Here is a little-known but, for me, astounding fact: with Katinka Hosszú’s gold medal, world-record-setting 400-meter individual medley, USC has now had a medalist in every summer Olympics since 1912.
As I said before, I find this to be an incredible statistic, and I think it should be included by the USC athletic department on its business cards, promotional brochures, and website homepage. Perhaps moreso than its reputation as a football powerhouse or the home to dozens of famous NFL players, this Olympic achievement speaks to what USC, athletically as a whole, does great. And, at the end of the day, while women’s swimming doesn’t draw attendance like the Trojan football team, making itself known as a destination for all athletes can only enhance its brand.
I’d argue that, with the summer Olympics currently underway in Rio, universities should step aside momentarily from the fervor surrounding the opening of college football and capitalize on their student-athlete Olympians, regardless of the sport in which they participate. There are several reasons for why pushing Olympians makes sense for schools lucky enough to be represented in Rio.
1) The Olympics carries a different demographic than most college sports. My mom can’t name the Heisman trophy winners from the last few years, nor can she tell you who is the coach of the Auburn Tigers baseball team. I would bet, though, she remembers Kerri Strug, Nadia Comaneci, or Mary Lou Retton. Certain Olympians capture the attention and memories of a larger audience than “major” college athletics, and while they’re relatively rare, associating a university with them could be an exceptional opportunity.
2) The Olympics connects with underrepresented athletes. Seeing on television the sport you play is one of the greatest thrills of being an amateur athlete, and the Olympics is an opportunity to do that. Being a top swimmer, wrestler, or marksman making a choice about where to compete at the next level and seeing an Olympian in your sport come from a particular university could easily sway a decision that rejuvenates an entire program.
3) The Olympics educates the public about lesser-known sports. I was in a bar today and saw something I don’t often see: people legitimately fired-up about the results of women’s indoor volleyball. Giving games international import leads to people being exposed to and excited about sports they wouldn’t watch otherwise. And with a savvy athletic department, perhaps schools with elite programs in lesser-known sports could carry-over some of those fans who simply didn’t know women’s indoor volleyball could be an exciting and intense viewing experience.
4) Being a medalist represents truly elite status. For programs seeking to draw the very best in their fields, plastering an Olympian all over recruiting materials just makes sense. This is because, even beyond national or even world championships, being an Olympic champion still represents a commitment to excellence that exceeds any other measure in athletics. Publicizing an Olympian not only shows recruits for that sport how legitimate an athletic department is, but can attract athletes (both domestic and international) from other fields to a school that clearly is committed to excellence.
Despite Rio’s well-documented difficulties executing this session of the Olympic Games, the Olympics are still viewed by a vast international audience. Schools with competitors in Rio should not be so myopic as to focus their attention solely on college football’s kickoff, but should take advantage of the opportunity to create a lasting impression and throw ample resources at publicizing their Olympians, regardless of the sport.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.