effort to derive more revenue from the facilities by booking fee paying groups whenever the gym threatens to become available. Among these, for example, are the “cubs camp” program, skills camps , and the AAU tournament that was in there last weekend.

Second, we’re not good at varsity athletics. When I came here 27 years ago, there was hope that Columbia could build at least a consistently strong men’s basketball program. We still have that hope.

Third, sports are a bad fit with Columbia and New York City. I am sure that big game day contributes a lot to the culture in Bloomington, Indiana. But this is not Bloomington, Indiana. This is the most exciting city in the world. If we manage to persuade students to spend their autumn Saturdays getting loaded in a parking lot and watching a little football instead of studying, going to the Met, the opera, or the various exciting clubs and neighborhoods in NYC, I do not think we will have done them a service. Compared to the academic opportunities offered by Columbia, and the cultural and entertainment opportunities offered by the city, even a successful sports program would not add much.

So my concrete suggestions are: Cut one or two of those space-eating winter programs, get the athletes in and out of the gym in two hours, and, only in season, make the outdoor sports play outdoors. Levien should be partitioned by taking the management of the recreational facilities away from varsity athletics (I don’t know who nominally does this, but it is clearly in their hands).

It is my belief that amateur sports (real amateur, not the pros who are paid in services they don’t much want) are community builders. They bring together people from all parts of the University, and these people get to know each other, unlike in the fan experience. I believe that Columbia has crowded out its pickup athletes. I would like to see the balance changed in favor of the recreational athlete.

What is to be gained is a somewhat better student (and faculty) experience. Many very good schools have low-key athletic programs: MIT, Williams, NYU. They are not suffering for applicants. One assumes that their alumni are at least normally devoted. What’s to lose?

The author is a Lecturer in Discipline and director of the Actuarial Science Program in the statistics department.

Each Friday, a professor will share scholastic wisdom readers won't find in lectures. Suggestions regarding which professors to feature are welcome.