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?

Pay College Athletes?

Student Athletes.

The word “amateur” stems from the Latin root word of “ama” which means love. To be an amateur means that you are participating in a sport because you love it. The USGA’s home site states that: “An ‘amateur golfer’ is one who plays the game as a non-remunerative and non-profit-making sport and who does not receive…”
(http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Amateur-Status/Amateur-Status/).
If the purpose of an amateur athlete is someone who cannot receive money, then the argument of whether or not athletes should be paid should be answered there. The majority of the debate on whether or not athletes should be paid stems from recent argument about how much revenue college athletics are grossing from TV rights, cable channels, video games, and ticket sales. There are two main ideas that always come to mind when thinking about this amateur status, both of which relate to the Olympics. First is with Jeremy Bloom. He was a football player at the University of Colorado and also a part of the US Ski team. He was receiving endorsements through the Olympics and this put him in violation from the NCAA rules of receiving gifts, even though these had nothing to do with him playing football.
(http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=1867015).
The other is with the 1980 US Men’s Olympic hockey team at Lake Placid against the Soviet Union. This was such a huge event because it was a team of collegiate hockey players versus professional Soviet hockey players. It was a few years after this that the Olympic went from a purely amateur status event to allow “the best in the world” and opened the door to profession athletes as well. At the time, it really irritated me that Bloom was never allowed to receive his endorsements from USA, however, my viewpoint has switched and I believe that students should not receive more than their allowance they receive and the monies that are allocated to them in different ways through their four years in college.
At first, I thought that athletes should be paid something outside of their scholarship due to the amount of revenue that teams are pulling into the schools. However, after searching more into how much colleges are actually making off these amateur athletes, there are only a handful of schools that actually work in the black with their revenue sharing. http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2011/09/college-athletes-should-not-get-paid/245390/.
This article mentions how out of the 332 major Division I schools programs, only 14 actually operate while making a financial gain. The reason why money is being lost, Davis states, is due to the large operating costs of an athletic program; private jets, huge athletic facilities, academic support, and of course, over-inflated coaches salaries.
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20110330/1apayplayers30_cv.art.htm.
USA Today discussed how Derrick Williams, a basketball player for the University of Arizona, hit a $1.4 million free throw for his college. By him making his free throw allowed the University of Arizona to move on to the Sweet 16 bracket, bringing in $1.4 million from just the TV rights. NCAA is reported to make $771 million dollars from ESPN and Turner Cable for the 3 week time period of the March Madness tournament. Five years ago, I brought my high school golf team to the University of Arizona for a golf trip and to spend the day with the golf coach there and have him explain what it really takes to be a D-1 athlete. He took us through the gym, through their tutor facility, their training room, underwater treadmill room, their huge weight room, nutrionist, etc. The point of this is that the athletes actually never have to go to campus. They attend their tutor sessions within the gym and can get much of their work accomplished within these classes, especially with how much school they miss because of golf tournaments. It is no wonder that almost 90% of these D-1 programs are operating at a loss. This is a major market to get these kids to become professional athletes. The coach for the golf team specifically told these players that he can make UofA the best place on Earth, but the bottom line is that his job is to win. If these golfers can’t shoot below par on their own home course, they don’t deserve a scholarship. It is a very competitive market.
With all this, I don’t see that the kids should be marketed and sold as a young adult. IF they make it professionally, they can market themselves and make all the money they want. But as the records show, universities are actually losing money. Maybe one day when D-1 schools are all operating on a balanced budget where they are not losing money, then the discussions of whether or not athletes should be paid, but until then, do what colleges are supposed to be doing to ALL their clientele, and that is preparing them for life AFTER college.

College Credit for Student Athletes

I have always been highly supportive of collegiate athletics. While there are certainly multiple flaws on many levels, there are just as many positive aspects associated with the experiences surrounding college athletics. It is easy to point out academic scandals and integrity issues, but we must not forget the benefits of campus community, social experiences, and learning opportunities, all created by college athletic programs. College athletics definitely create positive experiences for those involved. Sally Jenkins takes this argument one step further by suggesting college athletes earn college credit for their efforts.

Before anyone overreacts about basketball player earning credits for sinking free-throws, let us all take a deep breath and consider the topic at hand. First of all, the thought process here does not actually have a foundation in rewarding college credit strictly based around on field efforts. Instead, the idea is to build a college major around the idea of athletics. If athletics is truly what an individual is interested in, then that individual should not be dissuaded from pursuing that interest as a career. Jenkins suggests offering courses such as Introduction to Sports Law, The Origin of Sports, Making up the Rules, and Sports and Public Policy. Additionally, athletes would earn credits for their time spent preparing and participating in their selected sports. The idea would produce a major that would be a hybrid between athletics, business, and a sport management major.

Jenkins makes a great comparison to other majors, and a connection that I had not previously considered. How would the proposed Sport major differ that greatly from a dance, drama, or music major? Those students learn the history and business side of their fields, as well as earning credit for performances, just as individuals in the Sport major would. This idea is brilliant. In essence, one could expect an increase in graduation rates among athletes, because they would not be forced into a major that they had no interest in. An athlete would actually still be pursuing what they are truly passionate about, and for those that fail to reach their ultimate goal of a professional career, they would be able to fall back on the hundreds of other job opportunities that a Sport degree would allow pursuit of. Of course, if the Sport major was too close to the athletics department, there could still be issues with athletes being pushed through the program and receiving passing grades that were not actually earned. This would have to be closely monitored by the university.

Another good point raised by Jenkins suggests that such a major could also help to reduce talks surrounding paying student athletes. Just as a drama major does not receive portions of ticket sales after a theater production, a Sport major would not be entitled to portions of revenue after playing in a basketball, football, or volleyball game. To me, this argument makes perfect sense. The on-field experience would simply be part of an individual’s Sport major experience earning them credit, not a right to a portion of the revenue.

On the flip side of this argument are comments by Ralph Nader stating that college athletics are dumbing down society. Nader suggests eliminating all athletic scholarships and recognizing college athletes as employees of the university. He assumes that this would eliminate many of the problems surrounding collegiate athletics.

Eliminating scholarships and recognizing athletes as employees would not only create an entirely new world of problems, but in essence it would simply create new professional leagues. If students want to watch professionals play they have the option of attending Major League Baseball, National Football League, And National Basketball Association games. If student athletes are eliminated from college athletics then the entire basis of college athletics is eliminated. While I recognize there are issues with college athletics, elimination of college athletes is the easy way out that actually is not really an option at all.

In regards to creating a Sport major for college athletes, it is an idea that deserves serious consideration. It would be very similar on many levels to a drama or dance major. Of course, there would soon be an argument that the major is discriminatory because not everyone has an equal opportunity to be a part of the major, because not everyone is talented enough to be a college athlete. To that I would say that not everyone is talented enough to be accepted to Julliard or earn an MBA from Harvard either. The fact is that college athletes are interested in sports. They live for sports. Why not give them a chance to earn a living doing what they live for?

Making the Grade: Helping or Hurting Minority Athletes?

For over fifty years there has been an ongoing debate about the minimum academic requirements a potential student athlete must meet in order to compete at the collegiate level. As Gerald Gurney writes in his article, in The Chronicle of Higher Education, the NCAA has fluctuated between lowering and raising the minimum requirements for incoming student athletes. As recently as 2003 the NCAA has made changes to its requirements and attempted to design the standards to be more accepting of athletes who may not perform as well on standardized tests. These changes to the standards were partially motivated by the NCAA's attempts to offer minority students increased access to higher education and opportunities to graduate. The NCAA Clearinghouse implemented a sliding scale for grade point average and standardized test scores while eliminating the minimum requirements of a 17 on the ACT and a score of 820 on the SAT.

Mr. Gurney argues that the NCAA has failed in its efforts to provide opportunities for minority student athletes. He explains that not only have the changes resulted in minimal increases in participation and graduation rates, the overall process has had adverse effects on institutions of higher education. What has resulted is a large number of students who qualify due to lowered test score requirements and these same students are entering college with inadequate skills to meet the demands of the rigorous academic course load they are sure to face. Mr. Gurney notes that this not only hurts the student, but the institution as well. Due to the increased number of student athletes who are entering college unprepared, institutions are having to pour money, time, and energy into academic support services.

Mr. Gurney's solution is to re-establish minimum eligibility standards for incoming athletes and utilize a minimum standardized test score. He recommends that the NCAA include an additional evaluative component that determines whether or not potential student athletes have the reading and mathematics abilities necessary to be successful in college. He campaigns for presidents and coaches alike to avoid putting the winning traditions of college programs at the forefront and instead think about the well being of the student athlete who may be a better fit for another institution.

In response to Mr. Gurney's article John Infante, Colorado State University, wrote and article that was published in the Chronicle of Higher Education where he explained that it is far too early in the process to determine if the changes made to the NCAA eligibility standards have had an effect on student athletes. The Academic Progress Rate (APR) has been designed as a measuring stick to assess a student athletes eligibility, retention, and progress towards graduation each academic term. Mr. Infante argues that the incoming class of 2005-2006 was the first class to be recruited with an eye on meeting APR standards. Thus the impact of the changes made in the most recent eligibility requirements will not be known until late 2011 after the data can be calculated from the 2005-2006 cohort.

Mr. Infante posits that Mr. Gurney jumped the gun in his assessment on the changes made to the eligibility requirements. He believes it will take another 11 to 14 years for the NCAA to complete its analysis on the eligibility requirements. He faults Mr. Gurney for labeling the project a flop midway through the process and adds that doing so places unreasonably high standards on the NCAA and its members.

As a former African-American student athlete this debate resonates with me. I must admit that my support for lowering academic eligibility requirements for incoming student athletes fluctuates like the Colorado weather. Often times I reflect on my personal experiences when I was a high school student trying to determine where I was going to attend college. I have never considered myself to be a great standardized test taker and more often than not my scores served to validate my beliefs. However, my success or lack thereof on standardized tests never carried over into my classroom performance. My high school GPA along with the development of the sliding scale allowed me to entertain the thought of enrolling at universities that would not have been available to me if I were judged on my test scores alone.

Another part of me believes that "lowering the bar" is never a good idea and sends the wrong message to student athletes. Throughout my career in athletics I observed many athletes who had little to no desire for learning and their performance in the classroom reflected this. Although I agree that some students struggle to learn the skills necessary to succeed in college, others suffer from a lack of desire to earn an education. My fear is that lowering the bar may increase the number of student athletes who have a strong desire to compete in athletics and a far less desire to pursue a degree. If my fear is, in fact, a reality then I believe the NCAA is doing more harm than good by providing opportunities to some athletes who have no desire to capitalize on them.