Why is Mike McQueary the Biggest Bad Guy? The Aftermath of Penn State, and Comparing Reality to the Ideal when Managing Ethics in Elite College Sports

I'm proud to say that I am a former student-athlete. I will back up many of the systematic formalities that are in place for student-athletes and staff, throughout all divisions of sport. However, I have a big problem with the amount of money being thrown around in athletics (elite DI institutions) while other programs on campus continuously go underfunded, losing equipment, resources, student interest, and faculty to budget cuts. Additionally, I don't believe athletes or athletic staff are "above the law" by any means. Yet, I can see why they might think they are.

As the Penn State case continues to evolve, sparking interest, hatred, repulsion, and a growing media frenzy, I'm also starting to consider the situation from both sides of the fence. Yes, I'm a mental health professional, a mandated reporter, and I understand the immediate morality present when witnessing or having knowledge of sodomy and extreme sexual abuse of children. However, I'm not as surprised as many are by the "swept under the rug" actions taken place by witnesses and administrators. Unfortunately, I've seen and heard of a lot of inhumane acts of violence, abuse, and perpetration so far in my young career. For those "famous" in the elite college athletic culture, most hold a high degree of integrity, that we can see. Some do not, and sometimes that becomes public knowledge. Cover your ears if you still believe that everyone is "good" in this country--there is PLENTY of unethical behavior that goes on, both on campus and on road trips, that we don't know about, and probably never will. Are all of these acts unwitnessed? Probably not. Are all of these acts unreported? Probably most are. According to the RAINN (Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network) website, 44% of RAI victims are under the age of 18, in every 2 minutes in the U.S., someone is sexually assaulted, 60% of sexual assaults are not reported to the police, and 15 out of 16 rapists will never spend a day in jail. Jerry Sandusky is one man. One wealthy man. One wealthy man from an elite athletic program, with many "high profile" resources.

In a recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education, Michael Ruse from Florida State claims that amongst a financial recession, head football coach, Jimbo Fisher received a 50% raise (aka $950,000) to his already savvy $9 million five-year contract this past year. Mr. Ruse concludes, "Why would Paterno or anyone else think that the normal rules apply to them? Why would Paterno or anyone else lift a finger to upset the apple cart – or should one say gravy train?" It's a reasonable question, in my eyes. USA Today reports that Paterno alone was bringing in an average of $554,000/year.

Why do you think we have programs such as witness protection? Because many people try to do the right thing by reporting criminal offenses, and when these accusations are against someone in high power, that "witness" now becomes a target of a wide range of physical, financial, and familial threats. Once the Penn State news broke, the Washington Post released a statement that assistant coach Mike McQueary (who attempted to report Sandusky's abuse as a GA) would not be attending the following Saturday's game against Nebraska due to "multiple threats" made against him. Now we watch the world unpack Coach McQueary's character in intense critical fashion. As NBC Sports has stated, upon witnessing a single sexual act (not multiple) with Sandusky and a boy in 2002, McQueary consulted with his family and reported the act to Joe Paterno the very next day. If Paterno and the Penn State University President wouldn't back up the need to take this matter to the police, what makes us so sure if McQueary would've gone to the authorities, he would've been taken seriously? Penn State defensive coordinator, Jerry Sandusky's word against a graduate assistant. Hmm. Something to think about.

By all means, I DO NOT support the multiple errors in judgement presented throughout this entire case at Penn State. My stance in this blog is to simply point out the reality behind a morally and emotionally charged public event. I do believe that all sexual abuse of children should be reported IMMEDIATELY. However, if I was being directly or indirectly threatened, and I was told "the situation is being handled" by my trusted mentor, I probably would think twice about making a report to the police. In the case of Sandusky and McQueary, we don't know why such threats are being made against the witness in this case. Is it because he didn't "make sure" the act was reported to authorities? Or is it because "he got Joe Paterno fired?"

The events themselves are extremely unfortunate, and I am happy to hear that victims are now finding support and freedom to express their voice. Whether this will be a good thing for our country or not, I foresee this Penn State chaos to symbolize to other perpetrators that they are not invincible. My worry is that continued news of the threats against witnesses will now only further stifle those who know of such abuse.

Kylie

Recently a blog was posted on October 9, 2011 by D.K. Withey titled Pay College Athletes? which was a well written blog about the constant argument of should college athletes be paid? The blog stated that out of 332 Division One school athletic programs that only 14 schools had experienced financial gain from their athletics. With that being said, I have to agree with Withey’s conclusion that student athletes should not be paid. Universities can not pay athletes from funds that are not available!

On September 14, 2011, an advocacy group published a report about the fair market value of college athletes and continue to argue that these athletes should be paid. A national college athletes advocacy group presented information stating that Division One football athletes that are bound for a bowl game are worth on an average per player per year $121,000 each. They continue to report that Division One basketball players of the same caliber are worth approximately $265,000 per player per year. The group argues that the players should be sharing the funds like the professional athletes do. They even offered for the funds to be “set aside” and used towards their room, board and other educational expenses while in college and then the remaining funds be available upon graduation. Commercial deals and other promotions were also supported by this advocacy group.

According to some of the data, the football players playing at the bowl level spend an average of 43.3 hours a week during the football season while basketball players spend approximately 39 hours per week. Athletic scholarships are not covering all of the costs for the athletes for them to attend the university in most cases. Many athletes have to subsidize their scholarship money to pay all of their expenses and some of the student athletes do not have the means to pay any additional costs. One football player explained that his room and board included three meals a day but as a football player, he needed to eat five to six meals to replace the calories burned as a player.

I completely agree that student athletes need to have their college costs covered if at all possible. I believe this for a few reasons including the fact that most college athletes do not have the time to work outside their sport nor are they able to make money during the summer months when they are attending training camps, etc. I also believe that since most athletic programs are bringing in some revenues that the athletes college expenses should be covered for the most part.

I do not agree, at all, with the concept of paying amateur student athletes! I believe that being a student athlete is part of the development of the student. I believe colleges would loose credibility if such pay was available to the students. Some schools would be able to pay more then other schools (which already happens with the scholarship money available) but paying the athletes would only create a bigger discrepancy between the schools with money and those without a big budget. The competition would become between a “few” schools instead of the variety that is available now. Also, I strongly believe that the coaches salaries and the athletic director salaries be scrutinized closely at the university level to see where changes can be made to allow for more scholarship money to be available while keeping their salaries at a reasonable level! No to paying college athletes but yes to making sure their reasonable college expenses are covered!

When it Rains - or - How Penn State has Ruined my Thanksgiving Day Tradition

Another weekend of NCAA football has come and gone. I should be irate with the BCS at this point, frustrated that OK State and Oregon and the likes failed to win their games and make a “rematch” unlikely. Frustrated that LSU and Alabama will most likely meet again for the championship in that “rematch” that is now looking like a foregone conclusion. This same old story is supposed to repeat itself each year, just with different teams. This debate is supposed to give me something to talk about with my in-laws over turkey dinner this week. It should be fun to hear their SEC arguments. Sigh.

It doesn’t seem important this year. It doesn’t seem to matter as much. This year I am still dealing with the bitter taste in my mouth from the alleged sexual misconduct at Penn State. The taste keeps coming back, again and again.

New allegations and resignations at Syracuse, an investigation being requested at the Citadel... The story seems to be replicating itself all over. A Bible School in Canada, a High School in Illinois… the list goes on. In each case there is an allegation of someone sexually abusing or harassing a child, and in each case there is an allegation that someone knew and did nothing. In many cases it is alleged that those in the know not only did nothing, but actually attempted to cover up the abuse. What the heck is going on? How does this happen… and how does it happen again… and again? How many more cases are there that have not and will not be reported? How many have been reported and covered up?

A few thoughts here…

This week I have been working on updating my institutions list of Campus Security Authorities (CSA’S) partially in response to an audit taking place down the road. CSA’s are the people who are required to report crime under the Clery Act. The list includes law enforcement and security staff, and any faculty or staff with significant responsibility for student activities. On the surface this makes sense. A deeper examination shows some potential problems. At Penn State a janitor was witness to the alleged misconduct in the shower. The current parameters do not make a janitor a mandatory report. Hmmm… Do the current requirements and definitions really get at those who are most likely to witness a criminal act or violation? Why would we not want to create a culture where more people are reporting crime? Does it make sense to expand these requirements more broadly? Should we do it before someone does it for us?

Schools all over the country have sent out communications to their people in the past few weeks reminding them of the importance of reporting crime and criminal activity. How many of us get these reminders regularly? Is it just an annual notice on October 1^st as required by law or is it part of the campus culture? Why does it take something like Penn State to push us to send out this information? Does it? If your schools do this more regularly or intentionally let me know.

An article in the Chronicle this week points to the tendency to create fear around these issues. Fear of lawsuits, of federal audits, of all sorts of “dangers” lurking in the unknown. The article discusses the market niche being filled by a new organization to “educate” institutions and help avoid these dangers. It seems to both question and support the fear factor. Sadly, fear can be motivating and is something that I keep in my bag of tricks for use on rare occasion. This may be one such occasion. The fact that Penn State faces huge settlements or lawsuits, plus a potential downgrade in credit rating based on allegations should motivate folks to make changes and ensure that systems are working. The fact that legislators in NY and PA are putting forth “Penn State” laws to address and strengthen reporting requirements is concerning. Again, should we make the changes ourselves, or wait for someone else to do it for us.

This post is a little bit random and wanders from point to point. It is frustrating to see how many Penn State’s have been reported in the past two weeks. It is even more frustrating to realize how many more have not been.

North Dakato "Fighting Sioux"

http://www.upi.com/Sports_News/2011/11/01/Tribe-sues-NCAA-to-let-school-use-name/UPI-64071320174769/

The Spirit Lake tribe of Sioux are challenging the NCAA in court regarding the use of the name "Fighting Sioux" by University of North Dakota. Specifically, NCAA's policy banning the use of Native American names and imagery by collegiate athletic teams as the Sioux Tribes feel honored by the "Fighting Sioux" name.

In 1969 the North Dakota Sioux tribal leaders granted "perpetual use" of the name to the school through a Native American religious ceremony.

There are a number of college and professional teams named after various peoples. Some that come to mind are the Fighting Irish, Spartans, Vikings, Seminoles, Aztecs, Celtics, Blackhawks, Orangemen (now Orange), Trojans and Yankees.

Currently the NCAA is banning any post-season games to be held at UND and encouraging other universities to boycott playing UND teams.

Given the history with the UND the North Dakota Sioux tribes are suing based on violation of their Native American civil rights, equal protection rights, and religious rights.

In summary I think it is good the NCAA has been active in addressing stereotypes of Native Americans however, the NCAA needs to examine their "no tolerance policy" and include input from the peoples who are being represented by the University.

Paterno: Here to stay?

Sandusky and Paterno

Joe Paterno, head football coach at Penn State, is being asked by some to resign and others to stay in light of recent allegations against his former Assistant Coach, Jerry Sandusky. Sandusky has been alleged to have sexually abused at least 8 boys during his time with Penn State. There are eyewitness accounts from a custodian, a graduate student, and accounts from boys who allege that Sandusky sexually abused them.

One eyewitness brought it to Paterno’s attention after he says he saw Sandusky shower a ten year old boy and sodomize him in the locker room. It was decided that Sandusky could no longer bring boys to the locker room, but he still had access to Penn State. Law enforcement was never involved and the incidents of possible child rape were never reported to anyone outside the administration. 

McQueary, a former graduate assistant who reported the incident in the shower, reported the incident to Paterno. He is currently the assistant football coach with Paterno.  The question is whether the administration did enough to handle the situation and who actually knew about it. The grand jury implies that President Spanier knew about the allegations and had been reported to him by the Athletics Director, Curley. 

Spanier never contacted the campus police or local law enforcement but testified that he felt he handled the situation appropriately and that Curley has his unconditional support through this. Spanier has now been criticized for his actions and his lack of handling the situation.  It is said this incident was victim six, and there should have been more done.  The mother of one of the sons is extremely upset and claims that Spanier should be putting his unconditional support behind the victims, not Curley. The boys have been through a lot, and deserve more than what they received from the administration. 

The indictment has shown that Sandusky has raped boys over the last ten years and indicates a known pattern and severe lack of judgment by the administration and university officials. The president especially should have taken more severe and legal action against Sandusky.

Many argue that Paterno did what he was supposed to do by reporting it to a higher official. Yes, he could have done more, but when you tell your supervisors or administration something this sever, you would assume that it is being handled appropriately and professionally. Alerting his supervisors immediately after the claims were brought to him has saved Paterno from criminal prosecution for now. Paterno was very clear and concise when recounting what exactly he knew, when he knew it, and how he knew it. 

Critics are calling for Paterno to be fired and the Board of Trustees are meeting this week to discuss what may happen to the coach’s future at Penn State. No matter what happens to Paterno, I think it’s important that we look at what happened with the administration, especially Spanier when these allegations were brought to their attention. If the president knew, why wasn’t more done? Can Spanier be held accountable for knowing any of the information and not doing more? McQueary’s report was not the first that they had received about Sandusky and sexual misconduct. There was even a sexual misconduct investigation by University police in 1998 involving one of the youth involved in Sandusky’s youth foundation, Second Mile. 

Either way, I don’t entirely see the fault falling on Paterno. I don’t think he did anything wrong, but he could have done more right. I believe the administration, especially Spanier should have done more and alerted law enforcement.

New Blogs are open

Current Issues Students:  the new blog have been created for the second half of the course. Each is based on a student recommendation.  You should receive invitations to join these 5 new blogs this afternoon.  If you do not (or if you need the invitation to go to a different email address), please let me know.  The older blogs will remain open for students who want to post in them for this week.

The new blog titles are: Higher Education in Colorado, For Profit, International, Protest and Conflict, and Graduate Education.

Increase Athletic Funding!

An article in the Chronicle of Higher Education highlights a study that reveals a trend in athletic versus academic spending. Before you read the article, I will tell you what you've probably already guessed. The article tells us that in the Football Bowl Subdivision, athletic spending was increased by 50% over the last 5 years. At the same time, spending on academics increased by 22%.

My initial reaction, was the same reaction that I imagine many student affairs professionals, and professors for that matter, have, and that was to curse under my breath and once again claim that the administration just doesn't care about academics, and we are wasting our money on sports when students should be worried about their education. I decided though, that I should check my assumptions and wondered if levels of funding for athletics are really that out of line?

I ask this because in reading the brief article I was left with a question - while athletic funding increased 50% and academic funding only 22% during the five year period, how much revenue did each area produce? Is the 50%/22% split purely a product of the revenue that was created? Probably not, but I wonder if further examination here would make these numbers appear less skewed.

As I have progressed through my first semester of this program, I am trying to check my assumptions and immediate reactions. I think that it is easy for a professional to read a brief article such as this and overreact to the disparity in funding without a true understanding of the situation. Any presented number can appear ridiculous or outrageous, or acceptable and actionable when reported independently. I think it is our responsibility to make an effort to understand the picture more thoroughly.

If we truly do believe that more funding should go to academics, then why? Would we see a marked improvement in success rates? Would we produce more graduates? Will a student in a particular department win a grant for his college or university that can be directly used for marketing and recruitment, such as in athletics? How many students enroll in academic programs because of an affinity that they have developed for a particular school after years of watching their teams? Are we trained to immediately reject the notion of increased funding for athletics in higher education?

Doesn't the move toward neo-liberalism and the consumerism of higher education mean that those of us who view athletic funding as uncharacteristic of the "values" of an institution of higher education, will increasingly be marginalized as those who do not understand the bottom line, and ultimately institutional survival? Is viewing increased academic funding really uncharacteristic of the "values" of institutions of higher education? A review of the history of higher education tells us otherwise. Sports and competition among some of our earliest Ivy League schools were a very large part of the campus experience. We need to be careful to make sure that our grandiose ideas of "proper" education do not super-cede our ability to make sound fiscal decisions in an environment when productivity and the bottom line will continue to dictate our agendas.

It is easy for us to condemn athletic funding when we read statistics such as those presented in the article, especially in light of the current financial limitations we all face. We need to assure that we fully understand an issue before we develop a fully formed opinion. (the irony...I am terrible at this) Sometimes the "sexiness" that comes with falling in line with the majority (Warning: Generalization Ahead - Student Affairs professionals and professors decrying athletic spending as counter to "true" education, especially when the spending is in lieu of academic support, for example) discounts the environment in which we find ourselves. For example, my father always taught me that the best way to learn was from discourse with those smarter than you. Whether he was right or not, this led me to believe that the best way to learn was in small groups, face to face, with an instructor who would help you draw conclusions and develop an understanding of the material at hand. For this reason, I've often wondered what happened to students, a teacher, a field, some logs, and Socrates. I've argued against online learning and claimed that "education is being lost." Is it being lost, or is it adapting? While I might think it will be supported among my peers to say that the value of education is being lost, I came to these conclusions early on in my professional career without a full understanding of the landscape that dictated the shift, necessarily or not. I haven't decided on this tech creep in higher education idea yet.

As some previous blogs have mentioned, even during a time of increased attention on ethical and compensation concerns, and lower than average success rates among college athletes, there are real benefits to the student body and to the institution in putting money into college athletics. It probably takes a fairly significant understanding of not only institutional finance and sustainability, generally, but also the same of a particular institution, specifically, to understand fully institutional decisions to flood money into athletics. (which I do not claim to have) While the 50%/20% seems appalling on its face, I wonder what factors played into these institutions makings these decisions. I suspect that one factor might be the realization that sustainability and growth comes with the ability to generate revenue. If the 50% spent on athletics during the past five years means an increase in academic spending over the next decade, is it less appalling?

Is spending on athletics getting out of hand? Perhaps. A report, THE EMPIRICAL EFFECTS OF COLLEGIATE ATHLETICS: AN INTERIM REPORT (2003), (sorry I couldn't figure out how to hyper link) indicates that "in 2001, NCAA/EADA data suggest that operating athletic spending represented roughly 3.5 percent of total higher education spending for Division I-A schools." This doesn't seem like a whole lot, and I do realize it was commissioned by the NCAA, soooo. I realize that I have more research to do.

(Playing devil's advocate here)

NCAA's "sweeping changes"....really?

It seems like there is a lot of conversation these days about the NCAA and the eligibility of athletes. The conversation keeps stemming from budget issues and as this article says “widespread problems at the elite level of college sports.”

What are these widespread issues? According to this article, they include rising tuition, huge compensation for coaches and very little for players, the academic levels of the incoming athletes, and reading between the lines, the fear of losing the income that a solid Division I program can provide. I would add that one of the widespread issues is the criminal activity of the athletes themselves.

I know that I have spouted my opinions about DI athletics before. But again, I feel strongly because in my professional experience, I have seen corruption in athletics. When I have voiced concern about it others have dismissed it as “that’s the way football is these days” or “at least we’re not like one of those SEC teams…those are the REALLY bad ones…”

This article touches on something that I agree with. One of the proposals about dealing with the issues in major college programs, is to restrict the practice time of players who do not score at a certain level on their SATs or who fall in the lowest 25% for reading comprehension. I think this would be a genuine attempt to demonstrate that the NCAA is about student athletes as opposed to athletic programs.

I am of the belief that it is fair for us to have high expectations for our athletes. I think it is fair to hold them to higher standards because they represent the institution in a very public way. What is wrong with expecting a football program to be completely transparent, above-board, and full of integrity? My cynical answer to that is we can't expect it because it’s never happened.

Let me use the University of Colorado as an example. In Simpson vs. University of Colorado, the appeals court held that the environment that was created by the football program made the sexual assaults of Lisa Simpson and other women inevitable. Who takes ownership for that? The organization has a lot of responsibility for creating a hostile environment but who is held accountable?

Here are my thoughts about what we can do to begin to eliminate the “widespread problems at the elite level of college sports.”

First: Have the academic standards for the players match the academic standards for the average student at that institution. If it is open enrollment, hold them to the standard of scoring at the 50^th percentile. If they do not score at that level, give them the support and option to improve, but restrict their playing time.

Second: Do criminal background checks on the players and coaches. I think it would be a huge statement if a university said that if you have a history of violent behavior, you are not welcome on our team. Some players may need to release juvenile records if that is possible, but the NCAA should take a hard line on allowing anyone with a criminal history to continue to play. Let the NBA be the place where thugs with weapons get rewarded, not a college campus. Yeah, I said it.

An example of where upholding an expectation of a crime-free player would have been helpful is Williams vs. University of Georgia, a lawsuit from a woman who was gang raped by three athletes. One of these athletes had been expelled from not one, but TWO other institutions for sexual misconduct. He had at least one restraining order against him as well. The president of UGA gave him a special exception for admission despite his criminal history because of his athletic ability. UGA settled for an undisclosed amount of money to resolve this case.

Third: let’s hold the coaches to a high standard as well. If the coaches have a player that commits a violent act, take some money out of their paycheck. (Which for the CU Boulder coach is the single highest paycheck of any state employee.) If we make a lack of integrity an issue that creates a financial sanction, I am willing to bet the coaches will step up. If we can't get them to do it because it is the right thing, we can try to get them to do it so their wallet is not affected.

I just spent a week going through a Title IX compliance certification training through an organization called atIXa. We spent full days talking about the cases that have made the Office of Civil Rights feel the need to intervene in the issue of sexual misconduct on our campuses. The overwhelming number of cases that have created concern come from athletics. Someone needs to step up to stop this trend of violence by athletes and it should be the NCAA. We’ll see if anything they do has teeth.

The Fix?: Increase Aid, Multiyear Aid Contracts

As mentioned in previous blogs, there has been a surge of attention directed towards the toxicities that are plaguing the world of college athletics. Athletic conferences and institutions have responded by engaging in conversations and meetings to share ideas and beliefs about what can be done to halt the increase in infractions and wrongdoing on the part of student athletes, coaches, and institutions.

Mr. Brad Wolverton, in an article in The Chronicle of Higher Education, highlights multiple ideas that have surfaced as potential solutions to the many issues present within college athletics. One solution that has received an enormous amount of attention through various media sources is the idea of paying student-athletes to compete in their chosen sport. Wolverton indicates that institutions and conferences are tossing around the idea of offering student athletes an extra $2000 per year in institutional aid. He reports that NCAA president, Mark A. Emmert, supports the idea of offering athletes more money to cover travel and other incidentals. However, it is highlighted that on average student athletes fall short of covering their yearly college expenses by $4000. Additionally, athletes who are on partial scholarships would benefit by receiving funds at a prorated amount.

The article reports that those who have been granted the monumental task of solving the multitude of issues present in college athletics know that offering athletes additional aid is not the ultimate solution. However, they trust that it is "the right thing to do" and may help to send the message that institutions are attempting to make things right.

Another idea that has been formulated is offering student athletes multiyear aid agreements. As it currently stands, colleges are allowed to offer student athletes one-year renewable awards. It is common practice for coaches to meet with athletes at the end of each physical year to determine if they will, in fact, receive funding for the upcoming year. If players aren't meeting expectations on the playing field or in the classroom they run the risk of having their aid significantly reduced or completely taken away.

Other ideas that have been given consideration are eliminating nontraditional season competition, reducing the number of football and basketball scholarships offered to potential student athletes, and reducing practice time for students athletes who qualify for admissions but fall below the 25th percentile. Many of these ideas are in the beginning stages of development and will take some time to be voted on and implemented in the various divisions in college athletics.

From what I have read in previous posts, being a fan, and a former college athlete I'm not convinced that the ideas mentioned in this article will have any impact on college athletics. I'm confident that offering student athletes an additional $2000 per year will be much appreciated on behalf of these athletes. However, I don't believe this solution will keep those student athletes who are making an abundance of money from selling their memorabilia from doing so. It is no secret that larger institutions make millions of dollars off of marketing their student athletes. I worry that athletes will view the offer of a few thousand dollars as a "smack in the face" rather than a symbol of gratitude on behalf of university officials.

In my experience, it is extremely difficult for an athlete who is meeting the minimum GPA requirements to lose his/her scholarship. Many coaches will give the athlete every available opportunity to keep their funding before deciding to pull the plug. After all, it doesn't benefit team camaraderie or the institutions numbers if student athletes are forced to leave campus. So will offering multiyear aid agreements help to encourage support, cooperation, and positive behavior from athletes? I wouldn't hold my breath. However, anything is worth a shot in this day and time.

Readings

If you have not received the readings for tomorrow evening please let me know immediately so I may send them to you. It is critical for tomorrow's class that all students have completed them.

1 point for Academic Eligibility

A recent article of Inside Higher Ed stated that the NCAA will raise the academic eligibility standards for incoming freshmen and transfer students in Division I. The NCAA announced that it will require Division I teams to have at least half of their teams on track for graduation in order to be eligible for postseason play. This comes out of the NCAAs attempt to improve the respectfulness of college athletics. This new measure will affect the students who are already playing college sports and if they fall below the eligibility status, it will affect their scholarships. According to the director of the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, this new standard will greatly improve the old eligible standard (which has been in play for 10 years) and send a strong message to future incoming student athletes, that college is serious about academics. This measure would even the playing field between academically prepared student athletes and the non-prepared. Because it is unfair for student athletes who are not ready to do college-level work and receive the same financial assistance, to that of those student athletes who are college prepared.

I found it interesting that incoming freshmen student athletes are admitted on a sliding scale. Which means that he or she can score low on the SAT, but if they have a high GPA they can still be admitted. Academic advisors of athletics claim that this practice has brought about academic fraud and high school graduation grade inflation hasn’t helped either. Research by Gerald S. Gurney, a past president of academic advisors of athletics, found that students who were part of a Bowl Champion Series scored very low on the ACT, had very little learning skills, and had trouble reading. Gurney concludes that it is easier to be eligible today than it was 8 years ago. Although this measure raises the bar in terms of academic eligibility, proponents of the measure say the next item for reform is imposing an SAT minimum score.

As I educate myself on the controversial issues regarding student athletes and their college education, I am finding all sorts of wrongdoings. I guess I have heard about things such as student athletes getting paid to play, gifts, impermissible phone calls by former coaches to prospective players, etc. I mean the list goes on and on. As a future student affairs professional, these are issues that I will definitely have to deal with and fight for major improvements to look out for the student athlete who in most cases won’t make it in the pros. It’s obvious that most coaches/recruiters don’t have any idea of what educating the holistic student means; all they want to know is what the student athlete can do for them and not vice versa.   

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/08/12/ncaa_division_i_raises_academic_bar_for_athletes_may_consider_lifting_sat_scores_needed_for_eligibility

Too Competitive, Too Soon

Athletics drives many college students to develop their time management skills, leadership skills, and requires them to make academics a priority. Playing sports in college also requires a lot of physical training; practice, games, and strength training. Athletic trainers have started to notice the dramatic increase in sports related injuries and a drastic increase in the amount of injuries (more than double)!

We regularly hear on the news, in the media, and from our medical providers to get kids enrolled in sports and make sure they are being active. We are supposed to encourage them to start at a young age so they understand the importance of physical activity and how to take care of their body; this may be creating the opposite effect.

Kids are recruited at a younger age each year, and athletic children are often enrolled year round in different sports with 44 million children playing sports.  Additionally, students are invited by college campuses to participate in different sports camps and tournaments. Students push themselves even harder during trainings and games to prove they are scholarship worthy. Students who experience more wear and tear earlier are more likely to get injured in college.

Coaches and athletic trainers have started to notice the trend and even if they don’t get injured, they will probably experience burn out opposed to those kids who played less or in a lower level of competition. They say these athletes are coming with “baggage,” which makes them more difficult to manage and may even discourage coaches from offering students a spot on the team. One coach said he would rather recruit a student who has played multiple sports because their bodies have developed differently and all the strain wasn’t put on the same areas of their body meaning less chance of injury.

Students are training and practicing more than 30 hours a week, football players logging about 40 hours a week, and they are playing year round once they get to college to stay competitive and in shape. What does this mean for the athletic training staff? There are too many injuries and not enough staff to help treat them. The costs are continuing to rise and they have to treat more and more athletes who are getting injured in college.

I am a huge proponent for college athletics, and I think it does great things for the students who are involved, but we have to take care of our students and make sure treatment is available to them before we go any further. Athletes are pushing themselves too hard and too early after an injury because they want back on the field, court, or arena and don’t want to lose their spot on the team. It’s the responsibility of the athletics department to be sure that athletes are truly ready to return so they do not suffer more permanent injuries that might cut their college athletic career even shorter.

However, I think we can also see the problem starts way before students reach college. How do we change the way we view athletics and competition? As higher education institutions, I guess the only thing we can do is try to be sure the athletes we do recruit are healthy and that they stay healthy. 

Finally Something Positive about College Athletes!

I love college athletics but get so frustrated when most of the news reported is about problems, challenges, or bad behaviors of athletes. The developmental part of me says "give them a break their students." The fan in me doesn't need to always know every detail and action of their lives. In this media driven culture, its almost unavoidable to not hear negative media about athletes. So when this video came across my facebook page, I was ecstatic to see something positive going on in college sports. 

This video is only 6 minutes long so I would encourage you to watch it.

Hudson Taylor is a former NCAA wrestler now turned coach at the University of Maryland. From his own experiences, he has started a nonprofit program for NCAA athletes to stop using negative and hateful homophobic and transphobic speech in practice and game environments. In the video, he shares that based on his own undergraduate experience and ally developmental process, for him to create athletic environments where negative emotion is not targeted onto an population of people, specifically the GLBT community.

In watching the video, I am happy to see someone in an athletic area take on such a monumental task. This cannot be easy (especially because he alluded to the fact that coaches are guilty of this language as well.) In a culture like college athletics where language and use of hate language is present and popular, Hudson's cause goes against the gain of what an everyday environment could be for an athlete. As a diversity educator, I only dream that my students would do the unpopular thing in the hopes of changing a culture of negative language and hate speech. What he's doing take courage and in my opinion, guts.

I am also happy to see that a straight, white man from the sport of wrestling is leading this cause. Most of the time, if their is a anti-hate language movement in college sports it does not usually come from a male athlete and from a more physical sport like wrestling. While any anti-hate language movement is important, I believe that to truly change the culture and penetrate a long tradition in sports, any fitting a "typical" athlete stereotype would create more movement and change.

I do want to challenge one point Hudson said in the video. He shared that as a coach, he does not want to force his values and program on his athletes. I can understand that. However, as a coach, you set the tone and values of your team. I hope he is role modeling to his athletes the values he has as an ally and coach.

I am curious, do you think a program like Hudson's could impact the language used by players and coaches in college athletics?