Losing streak over!

[hypernova]

I think if I was a student at Caltech, I'd be seriously petitioning the president and dean or whomever is in charge there to quit the sports side of their institution.

Just, wow.

Seriously.  They hadn't won a baseball game in nearly 10 years.  Other sports also have some dubious streaks as well.  It's obvious they don't recruit even the slightest in reasonable talent.  With those kinds of losing streaks, they can't possibly have very many people come out to watch them lose over and over again.  According to those recent stories on 60 minutes and such, only a few colleges actually make money on their sports.  Why does Caltech keep throwing their money away on losing game after game?  As a student, I wouldn't want my tuition money being thrown away like this. 

[ChadTower]

The object of college sports, as often as not, is to provide the opportunity to play college sports.  Winning consistently is not always the primary objective.  Most of DIII falls into this category.

[hypernova]

For the most part, no matter where you are, there are plenty of leagues for many sports that you can jump into if you want to play.  Soccer, basketball, softball, etc.  Plus you can be as old and young as is necessary for those leagues.  As kids, we love to play in order to just play the game most of the time.  Sure we want to win, but we're still happy to be playing.  At the college level, I have to assume that people aren't content with just losing 100% of the time.  Doesn't this beat down their expectations and aspirations?  Psychologically, that can't be healthy.  You may claim that this shouldn't affect their life outside of the sport, but it's got to have some sort of lingering affect on them somehow.  And frankly, if they're content to just lose every single game, once again, why as a college would they willingly fund mediocrity...hmm...guess I just answered my own question there.  Our society's been rewarding mediocrity and failures (CEOs) for the past few decades.

Don't DIII teams tend to play other DIII teams?  I know they also play other levels as well.  Michigan (DI) is infamously known as the team that lost to Appalachian State in football, a DII team if I remember correctly.

And you're right, winning consistently isn't the primary objective, but take note of the word that you placed in there yourself.  consistently.  These guys apparently take a 10 year break between wins.  Don't want to get their fans too riled up, I guess.

[Le Chuck]

So if you can't win don't play? Yep, that'd be teaching a valuable lesson.   

[ChadTower]

When I was in college there was absolutely no way I could play in a city rec league and keep up my class schedule.  The DIII college programs are designed to work with your class schedule.  Plus they cover all of the travel expenses.  No rec league does that.  Also, in college towns, rec leagues usually start at 30+.  Not many 30+ guys are going to want to play in a league full of 20 year olds.  Hell, when I was 29, I got an "age exemption" to play in a 30+ softball league because the team was short of the minimum roster requirement.  All we heard all year was that we had an unfair advantage with two "guys under 30" on the field (the other guy was 29 too).

[Gray_Area]

So if you can't win don't play? Yep, that'd be teaching a valuable lesson.   

Sometimes it's a winning solution. Just leave that ---fudgesicle--- and do something else more interesting/enjoyable/fulfilling. Or just less hassle.


Sports in school was a pasttime. Now it's a money maker. Or not.

[hypernova]

So if you can't win don't play? Yep, that'd be teaching a valuable lesson.   

They're not 4 years old.  They're in college.  Does the coach take the team out to pizza after every game regardless of outcome, and do they all get a participation trophy at the end of the year?

And yes, if I was a part of a college that can't win, I wouldn't want them to play and waste my dollars to do so.  Just look at the professionals on teams that happen to actually win on occasion.  A few years of it, and they're ready to skip town.  Can you blame them?  Would you want to participate in sport where you regularly don't win year in, year out?  Would you be willing to pay to watch your local team lose every single game?  Losing all the time wears us down.

...Unless all these athletic dollars are coming from somewhere other than the tuition being paid by the students.  If it is, then my main point is rendered moot, and they should have at it.  Build another 10 year losing streak and go for the record.  But I don't see how they have a self-sustaining sports program if they can't ever win.  Money's coming from somewhere.

[Le Chuck]

Maybe it's a values issue.

I value heart and willingness to try despite the odds. If I join a team that hasn't been winning I'm going to try and start. Without knowledge of the intricacies of the program I wouldn't disband it based on a W/L record as that presupposes that collegiate sports are only of value when the team wins.

I contend you learn as much through loss than through victory. 

[ChadTower]

Almost no college sports programs are self sustaining.  And I'm going to guess that number is nearly zero for DIII programs.

That money could be coming from boosters as you suggested.  It wouldn't be much effor tto call the athletic department and ask them. 

Baseball really isn't much money to run.  Equipment lasts for years, field maintenance isn't high if cost is shared across multiple progams as it usually is, and DIII programs don't do a lot of traveling.  It's not like we're talking hockey.

[Gray_Area]

I contend you learn as much through loss than through victory. 

People at large *have* to fail to learn a lot of ---steaming pile of meadow muffin---. At the very least, they don't feel worthy if they haven't worked at and ---fouled up beyond all recognition--- up things. Poor sods.