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.

The Letter of the Law: Bloggers Criticize Programs that do not Follow the Rules

It seems impossible these days to browse the news and not find a story about Bernie Madoff or other financial “gurus” breaking the law for personal gain. Yet while these scandals dominate the front pages, it seems as if there is an equal or greater amount of rule breaking to be found in the sports section. The National Collegiate Athletic Association publishes a large tome filled with a variety of intricate and complex rules, and seeks to punish programs that break them with matching force. This week I decided to look at two blog posts that examine different sides of the rulebook, and the way programs choose to, or sometimes not to, adhere to it. The first is a post on Deadspin titled “Florida State Punished for Cheating Scandal (But Not Really)” in which writer Dashiell Bennett argues that the relatively light punishments doled out to Florida State University for their program-wide academic negligence do not match the scope of the violations. In the second post titled “Capel and Griffin: Communication Without Speaking,” Thayer Evans, a freelance writer for the New York Times The Quad Blog, highlights the way University of Oklahoma men’s basketball head coach Jeff Capel was able to successfully recruit Blake Griffin despite the restrictions placed on the program due to indiscretions by previous head coach Kelvin Sampson. For convenience I have posted my responses to these posts on the respective blogs as well as below.


“Florida State Punished For Cheating Scandal (But Not Really)”

In posting this you are in effect catching the NCAA in the act, showcasing the absurdity and inconsistency of the association in handing out punishments. I think you successfully deconstructed the restrictions doled out by the NCAA and showed how these supposed tough restrictions mean very little to the athletic program’s most important teams. However I think the extent of the problem goes much further than you indicate in your analysis.

I think there is no question that the prominence of Florida State University’s athletic program helped minimize the severity of the penalties. While their football program is losing a total of five scholarships over three years, the New Mexico State Lobos are able to offer five fewer scholarships annually, twenty instead of twenty-five, and reduce total scholarships from eighty-five to eighty for the next three seasons for similar transgressions. The Lobos athletic director indicated that the NCAA is moving to increase the severity of sanctions for programs caught breaking the rules and that “we’re one of the first cases experiencing that, if you will, get-though policy.” And it would appear to be the only program so far, having its ruling handed to it just over a week before Florida State got a slap on the wrist. Do you think the presence of Rhodes scholar Myron Rolle (pictured right) on the football roster played a part in minimizing the penalties? Does the one bright individual make up for a batch of bad eggs?

You also raise the issue that even though they may have to vacate victories that were accomplished with ineligible players “no one will ever forget that the really did win it.” I think another facet of this is that while the individuals may have failed to uphold the first, and theoretically more important, half of the “student-athlete” moniker, they proved themselves to be the more capable players. They are not going to be remembered for being valedictorian, but they will be remembered for the touchdowns they score. Yet do you see this as encouragement for the school to work harder for athletes’ academic success or a situation that will simply lead to a lower graduation rate? The other matter at stake is the personal achievements of head football coach Bobby Bowden. Especially in a sport like football where it takes a minimum of twenty-two men to field a competitive team, it seems unfair to lose victories that featured only a handful of these ineligible players. Once again the prominence of the program involved makes it likely that the NCAA will not tarnish the records of one of college football’s most recognizable and longest tenured coaches.

So I will put the ball back in your court, so to speak. Do you feel that there is an adequate punishment the NCAA could have doled out to match this crime? And more importantly, is there any real obligation on Florida State, with one of the worst graduation rates among athletes, to improve their academic success scores?


“Capel and Griffin: Communication Without Speaking”

Reading this post truly helps me understand just how absurd some of scandals in college athletics are, when some individuals are willing to work so hard to follow the letter of the law. It brings to light one of college sports “good guys,” as coach Capel (pictured left with Griffin) was able to build a friendship with a player despite even stricter recruiting regulations resulting in place because of former head coach Sampson.

I think that while this story does highlight the exceptional efforts of one coach to restrict himself to the letter of the law, it also reflects some of the failures of the NCAA in regulating the recruiting process. This story deals with the recruitment of Griffin once he was a junior, but what it doesn’t mention is that he was probably getting harassed like this on a daily basis since he was in the eighth grade. I do not mean to imply that Capel was harassing Griffin, but simply that while Capel was trying to attract all of Griffin’s attention, so were the dozens of other coaches vying for the big man. As you say “the back and forth would not end until…he went to sleep for the night.” And now the NCAA has extended prospect status to seventh graders, meaning coaches wishing to converse with them must do so in accordance with recruiting guidelines. There is no question that the emotional bond between player and coach is one of the key aspects of college basketball, but I would put forth the question, how early it too early to start developing that connection? Would this frequent text messaging have been something to commend had it been occurring for four years instead of a few months?

The fact that the two communicated extensively over text messaging not only reflects the willingness of the coach to play by the rules, even if it was a mere technicality that permitted it, but also his willingness to adapt to the preferences of his players. In that light, I wonder what you feel are the biggest impacts of the NCAA decision to ban coaches from text messaging recruits? I think this complete ban is yet another signal that the NCAA is failing to adapt some of its archaic structure to modern sentiments and developments in current technology. Most college students now prefer text messaging with their friends to any other form of communication such as calling, or e-mailing, and I believe instant messaging isn’t at the top simply because it has not yet become a fully enabled mobile technology. Do you see the NCAA reversing this decision in the future? Do you think the NCAA could actually create greater recruiting equality by restricting coaches to their offices and only allowing communication through technological means?

Twelve Players in the Huddle: The Power of the Student Body

I have waved my arms frantically imagining that I am going to distract the shooter enough to make him miss (as demonstrated on the right). I have screamed as loud as I can to make sure the quarterback cannot tell his teammates what play they are running. I have proudly chanted profanities at referees who make calls that hurt my team, even if they are both correct, and obvious. I am a loyal member of the University of Southern California student body, and a faithful attendee of athletic events. It is people like myself, the students that are the ones shouting, stomping, and making the arena rattle from the floorboards to the rafters with excitement and passion. While students at large universities are often segregated into different colleges spread across vast campuses, they have a common ground in their support of athletics. Ryan McGee of ESPN described it as “the only place on earth where, for a few hours, Greeks, geeks, seniors, freshmen, wannabe millionaires and soon-to-be-dropouts can stand shoulder to shoulder and throat to throat with one common, noble belief.” What results from this unity is a powerful and vocal mass that often succeeds in affecting the outcome of the game being played. Though many factors affect the final score, the student section is the single greatest fixture of college athletics, and is the most important cause of home-field advantage.

The power of the student section in college football is undeniable. The field is a constant size and shape, and both teams run on the same turf in the same weather conditions, but only one team has the power of students on their side. When Adrian Peterson and the University of Oklahoma visited the University of Oregon, the power of the Ducks student section felt “like some sort of crazy torture in the movies.” However, it should be acknowledged that Autzen Stadium seats a mere 54,000 leaving little room for opposing fans who might otherwise travel en masse to help balance the atmosphere. But even at home where a team might play in front of a hundred thousand friendly faces, it is the students that stick out as Georgia State head football coach Bill Curry states his belief that “college football is still about the students. On Saturday they remind us of that.” Texas A&M felt that their student section was so important to their home success, they named it the "12th man" and went on to trademark the term. The students there feel so involved in the outcome of the game, and so vital to every play on the field they have a saying that “when the team scores, everybody scores.” While some opposing teams do transport a number of students and fans to games, they rarely are given a solid block of seating, or find themselves crammed into the outer reaches of the stadiums. Though the visiting fans may try their best, their efforts go largely unnoticed or are drowned out by the enthusiastic home supporters. The concentrated mass of dedicated students makes the difference between playing in front of an audience, and playing in front of a home crowd.

The repercussions of home advantage are felt beyond a team’s performance in the statistic books, and banners hung in the rafters. In college basketball, home-court advantage is one of the biggest factors in helping sports books decide where to place the point spread for games. Oddsmakers such as Jeff Sagarin, the creator of some of the world’s most famous computer rankings, have established home court advantage as worth 3.5 to 4.5 points, with Sagarin’s model calculating a 3.94 point advantage for the resident club. A team like Duke pushes this to the extreme with oddsmakers like Pete Korner of the Las Vegas Sports Club swinging the point spread as much as 6 or 8 points when Duke takes the court at Cameron Indoor Stadium. Many would agree that the defining feature of Cameron is the hundreds of students decked out in their finest blue and white paint screaming wildly at opposing players known collectively as the “Cameron Crazies” (as exemplified in the picture on the left). The effectiveness of this group is truly stunning. Despite playing nearly twice as many home games as neutral site games (1,025 and 541 respectively) Duke has lost almost the same number in both situations (185 and 160 respectively). Similarly, when the University of Southern California built the Galen Center and brought USC basketball back onto campus and closer to its student base, the team responded posting a record of 38-9 in their new home, the third best record in the Pacific-10 conference over that span, despite it being a structure that “offers no hardships” to opposing teams. However Tim Floyd would disagree and point out one major factor in that the USC crowds “can be pretty rambunctious.” In fact, the only team that has regularly beaten USC at the Galen Center has been their cross-town rival the UCLA Bruins, but in return the Trojans have found success at Pauley Pavilion. This example highlights the mitigating factors of distance, as once the matchup extends beyond city lines home court advantage becomes solidified, even if the two teams involved play each other regularly. The energy and emotion of the crowd creates many cold welcomes, and derives from the size and dedication of the student fans because the power of the students to affect a team’s performance is unmatched by any other factor.

I think the most exciting part is that the trend is growing, as more teams in smaller sports find active student sections waiting to cheer them on to victory. The University of Southern California is home to the 7th man club, the student cheering section that makes men’s tennis matches at USC’s Marks Tennis Stadium a boisterous affair. The self-proclaimed goals of this group are to “promote the success of SC tennis and instill a sense of pride in one of SC's oldest and most prolific athletic programs” as well as create “an unrivaled home field advantage.” Courts are standardized, balls and rackets strictly regulated, but only the weather and the student fans are uncontrollable factors, and while both teams receive an equal challenge on the meteorological front, only one benefits from the exceptionally vocal mass in the stands. Missouri University got into the act by encouraging student support at swimming and diving events with the creation of the student cheering section appropriately named “H-ZOU-O.” The group’s president, Kelly Goldthorpe, believes that this student cheer group will help the Missouri aquatic teams “stay motivated and continue excelling at their sports.” Goldthorpe worked closely with members of the men’s and women’s swim teams to give them what they felt would bring a competitive advantage. The formation of this group also coincides with Michael Phelps' incredible performance at the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing, an event that helped bring recognition to smaller sports when the United States came up short in some more prominent events. H-ZOU-O helps bring some of that excitement back to the athletes that hope to compete for their home nation on the world stage someday, and it gives some recognition for their hard work. Even in sports that are not as glamorized, the fans and more importantly the athlete’s consider a strong base of student support to be a fundamental part of achieving top performance.

However, there may be other reasons why the fans have such a dramatic effect on home-field advantage. A study that looked at English Premier League matches found that the referees might be just as affected by the crowd pressure as the opposing players. Ryan Boyko, one of the researchers, summarized the impact saying, “the potential is there for a game to be altered because of factors that subconsciously affect the referee.” He discovered that “Individual referees and the size of the crowd present are variables that affect the home field advantage.” This means the fans have a three ways to affect the outcome of the game. They can pump up the home team, discourage the visiting team, or simply intimidate the referees into acquiescing to their demands for calls. It follows that the student section, the most dedicated group of fans a college program has is the most beneficial facet of playing at home. The benefits of supporting a strong student section extend beyond a schools athletic program. A happy student now is more likely to become a generous booster for the program later, so it makes sense to give them access to premier seating and make them an integral part of the sporting event experience. Another benefit of increasing student interest in smaller sports may help increase revenue as the program can capitalize on this interest through sales of t-shirts and other spirit items. Thus even beyond the simple mental trauma a clever, energized, and raucous student section is sure to deliver to opposing players, it brings an opportunity for schools to promote hard working student-athletes. I love standing shoulder to shoulder with my classmates and showing our appreciation for the action, excitement, and entertainment the sports teams provide. It is time bring the students to half-court, midfield, the net, and let them carry the team and players past the exhaustion, the frustration, and on their shoulders (and voices) to victory.

Follow the Money: Voices of Reason Around the Web

In searching the blogosphere for the latest developments in the sports world, it seems that many bloggers echo my concerns about the financial situation of college athletics programs. I find it important to seek out and engage different sources of information because in the digital age opinions are plentiful, and while there may be common ground between them, no two are ever the same. In my search it quickly became apparent that the two widespread sources of concern are the state of athletics budgets given the current fragility of the economy, and the financial controversies involving student-athletes that consistently capture national headlines. The first post I will examine this week is by Connor Ennis, a copy editor of the sports section for the New York Times, and is titled “A Question About Calhoun’s Salary.” Connor brings attention to comments made by University of Connecticut men’s basketball head coach Jim Calhoun about his salary as the highest paid state employee in a state facing a budget deficit. I will also challenge some of the assumptions and address some of the questions raised by a blogger for The National Sports and Entertainment Law Society in the post “Does Age Matter?” In this post the author addresses both the NBA age limit and differing theories on compensation for student-athletes. For convenience I have posted these responses here, as well as at the respective blogs.



“A Question About Calhoun’s Salary”

I am glad someone else in the blogosphere is perplexed by the large sums being invested in athletics programs by state institutions that are facing a budget shortfall. Jim Calhoun argues with the reporter to “get some facts,” but these facts show that Calhoun is playing with fuzzy numbers. The state of Connecticut is facing a budget shortfall of over $900 million this year, and could top $8 billion over the next two (see chart on left for a budget breakdown). If the state is forced to reduce the number of teachers, then the students who attend school to receive an education, not audition for a professional athletics contract, will suffer. This is especially pressing in a state where more than half of students enrolled in 4-year public colleges have not graduated within six years. Calhoun argues that his team and its success, which presumably he plays a rather large part in, helps bring in a profit of $12 million for the university. But recent athletics budget reports show that while this helps support athletic programs, the university still contributes a net of $2 million to the athletic department annually to help cover all the expenses. This number is subject to the 3.5% budget cut the university is enacting in response to a $9 million reduction in state funding. Adding to this is the fact that coaches’ salaries constitute nearly 40% of athletic department expenses. I think this makes it clear that it would be very beneficial if coaches voluntarily cut their pay to help the university.

What is even more disturbing is Calhoun’s lack of sympathy for the hardships that individuals around the state of Connecticut and the nation are facing. His behavior brings to mind awful memories of Latrell Sprewell’s contract complaints when he felt that $14 million was not an adequate sum of money to adequately take care of his family. Calhoun’s statements also reflect that he is in effect hoarding his money, saving it for his retirement, rather than using it to the benefit the economy by spending more disposable income. I am curious to see what your opinion is on this issue. Do you feel that this backlash is warranted against programs with spending that can be deemed reckless in the face of the economic crisis? I think this situation epitomizes the problem in college athletics today, but I am curious to about what you think? Is this a problem? What do you think the future holds?



“Does Age Matter?”

One important aspect of OJ Mayo’s career that you overlook is that he was 20 years old during his time at USC. His “advanced” age gave him a physical and mental advantage compared to other freshman players. He must have also carried the concern that delaying the start of his NBA career would have put him at a disadvantage against players who were younger and shared the same amount of college experience. But for individuals who would enter the NBA directly out of high school, the college experience provides an intermediate step in terms of skill and the demands of increasing exposure. Only the MLB minor league system offers a similar experience where the demand is increased gradually, and thus it protects itself against issues that an age limit would counter. I would argue therefore, that the age limit is simply an insurance policy for the teams that would dole out millions of dollars on otherwise unproven talent. But perhaps for OJ and other players of his ilk, the most important consideration was the one I address below.

The second issue you raise in this post is the question of payments to student-athletes, something that has been going on under the table for years, but has seen increased exposure given the recent scandals you mention. The increased exposure the players get in college is good for all the parties involved, and there is no reason the players shouldn’t see a profit as a result. The players themselves are rewarded through greater endorsement deals and an established, dedicated fan base that they carry throughout their pro careers. For the colleges this means increased interest, which results in greater ticket sales and a large boost in merchandise sales. The NBA teams that draft highly developed players, both in terms of talent and marketability, see a similar boost in their bottom line as a result. Allowing players to leave for teams overseas only serves to diminish their earning potential. It would seem that the current rules are not realistically enforceable as the number of cases that slip by the radar is becoming more and more apparent. Obviously allowing players to be paid would result in an imbalance between those programs that see a profit and those that do not. Keeping that in mind, do you support college athletes being rewarded above and beyond covering their expenses (including ones not currently covered by scholarships)? In effect aren’t schools already “purchasing” players through the construction of better facilities, and more expensive student-athlete support programs? Where should the line be placed between what is considered legal aid and what is considered a breach of rules or ethics?

Big Spenders: College Sports Programs Need to Trim the Fat

As a student at the University of Southern California, I enjoy the tremendous success of the numerous athletic programs. I am able to attend games in venues that bear the names generous donors who have made the multitude of staff and training centers a reality. It almost seems like the athletic department has been given a blank check with the expressed purpose of creating the most competitive and successful college sports program in the nation. Yet at the same time the nation and the world are suffering through one of the worst financial crises in recent history, if not all time. The conflict arises when these two worlds collide and college athletic programs are not longer sheltered from the demands and unfortunate events of the larger economic system. With a large part colleges’ reputations deriving from the relative success of their performance on the court rather than in the classroom, a culture arose that rewarded reckless spending. This problem has manifested itself in a number of ways, especially in the hyper inflated budgets of top college sports programs, the financial structure that rewards investments in athletics over academics, and the growing disparity between top-tier and lesser athletic programs. I will unpack these different issues and show the possibilities for change that must occur in order for college athletics programs to attain stability and increase their aid to their educational institutions.

What is becoming increasingly obvious is that schools no longer have the ability to spend without limits the way they might have been able to in the past. Some schools have started to break bad habits and are taking measures to reduce their athletic program’s budgets, even if the decrease is not representative of a large percentage of the budget. The University of Miami Hurricanes football team decided to travel by bus to two in-state games next season. This move will save the university $140,000 of their annual athletic department budget of $60 million. This action is especially important given their decision to slash football season ticket prices in an effort to maintain and expand their fan base despite the tumultuous economy. Ultimately it shows an understanding that the economics of college athletics have to change, and to cope with reduced revenue from lower consumer spending athletic budgets that were once sky high must be grounded. What it also reflects is a new endeavor to move beyond the achievement and fall in line with the more modest tone established by leaders like Barack Obama. Even worse perhaps is that Stanford University spent $100 million renovating its football stadium, has enjoyed an increase in the program’s success, yet finds attendance and thus revenue dropping sharply. What both these examples reflect is the inflated budgets of athletics programs, especially at major institutions, and the reality of their value to the schools and the community that support them. These programs were driven to adopt an attitude of unceasing growth backed by funding that no longer exists in the quantities necessary to sustain this outlook.

More troubling is the fact that college athletics maintain a tax-exempt status, and that donations to the programs are tax deductible. The current law allows 80% of donations made to receive premium seating and 100% of all other donations to college athletic programs to be deducted. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) reported that in 2004-2005 major college athletic programs received a total of $845 million from boosters. The Chronicle of Higher Education found this number to be $1.2 billion from 2006-2007, and found this increase came at the expense of academic donations. One of the best ways to promote recovery during an economic downturn is to tax the wealthiest citizens and use that money to generate new opportunities for the less fortunate members of the economy. A simple solution would be to tax donations above a certain amount, or simply remove protections for deductions where the individual receives a tangible benefit for their charity, such as mandatory donations for the right to purchase premium tickets. This issue seems even more pressing as more students are struggling to secure the financial aid necessary to continue their education. This would in effect supplement the funds the federal government is injecting into the economy and could be targeted towards the individuals and communities that colleges and universities are struggling to serve.

So the question now becomes one of solutions, the need presents itself to find ways to counteract the effects economic downturn and years of bad habits. Given that this money being given to schools, even those that receive aid from the state and federal government, will not be available as tax revenue, the question becomes one of how best to utilize surpluses. Another effect of the fundraising power of top programs is the growing disparity between the top programs and the rest of the competition (see figure on left). If one of the achievements of a successful athletics program is to increase the overall quality of the college or university and the student experience, it follows that greater distribution of wealth would enable a greater number of institutions to achieve this goal. I admit that a plan like this would discourage individuals from contributing at all if they feel their money is going to help the school’s competitors, but that is an acceptable loss. Simple removing from the budgets of the top end of the system forces those programs to scale back to more reasonable levels and by decreasing the disparity will ultimately foster greater competition. In essence the NCAA can impose a flexible salary cap on programs that is dependent on factors such as size of the program, number of participants, and market size among other factors.

Many colleges and universities and their athletic departments operate under separate financial umbrellas. However, the result is that most of the exchange between the two flows towards the athletics programs. The academic institution must maintain a commitment to developing the student part of the “student-athlete” moniker. It seems to me that because the NCAA places such a high emphasis on the intellectual development of these young people, it should promote the practice of an athletic program returning its profits to the academic institution it draws talent from. While the recently passed American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provisions several million dollars to promote accessibility of higher education to more individuals, several billion intended for higher education construction was stricken from the final version of the act. The schools and their athletic programs are in essence Siamese twins, joined together intricately so that each helps sustain the other. So it is crucial that athletic programs seize upon this opportunity to reform their own poor practices while helping develop and further the academic world by picking up the ball and running with it.

Welcome Inside The Locker Room: A New Voice in College Sports

I am a student with a passion for college athletics. Through my studies and experiences both on the inside and outside of sports organizations I have decided to dedicate my blog to taking a deeper look at the world of college sports. In order to create a credible and influential blog I scoured the Internet for sites and blogs with a similar focus that both serve as reference material and prompt further discussion. These sites comprise the linkroll in the right column of this site and help connect my blog with other credible, relevant authorities on the web. Many of these links were founding through a blog search tool like Technorati that enabled me to find relevant and authoritative blogs. Another successful technique was searching web directories like the ones provided by Google and Yahoo that list websites categorically. The links I have provided to the University of Southern California and the colleges within provide more information about my educational background including major and minor. The linkroll also contains a number of commercial sports media sites such as ESPN that report news and offer analysis and are well known and respected sports authorities. Blogs such as Deadspin are included because of their popularity and timeliness in posting pieces. Sites like Ball Hype and Rotoworld are news aggregators that also offer some analysis. Finally a site like the College Sports Council represents an organization working with issues in college athletics. These websites and blogs were selected through careful scrutiny and application of the Webby Awards and IMSA criteria. The Webby Awards critique sites using six criteria including the use of engaging content and multimedia, ease of navigation, engaging visual design, a high level of functionality, active user involvement and interaction, and an overall quality of experience that garners repeated visits and recommendations from users. The IMSA criteria look at who the blogger is, what material they reference, their influence, the depth of their analysis, the quality and sophistication of their writing, the maintenance and timeliness of postings, their admission of biases, and uniqueness of their viewpoint. These are all goals I hope to fulfill in this blog and look forward to sharing information and opinions and opening a new dialogue on the web.