I have a different answer to the question of why we have athletics than John Gerdy provided in the April 14 issue of The NCAA News ("Winning remains main barrier to reform").

University presidents are asking themselves all the time why we have athletics. Administrators wrestle with setting priorities that can help them make tough decisions about what to keep and what to drop. Perhaps there are ways to answer that question without focusing on the dollar signs.

College athletics provides an opportunity to strive together toward excellence. The verb "to compete" actually means just that, to strive together. Apparently it's been a while since anyone looked it up.

In a recent meeting of our college academic advisors, the associate dean of the faculty was providing some insight into our institution's values. He was saying how we valued the whole person, and recognized that people learn in different ways. He lectured briefly on Bloom's taxonomy and how learning should be approached from three perspectives: of course, the cognitive, the body of knowledge, but also the affective field, the emotional tie, spirituality and imparting importance to the concept of serving others. Bloom's third domain was the pyschomotor field. Some students operate best in the physical dimension. We should provide those students with opportunities to grow in self-esteem where they feel strongest.

Why do we put on theater productions, art shows or academic colloquia? In order to allow the best and brightest an opportunity to be showcased. This allows them to learn and grow in their chosen domains. No one would argue those priorities, but yet we have forgotten the point of physical education. Even during the all-important early years, some people fail to see that psychomotor growth is as important, if not more, than pure cognition. In institutions of higher learning, students pursue excellence in their chosen fields, and that should include the physical.

Are sports only the marketing tools that some sociologists say they are? Many universities are blinded by the television money, ticket revenue and the like. That misses the point. True university learning experiences should provide broad-based programs that reach as many student-athletes as possible. We should stop trying to be a minor-league attraction and acknowledge what we do best. Allow students to grow. Let the athletes who feel confident go into the pro leagues. There are artists and theater performers who skip the college route. I suppose there are physicists who skip the college routine. Einstein, for example. If they can make it, Godspeed. If not, learn more.

How much money does the biology department actually bring into the institution? Tuition, definitely, grant money, possibly. But athletics bring students to the college as well. Donations from successful alumni, not just the ones who want to win, but the ones who cherished their learning experiences with great coaches will always bring in funds. Students attracted by athletics frequently are the best of the academics, as well. At our institution, I can think of three valedictorians over the past years who were world-class athletes. Many of our science department's top scholars were athletes as well. There is such a thing as a scholar-athlete. That's a great reason to have athletics.

John Gerdy mentions that he means "particularly football and basketball," in his assertion that athletes aren't really puruing an education but then makes a broad assumption that all other sports do the same thing. I would argue that even in football and basketball, the majority of NCAA athletes do not play for the "elite" teams and are pursuing their athletics career for all the right reasons, including graduation. Factor in the myriad of Division III and nonscholarship Division II athletes who knew going into college they were there only because of the chance to be a college athlete. Further, there actually are Division I teams that compete without the benefit of scholarships. How does professor Gerdy define them? As recreational?

It is further ironic that Gerdy questions athletics from the public health dimension. I just got out of the pool, swimming my daily laps. My time as a college swimmer purified my stroke and solidified my love for swimming as a lifetime activity. Are college tennis players not playing anymore? Do all the runners stop running after graduation? I could go on, but the thought that college athletics does not promote healthful lifetime behavior is ludicrous.

Oh, I know, all the people who were nodding their heads reading Gerdy's comments are now saying, "But we don't mean those sports, we mean the big ones." Wake up, folks, and look at what sports are being cut as we "trim" athletics because of waste and misdirection: those very sports I am referring to, the true Olympic sports such as gymnastics, track, swimming and wrestling. The athletics paradigm fits in higher education as part of the mind, body and spirit we all know to be a well-rounded person. That's the reason for college athletics.

Richard P. Morris is the swimming coach and an instructor of health and wellness at Rollins College.