Entertainment desk
< December 6	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 8 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 7

Asma El-Bakry

Hi, I am looking for French and Arabic-language sources that cover Asma El Bakry, an Egyptian film director, in significant detail. Hack (talk) 02:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one in Arabic. Omidinist (talk) 03:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And this one in French, though not 'in significant detail'. Omidinist (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I am specifically looking for coverage in reliable sources - like newspapers, books, encyclopaedias, reference works etc. Hack (talk) 04:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a couple of articles in French: [1], [2]. --Xuxl (talk) 14:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NCAA and NAIA athletics programs which have college football programs but not basketball programs

There are a number of NCAA and NAIA athletics programs which have basketball programs but not college football programs, either because they were abolished or the colleges never had them in the first place. But what about the reverse: are there any colleges in the NCAA and NAIA which have college football programs but do not have basketball programs, or do all NCAA and NAIA programs which at present have college football programs also have basketball programs? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any current examples of football schools without basketball. However, there have been examples in the past that I know of, in each case because there was a scandal in the men's basketball program caused that program to be suspended while the football team continued on -- at Kentucky for one season in the 1950s, at Southwestern Louisiana (now Louisiana-Lafayette) for two seasons in the 1970s, and at Tulane for four seasons in the 1980s. In Tulane's case, the university had announced it was ending the men's basketball program permanently due to a point-shaving scandal, but relented after a few years and brought it back. All of these situations are described in the Death penalty (NCAA) article. (Also, since your question was about basketball rather than specifying men's basketball, Kentucky didn't have varsity women's basketball in the 1950s, and Southwestern Louisiana and Tulane kept women's basketball even during the periods that their men's basketball programs were out.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I forgot to specify that I was was referring specifically to men's basketball. I thought it would have been clear given the context. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone wondering, the reason it is quite common for universities to have a basketball program but not a football one is that running a football program is much, much more expensive and requires a considerably higher number of student-athletes and coaches to even field a team. As a result, many smaller schools will forego a football team while still running a basketball squad. The reverse is extremely rare (hence the OP's question) and is usually the result of violations that have led to the suspension of the basketball program. --Xuxl (talk) 14:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are really only two reasons why a school would choose to NOT run an athletic program, and really the second is a subset of the first 1) the costs associated with running the program are too great and 2) the risks of injury or harm for athletes in running the program are too great. When comparing basketball to football, the numbers clearly bear out the HUGE difference in costs. Just on raw numbers of athletes alone, a college football team carries 85 uniformed players. A college basketball team carries 15. So EVEN if all we had to do was to pay tuition, clothe, train, and pay transportation costs for the players, football is already almost SIX TIMES more expensive. Now consider that football ALSO has more expensive equipment (mostly padding and helmets for players) vs. basketball (a tank top and shorts), more expensive facilities to maintain (grass or turf fields vs. a wooden floor), MUCH greater liability and medical costs, and you begin to see why lots MORE schools don't run football than run basketball. If we just look at NCAA Division I, there are about 351 member institutions, about 1/3rd of which don't play football, and exactly zero of which don't play basketball. Among male athletes, football is the most popular sport by athlete participation (remember: 85 vs. 15), but among number of institutions which sponsor the sport, basketball is. According to this, in 2015, there were 773 college football teams, at all levels from NCAA Division I FBS (the highest level), through junior (2-year) college teams. If you check out College basketball, you'll see that there are likely THOUSANDS of institutions playing college basketball; there 1066 member schools that sponsor basketball in the NCAA alone, not counting NAIA and junior colleges. If we do a little Fermi calculation and assume that every conference has about 10 schools in it; you see there are a total of 198 different conferences or leagues sponsoring college basketball in the US. That's almost 2000 schools in the U.S. that sponsor the sport; which is MUCH more than the 773 sponsoring football. Why? Costs. As you see herethis shows that football program costs a school about $1.3 million per year, all other sports combined cost only $4.0 million. When you're spending over 1/5th of your budget on a single sport, it's clear why schools will often not sponsor football. Basketball is comparatively much cheaper: its participation rates compare favorably to football (i.e. it is almost as popular, and in some areas of the US more popular), and it costs a LOT less to run. --Jayron 3232 19:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32: Thanks for the comprehensive answer; are there any statistics for high school? I imagine there are small high schools in Texas that strive so hard to field a football team there is nothing left for basketball. jnestorius^(talk) 12:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This report from the National Federation of State High School Associations lists the number of schools participating in various sports around the country. As you can see there are 18,072 schools playing men's basketball, and 14,154 schools playing 11-man football (with about 1500 playing a modified form of the game). So clearly there are more schools playing basketball than football, but that does NOT preclude at least one school in the world which plays football but not basketball. Just for comparison to the total numbers, there are a little more than 36,000 high schools in the U.S.), so there are about half which do not sponsor basketball, the most popular sport in the U.S. by number of high schools. --Jayron 32 13:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]