Bloggers Love Controversy: Speaking Out on Issues of Education and Race

After writing about the academic issues most college programs are facing, I realized that the one of the major themes of this blog is controversy. The reasoning is simple, controversies are thought provoking, and most importantly controversy means that someone is paying attention to a concern or problem. The sports world is also full of push and pull between two opposing forces, both on and off the court. However, unlike in sporting contests, when it comes to ideological debate there isn’t an easy way to keep score as many different arguments are crafted by members of the contrasting viewpoints. It was with this spirit that I searched the web and found two authors who sought to uncover two issues and encourage a new understanding of difficult topics. The first is a column on the Huffington Post by Oakland, CA pastor Byron Williams titled “The Duplicity of March Madness.” In this article Williams attacks the millions of dollars and man-hours put into programs to guarantee wins that result in players being tossed aside once their eligibility has expired. He sees the atrocious graduation rates as a symptom of the economic exploitation of college athletes, and looks into the reasons such a system has formed. The second is a post on Deadspin by Dashiell Bennett named “Geno Auriemma is Not Afraid of White Kids.” Bennett analyzes comments made by University of Connencticut women’s head basketball coach Geno Auriemma (pictured left) during the team’s press conference before starting final four action. His words inflamed the debate about race issues in athletics, and were an attempt to attract more attention to women’s college basketball, with limited success. For convenience I have posted my responses below as well as on the respective blogs.

“The Duplicity of March Madness”

I want to thank you for writing this piece and really showing the other, less exciting side of the coin that is college basketball. While you highlight many negatives, I feel like you also overlook some arguments that can be made for the other side. If one of the primary purposes of going to college is to obtain knowledge and skills that will serve an individual in both their future life and career, then I would argue that college athletes are getting a strong education. Even though most players wont play in a professional league, many still find careers in fields related to their sports. College sports also teach values such as fair competition, teamwork, hard work, practice, and above all dedication. While many schools do have extremely low numbers of student-athletes earning degrees, the graduation rates of most programs are still on par with the average higher education institution in the United States. Given the extra demands placed on these individuals, is it fair to hold the programs to the high standards set by the individual institution or the seemingly more relaxed requirements the NCAA has established? It appears to me that the NCAA condones this behavior considering how infrequently they hand down punishments and the wide range of loopholes that schools can easily abuse. How do you see a solution being implemented, or the system being overhauled? You raise a lot of issues and concerns in your writing but do not offer any sort of fix or hope for optimism in the future.

You also raise the issue of John Calipari (pictured right), the newly hired “savior” of the University of Kentucky men’s basketball program, being hired with obscene amounts of cash to win games, not graduate players. But I would argue that his hire is beneficial beyond simply counting up the wins and losses. While he was rewarded with an enormous contract during difficult economic times, a lot of the compensation is coming through a number of endorsement deals the university has brokered. These top quality programs are also great examples of how much a single team can give back to a university. He is the face of the program and to a great extent the entire school. He is selling the higher education experience that should include a competitive sports program. If one of the NCAA’s goals is to enhance the collegiate experience for the whole student body, then hiring a coach to come in and win games is beneficial to the school and all those who attend. I understand your argument that it amounts to nothing more than exploitation of the athletes but isn’t it true they are also being offered a chance at a top-notch education? Where does the blame lie, with the schools, the individuals, or the system?

“Geno Auriemma is Not Afraid of White Kids”

I want to thank you for bringing awareness and analysis to Geno Auriemma’s disgraceful comments. You are right that no members of the media, or other figures in college basketball besides Auriemma have made any comments about Stanford being white or soft. There do exist a number of stereotypes about the differences between west coast and east coast basketball. Traditionally teams from the west are considered to be more athletic, and less physical than those that hail from back east. Auriemma himself admits that he tried to recruit some of Stanford’s top players, so was it when they turned him down that he suddenly soured on their abilities? This appears likely. I agree with your reaction, as this appears to be an attempt by Auriemma to grab attention away from the more glamorized men’s NCAA tournament. However, while you argue his team is ignored because they are so much better than their competition, he could have just as easily turned that into a positive. He chose not to go into his team’s own strengths, such as their impressive thirty point average margin of victory, or their attempt to go for another undefeated season which hasn’t happened in men’s basketball since Indiana University in 1976. If he had made a statement saying his team is just as good if not better than several division one basketball programs, would you have paid any attention or dismissed it without a second thought?

By opening his comments by saying “I’m going to get criticized for this” he acknowledges that he knows his statements are wrong and he anticipates a flurry of controversy will descend upon him. I wonder what you think Auriemma hopes to accomplish with these racist remarks? Does he see either the Connecticut program or women’s basketball benefiting from admitting that some of the nation’s top figures still cling to long outdated beliefs? Any future recruits that happen to be white will certainly be taking a long look at the benefits and drawbacks of playing for Connecticut. They might question their ability to earn playing time on a very competitive and talented squad when the head coach already has a negative preconception of their talent. I also wonder what the consequences will be for women’s basketball overall. There still exists a lack of black talent in the coaching ranks, and this certainly doesn’t look to further the cause. If white players are considered tough it is because they are also considered to be smarter, and better students of the game compared to black players who rely on physical prowess and little on brainpower. Do you think that Auriemma deserves a punishment, or at least a rebuke for his comments? Does this bring attention to an important issue, or will it simply be swept under the rug like so many controversies involving iconic sports figures?

Making the Grade: Student-Athletes Struggle to Succeed Academically

In my last post I discussed the sanctions handed to Florida State University for its cheating scandal, and as the academic year slowly winds to a close I believe that the timing is excellent to take a deeper look into the student half of the student-athlete equation. College athletes find themselves pushed to the limits both on the field and in the classroom, and the temptation to take shortcuts or avoid the intellectual work altogether must be massive. It may be easy to shrug off these incidents as isolated outbreaks of misconduct at certain schools, but the problems run beyond the level of individual programs. Academic scandals like the one at FSU continue in the world of college athletics because the system is not designed for student-athletes to achieve academic success but rather athletic success. It is not enough to simply reflect on the extent of the problem, but rather to look at the causal factors and the problems with the mindset of both schools and the NCAA that allowed these issues to fester. There is no doubt that some athletes simply attend college because professional rules obligate them to do so, it is important to look beyond the small percentage who validate that statement and see how the system fails those student-athletes most in need of an education.

The problem begins before the athletes even get to college as they are put at a disadvantage by enrolling at institutions that they are not qualified for. Despite not having proven themselves as capable intellectuals, they are forced to work even harder to keep up with the rigorous curriculum. One of the strongest indicators of potential academic performance is the SAT Reasoning Test that measures skills considered necessary for success in college. For instance, the most recent NCAA academic analysis found that the average SAT for incoming freshmen at fifty public universities that have big football or basketball programs was 1161 compared to 1037 for athletes, a difference of 124 points. The better the university, the greater the disparity between those accepted because of academic merit, and those chosen because of their athletic abilities. One striking example would be the University of California at Berkeley where football players trail freshmen by 331 and male basketball players find themselves behind by 350. Lindsey Lubechow, the author of the Higher Ed Watch blog, puts it best when she says “a lot of students are being recruited for athletics that are not prepared for college, having come from places that do not put a priority on education.” This is especially disheartening since the NCAA doesn’t regulate the number of special admissions. The NCAA labels them as “at-risk students” and leaves it to schools to set their own caps in order to “to alleviate suspicion that student-athlete admissions is based more on the need to recruit winning teams than on academic integrity.” Stanford is a shining example of what the process should be like as head football coach Jim Harbaugh explicates, “It's something we proclaim when we're going after scholar-athletes. One of our main objectives is to graduate our athletes, and another is to win. We want to do both.” This attitude has given Stanford fourteen straight Sears Directors’ Cup victories for overall athletic excellence, and the inside track to number fifteen. Schools that do not hold themselves or their recruits to a higher standard are not doing their student-athletes any favors by encouraging them to disregard their scholastic achievements.

But this is simply the beginning of the issue, as the data reveals that student-athletes are failing to complete their education and attain degrees at rates comparable to their non-athletic peers. Division 1A football has a dismal graduation rate as “only 55 percent of…football players leave college in six years with a degree - and that number drop precipitously at most big-time programs that solely focus on counting Ws and Ls.” Though it is important to recognize that several prominent football institutions do manage high graduation rates, the majority of the top tier programs find the rate for athletes is lower than the rate for the general student body. This comparison and several other measures of academic success and are compiled into an “Academic BCS” formula that reveals the lack of dedication schools are showing their athletes in the classroom. At the University of Cincinnati former basketball coach Bob Huggins (pictured right) holds the dubious distinction of having a graduation rate of zero for two consecutive years near the end of his tenure with the team. Unfortunately there exists a widespread acceptance of this attitude, and currently a lack of impetus for change. While some of these abysmal numbers may be attributed to attrition as players leave early, the vast majority do not, and the programs fail to see them out the door as successfully matured college students but simply as used goods.

The most troubling aspect of the problem is that the effects of a student-athlete’s academic success or failure will continue to be a burden long after their moment in the spotlight has ended. According to the NCAA only one percent of college athletes will go on to play professionally. If this number is expanded to international leagues the number is slightly higher, but still miniscule in comparison to the number that will need to utilize the knowledge and skills gained in the college classroom in their future careers. And even among those individuals that are in that lucky one percent and do find a place with a professional organization, most will make the minimum or slightly above it, and be forced to enter the traditional workplace once their athleticism has left their bodies as Lindsey Luebchow notes “the future of most players depends on getting a college degree, not securing an NFL contract.” Even athletes that do earn a degree may find that their studies were not as intensive or valuable as those of other members of the student body as “the opportunity to receive a degree was secondary to the all-important basketball court, despite the fact that the vast majority of players don’t play professionally.” Lubechow goes further by explaining that “many of those players who left with a degree did not gain workforce-ready skills, because they were tracked into “jock majors” or were required to meet informal, deflated academic standards for student-athletes.” Most importantly this argument becomes even more relevant as the economic downturn takes hold and job competition is increasing as openings become scarcer.

One of the defenses offered for the lower academic performance and graduation rate of student-athletes is that the intense pressure placed on them diverts most of their attention away from the classroom and into the gym. While it is clear that there are great time demands for student-athletes, the same is also true for other students as well. Many of them have to work, ranging from a few hours per week all the way to full time, in order to cover costs that are above and beyond what scholarships may be provided. Some individuals may choose to pursue other time intensive activities such as being involved in a student group like the school paper, or outside activities such as bands (an example student band pictured left) that require an enormous amount of practice and travel like student-athletes endure. However, these students are not told it is acceptable to put these activities before schoolwork, so they learn to balance their time and energy and find a way to make it work. I must admit that it is also unfair, and definitely not my intention, to label all athletes as under performers. Many earn high academic honors, and are capable of being self-motivated students, taking advantage of the resources available. One benefit they are given is early registration, to ensure they get the classes needed and at times that fit the team schedule, but still a number of seats reserved for athletes are left empty when the bell rings. Most students will never face the pressure of a cover two defense, of the full-court press, but they will all experience the same stresses and strains, the same roller coaster of ups and downs that the student-athletes are exposed to through athletics.

Though the problem is clearly entrenched, there are a number of ways the institutions and the NCAA can rectify the situation. One potential solution would be to provide athletes with tutorage that goes beyond academics and into the professional world, similar to what trade schools accomplish. Teaching them how to utilize skills other than their athleticism and providing career guidance will help accelerate the learning process that other students get in internships and other real world experience. Another way to encourage student-athletes to take an active role in their education would be for the NCAA to allow institutions to give extra benefits to players that match the academic expectations of the rest of the student body. This can take a number of forms, from monetary rewards, to something akin to extra eligibility or an extension of their athletic career to provide them both with time to focus on academics, and an incentive to maintain a high level of performance in the classroom. The school can also benefit by being allowed to play extra exhibition games to bring in grater revenues, or holding extra practices to help prepare the team better. For example, the Pac-10 recognized 48 football players on 2007-2008 Pac-10 All-Academic Football Team, after they earned at least a 3.0 GPA, but only one of them came from USC, the winner of the past seven Pac-10 Championships. Why not take away practice time from USC, or give more to the teams with higher academic performance, helping them compete on an unlevel playing field. Even if it represents a simple stopgap, the mostly likely development in the near future is a change to the rulebook to allow the NCAA to actually punish institutions that fail to properly develop student-athletes. There is no reason to believe that given a fighting chance to use the resources that schools are obligated to provide that these athletes would be failing in such great quantities. If coaches on the field can push the athletes to their physical peak, then there is no reason schools should not be required to have an academic supervisor that is removed from the influence of the athletic teams to push these players to their intellectual peak, after all, their livelihood may depend on it.

It is dizzying to read the series of conditions that must be met before a team is actually considered to be in violation of the academic standards. This is the result of the numerous loopholes in the NCAA rules book that allow universities to continue recruiting and playing failing athletes. But there is hope on the horizon, as the NCAA is seemingly targeting more high profile schools, though this hope is countered by the reality that the majority receive a small slap on the wrist and another footnote in the history book. I can only say seemingly as Eric Prisbell, a writer for the Washington Post, points out that “ninety-nine Division I college sports programs will lose scholarships for failing to meet new academic standards, but almost all the traditional marquee football and men's basketball programs will avoid sanctions this year.” Eliminating this double standard should be the major focus of the rules committee, as its existence simply reinforces the notion that athletes at premier programs should make the school money first, and get their education if it fits conveniently into their schedule. The only certainty is that this trend cannot continue or college athletics will be forced to turn into something equating the minor leagues rather than a vital part of the college experience as the NCAA claims to be striving for currently.