Transgender Athlete Equality

When I first saw the blog topic of College Athletics, I figured that there was no way that I would find an article or topic of interest in this category that would intrigue me enough to write a blog post about it. College athletics was almost the antithesis of my being. I was the scrawny, uncoordinated geek growing up, much more interested, and much more successful, in books and my studies than I ever was in athletics. I attended a very small, rural high school where excellence in athletics was revered. Along with that success came social status, which further confirmed my place as a second-class citizen in that community.

Further solidifying that notion of being second-class, whether it was simply internal or prompted by society, was the knowledge that I was different. Growing up in such a small community, and before the advent of the internet, I didn’t have a way to define this feeling of being different. Once I had the means to self-identify, pressures from society and religion prevented me from coming out as a gay man. Unfortunately, this repression led to years of internalized homophobia, guilt, fear and shame…emotions that no one should have to endure simply because of who they are.

Thankfully, today’s society is becoming much more accepting of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender rights. The conference of equal rights is quickly advancing as society becomes more accepting of LGBT individuals. More states have adopted equal marriage rights recently. Laws on immigration rights of bi-national same-sex couples are currently being debated. Even the military has seen great advances, with the demise of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Despite the recent advances in LGB rights, I believe that the average American does not understand what being transgender truly means. This lack of knowledge often leads to fear of the unknown, which confers into discrimination.

One of the areas of society that has typically been more discriminatory is athletics. Over the years, the world of athletics has been a bit sluggish in allowing equal access for women, persons of color, persons of different ability status, and individuals who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual. In a recent move, however, the National Collegiate Athletic Association effected a policy change that moved them to the forefront of transgender rights. Based on suggestions from a report from the National Center for Lesbian Rights and the Women’s Sports Foundation, the NCAA has adopted an official policy on the inclusion of transgender athletes in collegiate sports “to ensure transgender student-athletes fair, respectful, and legal access to collegiate sports teams based on current medical and legal knowledge.”

I believe that this is a huge leap forward, as athletics have typically been fairly homophobic and transphobic. From the NCLR report titled On The Team: Equal Opportunity for Transgender Student Athletes: “In fact, most school athletic programs are unprepared to address even basic accommodations such as knowing what pronouns or names to use when referring to a transgender student, where a transgender student should change clothes for practice or competition, or what bathroom or shower that student should use.”

The policy change, and the associated best practices, will assist school administrators, athletic directors, coaches, and fellow players with rules that will standardize the acceptance and inclusion of transgender athletes. The policy changes affect NCAA rules regarding mixed teams, as well as the use of banned substances, which in this case, means testosterone. Basically, the new policy allows a student to play on the team of the gender with which they identify, so long as the effects of testosterone have been mitigated. For a female to male (FTM) athlete, this means that the student would be allowed to play on the men’s team, but, due to the hormone treatment undertaken if going through transition, would not be allowed on the women’s team, unless the team designation is changed to mixed. For a male to female (MTF) athlete, the student would have to undergo one year of documented testosterone-suppression treatment to be allowed to play on the women’s team.

While the policy is still slightly discriminatory, it does set forth some progressive standards that will help pave the way for greater inclusion and equality for transgender student athletes. In opposition to the previous progression, athletics may actually be helping to advance equality, instead of lagging behind society in inclusion.

Are the New Academic Requirements for Division-1 Athletics Too Strong?

Lately it seems like collegiate athletics have undergone many changes. This past summer the buzz was about the conference shuffle: the reorganization of conferences to include new teams. More recently, an article in The Chronicle of Higher Education was published that discussed a possible new academic benchmark teams must meet in order to avoid penalties.

For student athletes, the big word is eligibility. Student athletes are always on a continuum regarding their motivation and dedication to their educational pursuits. While some may be more committed to their academics than others, each student athlete knows the minimum requirements to remain individually eligible to compete in their respective sport. It is a simple concept- student athletes who do not remain academically eligible do not compete.

For athletic departments, the big word is Academic Progress Rate (APR). Each Division-1 team’s academic achievement is monitored in order to hold each institution responsible for their student athletes’ academic success and progress. How is an institution’s APR calculated? Basically, each student athlete, who is being awarded an athletic scholarship, can earn a point for two categories: staying in school and remaining academically eligible. A team’s combined total is then divided by their total points possible and then multiplied by one thousand points. A four-year average is calculated and currently, any team that falls below an APR of 925 may face penalties.
Typically, if a school fails to meet or surpass a 925 APR then they may lose academic scholarships. The recent article reported a new, even tighter consequence for schools with poor APR scores: disqualification from participating in post-season play. The NCAA website highlights consequences increasing in severity each year a school does not raise their APR above 925. The first year a public warning letter is issue for their poor academic performance. The second year the team may face a reduction in athletic scholarships. The third year the team may be excluded for possible post-season play. The fourth year a team fails to meet the APR benchmark, the entire athletic department will no longer be considered a part of Division-1 athletics.

I generally support accountability efforts and setting high standards to strive for achievement but I have concerns about the magnitude of these consequences. I believe the first two actions (a public warning letter and reduction in athletic scholarships granted) are appropriate penalties for a team falling under a certain academic achievement standard. The last two, however, seem extremely inappropriate. First, the reason for eligibility rules is to keep individual student athletes accountable for their academic success. Individual athletes should not be punished and disqualified from post-season play as a penalty for the entire team’s academic performance. The APR is a four-year average so what about younger players on the team being punished for academic failures that began accumulating before they even graduated from high school and joined their collegiate team? To take this even further, the consequence for the fourth year a school does not meet the APR benchmark punishes every single team within the athletic department by striping each team of their Division-1 status.

As a former Division-1 student athlete, I always ensured I was academically eligible to compete in my sport. I would be furious if I was not allowed to participate in our post-season play because of my team’s APR, or even worse, not being considered a Division-1 team because of another team’s APR within our athletic department. I have a difficult time seeing how these consequences made it into effect. I understand my opinion may be bias because I do have a background as a student athlete so I invite varying viewpoints concerning this issue.

Student driven sports expansion

Everyone is familiar with the endemic lack of funding higher education is having to deal with across the country and how many institutions are struggling to meet the needs of the students under these conditions. However, what if the situation is exasperated by the institutions own students in the direction they would like to see the university expand? This is precisely the position the University California, San Diego (UCSD) finds itself in. http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/students/03-14ProgramTransition.asp

UCSD is a school most well known for having received a generous endowment left in the late Howard Hughes estate to fund the medical school (to such an extent tuition is of no cost to the student) and for the marvelous library, the Geisel Library, donated by everyone's favorite children's author, Dr. Suess. It is not often people associate sports with UCSD even though it would be rationale to do so given the schools population of 30,000 students and recent dominance in Division II sports. The UCSD baseball team has won the NCAA West Regional Championship two years running and their woman's soccer team was runner-up division champions last year. UCSD also works to embrace the concept of student-athelete with 64 Academic Achievement Awards and 84 students being named to the All-Academic teams in their respective conferences. In addition, more than 55% of the athletes have a GPA of 3.0 or greater.
So imagine the surprise and dismay of the faculty and staff when a survey of students asked how to improve the school resulted in moving the schools athletic programs into a Division I status (Division I-AAA due to a lack of football program).

Professor Ivan Evans fears the pursuit of higher sports at UCSD will spoil the historical environment of pure research and academics. http://chronicle.com/article/Students-Dreams-of-Big-Time/129055/ Professor Evans stance is completely understandable given the ongoing controversies which seem to plague big time collegiate sports eg the recent University of Florida booster scandal however Professor Evan's stance my not supportable in the athletic environment UCSD has nurtured. As aforementioned the majority of student athletes are exceptional students at an academically exceptional institution. These student athletes and student fans are simply continuing with the excellence expected of them. These students strive to be successful in the classroom so it is only natural they would pursue bigger challenges on the sports field. Given these students have achieved continued national recognition for their sports programs on a budget derived from student fees is remarkable and speaks to their dedication.

The topic comes full circle as we return to the subject of money and finance. Transitioning to a Division I (albeit AAA) school is likely to be very expensive given the move towards more student athletic grants and expanded team travel and other commitments required of a Division I school. Furthermore, a feasibility study has been engaged to determine whether or not UCSD should start a football program and in a financially tight situation, as the University finds itself in, many may see this a confrontation between sports and academics when it doesn't have to be.

This process of changing to a Division I school is likely to take several years, especially if they are going to make a football program a part of this change. During this time, since UCSD is a student driven institution the Division change is most likely a foregone conclusion, UCSD needs to start fund raising from various school supporters and other entities who would potentially gain from UCSD having an enhanced sports program as it is unlikely the state of California will be able to assist financially for the foreseeable future.In taking the initiative to develop it's own income and funding streams UCSD will become less dependent upon the state while moving to meet not only the academic needs of the students but their competitive needs as well.

Responding to "Student-Athletes" in the Classroom--Professor Expectations and Attitudes

Student-Athlete. Simply looking at the hyphenated description of this role leads us to a place of dual assignment. Student or athlete? Truthfully, I believe there should be an “and” between those two terms, rather than punctuation. But does one trump the other in the eyes of educators? What is your initial reaction to hearing of these individuals in your classroom? In my experience, I have hesitated to bring this to the fore-front with professors (as an undergraduate). What would they think of me? Would they want to know what sport I played, what position, or how we were doing this year? Would they ask about my interest in the class, or what major I had yet to choose? Basically, would I be embraced or shunned? It seemed as though I had very dualistic expectations from professors at Minnesota State University, especially those in the psychology department. What kind of DII college athlete could possibly move on to be successful in the field of mental health, after all?

Interestingly, through my career playing for the Dragons, I had mixed experiences with professors. On both ends of the spectrum, I’ll state two examples (again, here I go thinking dualistically!).

Dr. C. was a quote-unquote “hard-ass” in the psychology department. She was originally from Greece, carried a thick accent, and a “be ready to work” attitude that radiated from her appearance through her syllabi. Dr. C. was a statistical genius, instructed both of my stats courses early on, and happened to have an 8:30 a.m. specialty class in Psychology of Language the fall of my senior year. With my lifting, individual practice, team practice, and fall-ball game schedules already set in stone for the year, this class fit in well for coursework. Did I forget to mention, my team practices were held from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. Monday through Friday in the winter? You may already see where this is going. Due to Dr. C’s demanding presence and obvious expectations, I guess I shouldn’t have been surprised to see that on my first morning of class, only one other student decided to also take this “elective.” So there we were-- me, one other female psychology student, and Dr. C. from 8:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. every Tuesday/Thursday morning for the next fifteen weeks. The course was interesting, I will never deny that. However, I guess my 20-year old body and mind could only maintain for so long in “concentration-mode.” Let’s skip the rest of the details and get to the point of this paragraph. I don’t think I will every forget the utter horror and overwhelming embarrassment of coming to class, sitting down, listening to the beginning of a lecture, pencil in hand…and suddenly, I look at the clock—it’s 9:40 a.m… I had been asleep for the past 20-30 minutes, easily. Holy s***. Dr. C. is going to kick me out of this class, fail me, or at least tell my advisor or coach…I mean, she has to right? Let’s forget asking myself if she had noticed…there were three people in the room! To my amazement, ten more minutes passed, the other lone student left the room, and Dr. C. looked at my terrified face and said, “Tough practice this morning?” Although it was, I couldn’t help but repetitively apologize, offer to make it up to her, and of course promise it wouldn’t happen again. Dr. C. told me not to worry about it. She said she understood my demanding schedule and time commitments, and that she couldn’t do what I do everyday. She handed me a hard copy of the Power Points I had “missed” that day, and told me to hang in there. Dr. C. had never been an athlete, and she was the last person I expected to empathize with me. I never fell asleep or even felt drowsy in that class again.

This brings us to the other side, with Dr. T. Psychology of Women, Tuesday and Thursdays from 2:30 to 4:00 p.m. the spring of my senior year—prime game time for a softball player in Minnesota (due to weather, 62+ games were shoved into a 6 week stint). Yes, I should have not taken this course at this time. Looking back at the decision, maybe my arrogance as a successful athlete eroded into an area where it wasn’t welcome. It was my last semester, I was in the psychology honors club, I was an all-conference athlete, how could Dr. T not understand if I had to miss a few days, right? Wrong. Very wrong. Dr. T. was originally from Indiana, described herself as a “feminist for the ages” and a headstrong activist for GLBT voices on campus. She wore a nose-ring hoop, dressed in a manner that quietly (maybe not so quietly) stated “I will not be held down by dress codes,” and I’m pretty sure when she held class, everyone on that level of the building could hear what we were talking about that day. I had given Dr. T. my game schedule along with travel times early in the semester, as I did with all my professors. She didn’t seem to have any problems with my student-athlete identity then, I was optimistic. Let’s bring us to ground zero—a take home, written test…essay format…she assigned 8 questions, we wrote an essay on each question, and turned in the entire paper one week later. There were no dates on the syllabus, Dr. T. preferred to keep this an open discussion. A discussion I had missed. I was gone an entire week (games both Tuesday/Thursday), and returned on class the following Tuesday to find that everyone was turning in a hefty stack of stapled paper. Everyone accept for me. I approached Dr. T. after class to explain that I hadn’t even received the assigned questions, let alone began my work. Her response was very much limited to a couple of “too bad’s” and how I need to be “accountable to my education as an adult.” I'm pretty sure she did state verbatim, "Last time I checked, you were a student first." Slight pity must have entered Dr. T’s awareness after this…maybe she noticed I stopped breathing. “Ok, young lady. You have until 8 a.m. tomorrow morning. Email me your essays.” Thank you so much! I mean, crap! Ok, it’s now 4:05…I’m already late for practice on these days, but practice until 5:30, I don’t have to work tonight, ok…I can do this. To wrap up how my evening went, I emailed Dr. T. at 4:30 a.m., submitted five of the eight essays I was able to complete, and asked if I could submit the rest by the next afternoon. Exhausted, I slept for a few hours. Around 9, I checked my inbox. A response from Dr. T...my heart dropped to the floor. Due to the incomplete nature of my assignment, she would not be considering any of the work I had submitted for credit. Oh no. No. I was a senior…I was graduating in just over a month…this was one of two exams that I now was getting zero credit for. Could I even pass the class? No, I couldn’t. That means no graduation. What the hell do I do now!? I’ll leave it be to your imagination how I handled this situation, but we will say that it ended with an official meeting between myself, my coach, Dr. T, and the Dean of the Behavioral and Social Sciences Department. Apparently, that little sheet of paper I gave her at the beginning of the semester was my “excused absence” statement from the University. I was allotted one week from my notification of the assignment to complete the essays, I finished the course, and I’m pretty sure that’s the hardest “A” Dr. T. ever had to enter into a gradebook.

Taking these two long-winded explanations of two of my experiences under consideration, I do see that I was treated differently than any other student (with no hyphen) on campus. I can't deny that at all. I was given exceptional treatment, and also was held accountable to standards that were impossible for me to meet. Of course there were professors within the gray area (some just rolled their eyes, some didn’t care, etc.), but this got me thinking about the perceptions of the student-athlete on campus, mainly by professors. Looking through The Chronicle of Higher Education, I came across an article that discussed these notions, and also included racial prejudices and stereotypes when paired with presenting student athletes; “Black Athletes and White Professors: A Twighlight Zone of Uncertainty.” Here, the author (a Caucasian professor at Louisiana State University) wrote of his experiences with a young African American student-athlete in his English class. He describes “not expecting much” from this group that sat in the back of his class, and was shocked and intrigued by the student who wrote exceptionally well. This student was approached to discuss her work, and the student automatically felt the need to defend herself against suggested acts of plagiarism. Through a humbling experience, this professor went on to identify five behaviors/attitudes that may keep student-athletes at a distance, especially African American students in this case.

Overlooking—“they are just here to play sports, not to learn”

Lowered Expectations—“they don’t have anything meaningful to contribute.”

Cutting Off—professors may cut student-athlete comments short by looking away, looking at the time, or refraining from additional discussion on the comments

Intensified Scrutiny—looking for flaws in an athlete’s work

Negative Comments—“they think they can do what they want,” “this university is spending too much on sports as it is”

Obviously, not all professors are guilty of this discrimination, but it is noticeably talked about and experienced. It was by me. I played for a DII institution of limited merit in the region. What are the experiences of DI athletes? DIII? Are some of these opinions attributed to direct experience or by stereotypes alone? There is a much larger scope of interest here worth commentary. All I can say for sure is that being a student-athlete was an incredible experience for me. It shaped my identity as a person and a professional. I wore my jerseys with immense pride. I worked hard for my University on the field, and just as much in the classroom. I hope by sharing my experiences and reflecting on experiences of others, we can broaden the discussion of stereotypes in higher education regarding student-athletes.

Kylie #14 ;)

Drop the Ball: Really??

For several years there has been a growing concern for the state of college athletics at the Division I level. It is a rare occasion that one can tune in to an episode of Sports Center or read a sports magazine without coming across a story that captures the scandals and infractions that plague the culture of college athletics. What has resulted is a media frenzy that portrays the attempts made by athletic departments, conferences, and institutions to devise game plans to put an end to this frenzy, once and for all.

Lewis Margolis, Inside Higher Ed, campaigns for universitiegs to "Drop the Ball" by abolishing Division I athletic programs, football and basketball programs in particular. The argument is that the flawed state of college athletics costs institutions millions of dollars due to the time and energy exhausted by administrators and lawyers who are in charge of responding to NCAA investigations. In addition, universities exhaust numerous resources cleaning up the mess caused by college athletics and repairing the institutions tarnished public image.

One of the arguments that Mr. Margolis highlights in his article is his belief that universities should refrain from pouring more time and money into institutions that already expose athletes to professional sports opportunities. I do agree that participation in college athletics increases the exposure for athletes who are blessed with an abundance of talent and skills and are hoping to transition their talents to the next level. However, this exposure benefits less than five percent of college athletes in the sports of football and basketball. Do we penalize the vast majority of student-athletes because a small percentage will capitalize on the opportunity to take their skills to the next level?

During my time as a student-athlete at the University of Northern Colorado, I was a member of a team that was known more for its violence within the team than its on-field performance. Our back-up punter stabbed our starting punter in a desperate attempt to gain more playing time. I can recall walking out to practice only to witness the likes of ABC, CNN, and ESPN consuming our practice field. To say that the football team had put UNC on the map for all the wrong reasons was a gross understatement.

Nevertheless, what I remember more than the chaos that ensued was how we, as a team, persevered through a time of trial. How our head coach, Coach Downing, reminded us that we would not let the actions of one affect the positive impact that we worked hard to create in our community. The lessons I learned through that season in particular has served me more than any lesson I have learned in the classroom.

Although I agree that the culture of college athletics is in need of serious reform, abolish it? What message would this send to students? When your problems in life are too difficult to fix, get rid of them, run from them, take the easy way out. Getting rid of college athletics is in complete contradiction to the lessons I learned throughout my time in athletics. Lessons of team work, perseverance, and combating adversity. I can't help but wonder what would be the result if this same plan of abolishing all organizations that have been plagued with unethical behavior was applied to other areas throughout the United States. What if our government adopted this same policy? Would we have a government today? What about academic institutions? A quick search of the web and one can find endless stories from institutions that paint the picture of unethical behavior on the part of students, staff, and administrators. Do we shut down all institutions of higher education?

College athletics, while flawed, should not be abolished. The pros far outweigh the cons when weighing the long term affects of such drastic measures. The leadership skills, work ethic, responsibility, and camaraderie that are leaned through team sports such as football and basketball are lessons that cannot be developed in the classroom. While I believe those who campaign for the death of college athletics have good intentions, they sadly underestimate the long term consequences for students and universities alike.

Controversy in American College Sports: A Solution

College athletics stir controversy in American society today. Perhaps more than ever before. As the finances of college sports now rival that of major national corporations (Division I Football generates about $ 2 billion in annual review alone), the clash between the values of supporting big-money entertainment ventures (primarily Division I men's football and basketball programs) and the overall academic mission of higher education becomes more pronounced. As annual athletic program budgets at a plethora of higher education institutions across the nation continue to escalate in a kind of athletics budget "arms race", the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics weighs in:

The current financial downturn should be a wake-up call for all programs. It has significantly refocused academic priorities and even forced some institutions to ratchet back spending on sports—primarily by paring teams in lower-profile sports, thus curtailing opportunities for student-athletes. However, even with this new reality, top programs are expected to have athletics budgets exceeding $250 million by 2020, based on data from the past five years. Even for the largest and best-positioned universities, a $250 million athletics budget serving an average of 600 student-athletes is untenable (see Figure 4).

University of Miami President Donna Shalala- Former U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services Director in the Clinton Administration. Miami's football program is currently under NCAA investigation for numerous violations.

This clash of values is perhaps best summarized by Sports Illustrated columnist Michael Rosenberg, who writes:

If major college sports did not exist, nobody would try to create them -- not as we know them today. The entire enterprise is preposterous. If there were no college sports, 100 school presidents would never issue the following press release: "We have decided to create sports teams to represent our universities. We will have to admit a lot of students with inferior academic records solely because they can play football or basketball, but hey, we're cool with that. Anyway, what matters here is that we can make billions of dollars doing this, and we're not going to let the players have anything beyond room, board, meals and a few other sundries. Not only that, but we will not allow ANYBODY to give them money. We have decided money is bad for them. It ... uh ... corrupts! Yes. It corrupts. Now: Who wants to buy a personal-seat license?"

Besides the obvious dichotomy created by many of our nation's leading academic research universities simultaneously operating big-business entertainment operations and venues, there is the issue of athlete exploitation, particularly with regards to how it relates to African-American young men. An issue perhaps most eloquently discussed by Taylor Branch in a much-discussed article in the Atlantic magazine, where Branch likens the treatment of African-American athletes in big-time college athletics to that of the plantation economy.

Clearly Distinguish Between College Athletics and Big-Time College Athletics

The problem I have with the well-meaning criticisms of the Knight Commission, Branch, commentators in the media, and other critics of the current system of college athletics is that they almost always conflate Big-Time (i.e. Division I men's football and basketball) programs with all of college athletics. They don't carefully, clearly distinguish between the two. And this lack of clarification results in confusion among the American public, who come to believe that college athletics in general is commercially corrupted, according to a national poll arranged by the Knight Commission. This is unfortunate, because big football and basketball money has not demonstrably corrupted the other over half a million students participating nowadays in up to 22 different sports at the NCAA Division I, I-AA, II, III, NAIA, and unaffliated junior college levels. Indeed, Federal studies (not NCAA, which are very questionable in this regard) continue to indicate that students participating in most organized team sports graduate at higher levels than the 62% rate for all college students (especially female student-athletes). And, their coaches are not paid millions, but rather salaries in line with the rest of higher education professionals. (Interestingly, studies also indicate that when racial differences are accounted for, graduation rates for male athletes overall exceed that of non-athletes, including among African Americans football players).

There is a problem with general college athletics in that income generated from big-time men's football and basketball programs are used to subsidize other athletic programs on many campuses (instead of, say, significantly subsidizing academics in general), but this is not an indictment of college athletics in general, but rather an issue involving budgetary priorities. Whether, say, the men's and women's volleyball teams at a given college or university are losing money or not shouldn't be a problem tied to the television and bowl-game revenues of the men's football team. The volleyball team budgets, rather, should be responsibly analyzed from perspectives relating to the overall academic mission of the given institution, including deciding how much team travel, training facility costs, and so forth, impact the entire University/College's ability to deliver on its overall academic and civic promises to all of its students.

A Solution to the Clash of Values: Divorce Big-Time Men's Football and Basketball from Higher Education Operations

The high-profile, media-exposed problems involving college athletics almost all involve issues directly related to the larger Division I men's football and basketball programs. The multi-millions earned in television and major game/tournament participation. The withholding of the vast majority of this largesse from the hands of those arguably most responsible for the money made -the athletes (who are in large-part African Americans hailing from modest or impoverished economic backgrounds). The relentless pressure placed on University administrators and regents to build ever bigger and more expensive football and basketball facilities. The often abhorred contact and relationships between prominent athletes and those seek to profit from their talents, including agents, boosters, car dealers, professional sports teams, and the like. All of these problems and more are almost always related to the operations of roughly 70-80 national college men's football and basketball programs each, involving about 8,000-10,000 total athletes each year, and some 2000 associated coaches and staff members. That's it. That means a miniscule 1.5% of our college athletes and their respective coaching staffs are directly involved in this humongous ruckus (granted, men's baseball programs and women's basketball programs are also relatively high profile sports compared to, say, lacrosse, cross-country, water polo, wrestling, and even golf and track and field nowadays, but they are not remotely close to men's football and basketball in revenue production. For one of many examples, the University of Colorado currently earns about $16 million in gross income from men's football and basketball; other all sports combined -a loss of $13 million).

The solution to many of the problems mentioned above? Divorce big-time college men's football and basketball programs from their higher education co-dependents. Turn these high profile programs into professional clubs that are sponsored by the given University in the way of leasing the club facilities, medical practitioners, and other services. No longer will the University have any direct relationship with these de facto professional sports teams. Television revenue, major game revenue, and sales of paraphenalia like jerseys, hats, programs and such will go solely to the club, as with a professional sports team. Significantly, the club team will withdraw from the NCAA and its hypocritical demands for amateurism, and form with other participating clubs its own sanctioning, regulatory body. And of course, players will be paid and accomodated as professional athletes, but with no direct affiliation with the sponsoring university. For these 8,000 to 10,000 athletes, they will essentially become like minor-league baseball players, who will be paid a salary and who can utilize leased accomodations that will be removed from as far from the other university dormitories as possible. And their salaries will be dictated by the market. Just as with minor-league baseball players, some will make a great deal, others not. And they will be undoubtedly approached by union proponents in order to bargain collectively for their own welfare. Club participation will be voluntary; those university programs choosing not to participate can still offer football and basketball on the non-professional level, as they already are at the Division II and III levels.

My idea isn't exactly novel; Andy Staples of Sports Illustrated has a similar proposal, one inspired by a reader of his named Chris Daubert. Staples advocates a conversion of Big-Time college football to a club model similar to that currently used by the National Intercollegiate Rodeo Association, interestingly. The difference between my proposal and Staples' is that I advocate tranforming major men's basketball programs in with the same way (Staples is afraid that, since the NCAA makes far more money from administering men's basketball competition than football, it would be more difficult to replace the NCAA with a new regulatory and administrative body. I frankly don't understand this logic).

Of course, there is going to be an understandable outcry from those passionate and/or well-meaning critics who will be afraid that -by cleanly separating mega revenue-producing men's football and basketball programs from university operations- athletic programs across the spectrum will greatly suffer at each institution. Because, as detailed by the NCAA research division, only some 14-25 of about 1000 total NCAA Division I, II, and III athletic programs realize a financial surplus each year, entirely attributable to their big budget football and basketball programs. But as the same report points out, only the very biggest and most successful programs typical realize annual profits, and that they must continue to win most of their games on a regular basis in order to realize such profits. To essentially bank the athletic program financial health of all 1000 NCAA schools and the unusual success of about 1.5-2.5% of its members seems to be foolhardy economics. Better to balance the athletic department budget in ways agreeable with the stated institutional mission and not dependent on ephemeral major television contracts and bowl game wins, and with boosters and political supporters who mainly care about self-aggrandizement and wins and losses.

How about the beliefs held in some quarters that success in big-time college football and college basketball increases enrollment (the so-called Flutie effect), school reputation, and even overall academic standards? Many such positions were researched and refuted in a detailed report commissioned by the NCAA (although, to be fair, other studies are more equivocal or contrary with regards to the Flutie effect). But what about the educational opportunities this proposal would take away -once and for all- from African American athletes who choose to play for a university-sponsored professional club team, instead of simultaneously enrolling in academic coursework? I would say, that's fine. Good on them. For those 8,000 to 10,000 athletes talented and motivated enough to succeed, allow them to make $25,000 to $50,000 or much more a year (plus perks like subsidized housing, food, endorsement deal income, etc.) to play a sport they presumably enjoy, while working with each athletic club association to agree to provide blocks of time for student college attendance, if the given student so decides (but then allow the given student no slack in academic admissions; if they can only qualify for junior college enrollment based on general student population admission standards, so be it). And if a given player is good enough to move on to employment with the NFL or NBA or some European club, all the better. But meanwhile, channel some club profits into providing well-publicized mechanisms for each athlete via their unions, in partnership with club association administration and sponsoring university leaders, to begin or continue their college studies upon departure from the playing field. Let the presumed 50-65+ schools interested in each sport to create their own conferences based on regional and economic considerations, with championship playoff competitions included. Let them work out revenue sharing mechanisms to keep competition vibrant. And while the clubs may no longer be financially connected to their sponsoring institutions, they and their fan bases can continue to use institutional team names and other allowed traditions and rituals to maintain and promote passionate allegiance.

Each "sponsoring" university would receive licensing income from each club in exchange for receiving team naming rights, as well as facilities and service-related leasing income with respect to stadium use, medical personal service, and other operational necessities, as agreed between each entity. Each club in turn would be become entirely financially self-sufficient based on ticket receipts, television and major game contracts, and paraphenalia sales. If clubs suffered major financial setbacks, there would be no obligation by the sponsoring university to intervene. As with NFL and Major League Baseball teams, regional and state governments could then decide upon the will of the electorate if such aid is warranted (although one research study finds no statistically significant boost to a community's economic well-being with popular college football games). If some clubs decide to withdraw from professional association, let them and allow others to take their place. Let the marketplace decide as with higher-level professional leagues.

If other college sports like men's baseball or women's basketball become so financially impactful in terms of earning potential, allow them to pursue the professional club option as well. Meanwhile, return the universities formerly conflicted with big-time college financial temptations, headaches, and numerous ethical concerns to the unadulterated mission of educating the whole student in ways truly beneficial to the common good. Force them from within and without to address the alarming issues of comparably low African American and Latino enrollment and success rates on their own merits, without the distracting narrative of a tiny minority of exceptionally gifted if under-compensated athletes to shift attention from the larger issue. Meanwhile, big-time university administrations will be forced to deal with athletic budget shortfalls in terms of overall institutional priorities, instead of using transferred television and big game revenues to paper over losses.

According to the earlier cited poll of the general public on the issue of college athletics, there appears to be real preference among the American people for a scaling back of higher education involvement in big money athletics, and a re-emphasizing among such institutions for a re-commitment to academic values and traditions. Let us act on this reservoir of good will and formally transform big-time college men's football and basketball programs into the professional sports organizations they effectively already are, in order to strengthen the academic focus of the world-class research institutions they are generally affiliated with.