How in-state college football rivalries became a form of class warfare
slate.com
slate.com
I'm from Finland, country of good PISA grades for 15 year old kids. Also a country with lackluster universities according to Shanghai rankings. Our universities are plenty, as it was political decision to have one university in each "county". And then there is the idea "we are small country, we need to direct our resources". As a result there are two big technical universities Aalto and TTY, 200km apart. Which do not compete in anything scientific. If TTY studies steel casting, Aalto studies aluminum casting. Now this divide is getting worse as result of political decisions.
There are student rivalries. The mechanical engineering students compete with electrical engineering students in pranking and drinking alcohol. Aalto students and Helsinki university students sneer at each other. And TTY, Aalto and various other students meet every year in kyykkä sport competition.
While students don't have much to do with actual research, the attitudes probably effect pretty much everything. Currently the most competitive and talented students try to get masters degree as fast as possible and then make career at the private sector.
You could compare this to Oxbridge. Two universities specifically trying to maintain comparable scientific know-how in every field possible. The compete on everything while being only 100km apart.
But I've always seen the game as the best public school in Michigan versus the best public school in Ohio, two great universities with great football traditions. I've no idea why you'd think of OSU as hillbillies; I don't know that I've ever heard that association made.
Now Michigan versus Michigan State fits right into the model he's talking about. But even there it seems a real stretch to describe it as class warfare.
I think the author went off the rails trying to tie in class warfare (it is the Slate). Narcissism of minor differences really hits it on the head. The most intense rivalries seem to come where there's more overlap in the constituents, and the differences between them really are petty.
In college football territory, a rich guy seeking to waste money might donate it to his favorite college football team. In other areas, if he wants to waste money crushing his tribal enemies, he will instead do politics.
Considering football is currently in the crosshairs due to the amount of brain injuries in the sport, after game riots, rampant disregard of educational practices and favoritism, etc. I dont know if I would say its a "harmless pasttime"
edit: More crazy.