Reclaiming College Sports
Posted on July 13, 2001A dozen years ago, I attended my first meeting as a member of the Knight Foundation Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics. In 1991, after hearings involving dozens of witnesses, we issued a report, and in each of the next two years we released updates on the progress made in addressing our far-reaching recommendations. Last August, we reconvened to assess what had happened since, and on June 26 we issued our final report. I wish we could say that things have improved, but in fact the situation is a good deal more grave.
We can take some comfort that by 1993 the NCAA had adopted two-thirds of our recommendations, but there is considerable reason to remain concerned about the condition of intercollegiate athletics. In the ’90s, more than half of the NCAA Division 1 institutions were censured, sanctioned or placed on probation. The graduation rate for football players in Division 1-A fell 3 percent last year and 8 percent in the past five years; the rate for men’s basketball players fell 5 percent over the past five years. Only 48 percent of Division 1-A football players and 34 percent of men’s basketball players at Division 1-A institutions earned degrees while roughly 75 percent of high school graduates who enroll full time in college after graduation will receive a bachelor’s degree within 5 1/2 years.
For football and men’s basketball at the most competitive level, we find that the core problem is “a prevailing money madness. … These programs have created a universe that is parallel to — but outside the effective control of — the institutions that house them. They answer not to the traditional standards of higher education but to the whims and pressures of the marketplace.”
Only 15 percent of the Division 1 and 2 programs now operate in the black. Of the 970 NCAA member institutions, they bring in $3 billion of revenue but are spending $4.1 billion. The average costs per football player at some Division 1-A schools are $100,000, while the average salary of a tenured professor at a public research institution is $84,000. At least 34 college football and men’s basketball coaches receive $1 million or more a year. The revenue distribution under the new $6.2 billion, 11-year contract for college basketball rewards winning schools at the rate of $780,000 per win.
We ask: “Is there any other department at the university where so much money is spent and justified primarily by reference to the non-academic performance of its students, staff or instructors?” Yet only 1 percent of those playing men’s basketball and 2 percent of those playing football will make it onto NBA or NFL rosters.
The dramatic escalation in football and basketball coaches’ compensation, coupled with the explosion of new or expanded athletic facilities, leaves many concerned that college sports are more like commercial entertainment enterprises than forums for students to seek the centuries-old objective of a sound mind and sound body.
What became clear as we deliberated was that the arms race has escalated because no program believes that it can unilaterally disarm. Coaches’ salaries and benefits have ballooned out of proportion to those for most faculty and staff; resources desperately needed for research and teaching space are difficult to find while luxury boxes, pro-style weight rooms, indoor practice facilities and expanded stadiums and arenas are enthusiastically funded — all in the name of staying competitive. How often do we hear that a coach’s salary must be increased because a rival school pays more? How often is the explanation for a new arena or stadium justified with an explanation that a rival program has more seats or luxury boxes?
At too many institutions, a few trustees pay keen interest to sports and strong-arm athletics directors in assessing or recruiting coaches. And yet, the data is clear that the success of football and men’s basketball do not enhance alumni gifts, although passionate supporters have led many to think differently. (Given a choice, alumni overwhelmingly prefer that added resources be invested in serving all students and enhancing their educational experience.)
In the commission’s initial report, we strongly recommended that the NCAA be controlled by college chancellors and presidents; NCAA governance was changed, and those leaders now are in charge. However, what is becoming clearer is that faculty representatives feel less engaged. In many instances presidents and chancellors have not made college athletics a priority, creating a vacuum that has been filled by conference commissioners, who control the distribution of Division 1-A post-season football revenues.
Along the way, fans may wonder why football games are not as fun as they once were. Part of the answer is simple: Universities have surrendered too much control to television. Kickoff times may not be known until six days before game day. And schedules no longer are limited to Saturday afternoons; Thursday night games aren’t the same.
A decade ago, the Knight Commission recommended a “one-plus- three” model: presidential control directed toward academic integrity; financial integrity; and independent certification of athletics programs. Now, we again recommend a “one-plus-three” model: a Coalition of Presidents directed toward an agenda of academic reform; de-escalation of the arms race; and de-escalation of commercialism.
We suggest that institutions fully integrate intercollegiate athletics into the moral and institutional culture of the university. For too long, many programs have set their own boundaries of what is appropriate because they are expected to be self-financing. Only when athletic facilities compete with teaching and research facilities for university resources and coaches’ salaries and benefits are measured against those for faculty will those who care about the health and well-being of the entire institution believe that the appropriate balance is being set in the allocation of institutional resources. Men’s basketball and football coaches should not be permitted to leverage the possibility of an offer to coach elsewhere any more than a faculty member with significant research funding should be able to do so.
We advocate that students who participate in athletics deserve the same responsibilities and rights as other students. We recommend that, by 2007, teams that do not graduate at least 50 percent of their players should be ineligible for conference championships and post-season play. And we encourage the NFL and the NBA to develop minor leagues so athletes uninterested in undergraduate study are provided another path to pro careers.
Expenditures in football and basketball must be reduced. Coaches’ compensation should be considered in the context of the academic institutions that employ them, and all agreements for coaches’ outside income should be negotiated with the institution, not individual coaches.
We can be encouraged by actions taken in the past year. The state of Washington’s ethics board disallowed a contract between Nike and the University of Washington’s football coach for performing what the board considered state business. The University of Nebraska Board of Regents urged national limits on athletic program expenditures, and seven of the Pacific Ten Conference faculty senates urged their presidents to curb commercialization and the athletics arms race and to make academic reforms.
Most Americans believe universities are about teaching, learning and research, not about winning and losing. The NCAA’s stated purpose is to maintain intercollegiate athletics “as an integral part of the educational program, and the athlete as an integral part of the student body, and to retain a clear line of demarcation between intercollegiate athletics and professional sports.” Success in reforming college sports will require a concerted grassroots effort by administrators, faculty, trustees and alumni. Reform is not a destination; it’s a never-ending process.
Yours at Carolina,
Douglas S. Dibbert ’70
Note: To access the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics Report, go to www.knightfdn.org
