As an athlete, I can tell you that the games during the season are fun, but nothing compares to the intensity and excitement of postseason play. The tournaments of the postseason are the reason you work so hard during the season. As the captain of the men's soccer team at Tufts, I can also tell you that at the bottom of every letter sent to anyone who has anything to do with Tufts men's soccer is a little list of accomplishments, such as 1994 and 1996 NCAA qualifier, 2000 ECAC Champions, and so forth.
We student-athletes gauge the success of our season largely on how we perform in the postseason, much like professors gauge our performance in a class on finals. So, to hear that on April 19 the presidents of the NESCAC schools, in all likelihood, will not take the time to reconsider their 1998 vote (which goes into effect next year) that decreased the number of NESCAC schools which have the opportunity compete in the NCAAs by eliminating "at large bids," is alarming. If they don't take time to reconsider this issue, they better damn well take the time to reconsider my having to take finals at the end of the semester.
Why would the presidents even think about limiting the number of teams that can qualify for the NCAAs and be a part of such an amazing experience? I ask myself this question repeatedly as I sit in the meetings and listen to some presidents conjure up lovely reasons; and believe me, I have heard quite a few. One of the reasons behind the presidents' logic is that they believe too much emphasis is placed on postseason tournaments, which keeps student-athletes away from the classroom and their studies.
In my opinion, the possibility of playing, at most, six more games at the end of one's season does not decrease terribly the amount of time a student-athlete has to study, nor does it outweigh the benefit it gives to others. This last statement proves an instrumental point that certain presidents are clearly missing. Athletics does not benefit only athletes! When the women's soccer team qualified for the NCAAs, on an at large bid mind you, and made it all the way to the final match, many of these women would probably tell you it was their biggest athletic accomplishment, but those 19 women were not the only students who had an amazing experience that weekend. About 2,000 people attended the Final Four weekend at Tufts and a good number of those were Tufts students, professors, and administrators who came to support their team.
I fail to see how one could possibly say that weekend did not have a positive impact on people other than the players. When was the last time a group of students, professors, and administrators came together for a unified cause and had a good time doing it? And to think that next year, if the presidents do not reconsider their 1998 vote, the members of the women's soccer team would not have qualified and some of the 2,000 attendees would never have had the chance to say they attended a Final Four NCAA competition to come together to cheer their team on. They would have spent the weekend studying, grading papers, preparing exams, and doing what happens every other weekend here at Tufts.
Well, maybe some of the presidents are right, maybe athletics is becoming too important at some of the NESCAC schools and this may overshadow our prestigious reputation as a university _ I mean we are considered to be in the best conference for Division III athletics in several sports. When I came to Tufts, I came because it was a great school. If you look at Bowdoin College, it is also a very prestigious college and at Bowdoin 70 percent of the students participate on a varsity athletic team. So I say, what's wrong with being a great school and having a high level of athletic competition? I don't think the president of Duke is sitting around saying, "Hmm, it looks like our basketball team is going to be really good again this year. I hope people don't think that we're not a good school."
It's okay to portray athletics as important to a university, because it benefits everyone. As long as the student-athletes are performing in the classroom, regardless of how they perform on the field, everyone benefits. The last time I checked, Tufts' student-athletes were doing just that. Bill Gehling will assure you that one of the first tasks on his agenda when he became Athletic Director was to research how Tufts student-athletes were doing academically compared to the rest of Tufts students. He can tell you that Tufts' student-athletes academic performance is very similar to the average student at Tufts.
Finally, some presidents feel that when such a high level of importance is placed on athletics, standards of admission are lowered as colleges and universities try to recruit star players. What they seem to have overlooked is that, no matter what, postseason tournaments will always be important to athletic teams and by decreasing the number of NCAA bids, as the 1998 vote did, schools will only try harder to get in those star players who may not be able to perform as well in the classroom but may be able to secure their team that one NCAA birth. We are now at a point where our students are performing in the classroom and on the field, so why did it change?
To the presidents of NESCAC schools, I say to vote your conscience on April 19, because the only thing that needs to change, for the good of the community, is the way you voted in 1998.
Brad Stitchberry is junior majoring in French and economics. He is a photography editor at the Daily.
