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.