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.
I agree that it seems a bit odd that student-athletes are punished when athletic departments can't meet APR standards, especially in years three and four. Last time I checked student-athletes weren't responsible for determining whether or not recruits are equip with the level of character and skills necessary to perform in the classroom. I'm willing to bet that coaches would have a different mentality when recruiting if, lets say, they took a ten percent pay reduction each year their team fell below the minimum APR requirements.
ReplyDeleteI don't want to relieve student-athletes of their responsibities. In my experience in college athletics many athletes carry the mindset that "I'm here primarily to play sports, if I happen to get a piece of paper with a degree title on it... Great!" With this irrational thinking guiding many college athletes it's no wonder why academic success, or lack thereof, among student-athletes continue to surface as a hot topic.
I trust that refining the consequences for athletic programs who fall below APR standards will not only serve to protect the athletes, it will encourage athltetic departments to give more thought to the students they invite to attend their institutions.
I agree that punishing an entire institution's athletic program is too severe and I can not imagine it ever happening. However, I think that holding a particular sport at a specific institution is a good idea in general. It is harsh and seemingly unfair to potentially punish players who were not even enrolled for some of the years that led to the programs ineligibility but there has to be some 'stick' to hold institutions accountable. As it now stands, the temptation to admit prospective students who will make a team more competitive even though there is almost no chance the student will be academically successful is too strong. As I see it, there are few other ways to hold a program accountable.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI have a suggestion to help students focus on academics. What if the NCAA made an agreement with professional sports leagues that a students' alma mater would only be mentioned if they graduated? That is, if a college player decided to leave a year early, when announcers and statisticians posted their name, their high school (not their college) would be listed. If they graduated, their college would then be posted.
ReplyDeleteThis is exactly what wide receiver Donald Driver requested. He left college early to play for the Green Bay Packers and he was always cited as having played in high school, until he finished his degree a few summers ago and his 'resume' was updated. Who knows how much this would affect students, but I think it's a step in the right direction.
Per your post, I do think the NCAA has imposed strict regulations, but I also think you live and die as a team. Holding you accountable for your teams behavior is something every team knows well - if you get a penalty on the field, the entire team suffers. Team sports encourage discipline and teamwork, by imposing these regulations, the NCAA may recognize that there will be increased accountability for academics among players.
I am in complete agreement that the last two policies seem to be harsh and unfair. I believe that such policies actually work against the system by promoting athletes to take "easy A" classes and therefore, not striving for the requirements of a degree. Or looking at a degree that are considered easier than others. These types of policies don't allow for the students to develop themselves academically when their coach is telling them to lighten their load, take easier courses, etc. so they may stay eligible and not effect the overall score for the program.
ReplyDeleteI went to college with a golfer that was very successful. He took several self study courses that were not completed by him. I remember one semester he had a history course and an economics course that were "self study" (similar to the online courses today) and he paid an individual to complete them for him. All because he had to keep his load light, stay eligible and keep his coach happy. He did eventually graduate with a business degree but not in the most academically honest environment.
Student athletes need support, encouragement but not the pressure of ruining it for the entire team. That seems to be excessive punishment especially for those athletes that are doing their part and holding themselves personally accountable.
I am on the fence about this……..I see the need to recruit student athletes to campus and the talent search gets more narrow at the college level. There is a reason students should be in college, not just to play sports, but to get an education. At the same time, some students may not get the access to education without their athletic talent.
ReplyDeleteThere have been some comments about team and what that means to be a part of a team. I would agree that one spoils the bunch-this is very true in teams. I would lean towards penalizing the one team member to not play versus penalizing the whole team. I am interested as to what support is being implemented to help student athletes not get to this level? Or if they do, support to get out?
For some college athletes, their sport is how they identify and what does it look like when we remove possibly the one thing that brings them engagement to our campus?
Lisa, I think it's fair to say that most people agree with you that the penalties seem harsh. I agree with you and I am not a previous collegiate athlete (have you seen how tall I am?!).
ReplyDeleteLike others have stated though, I do agree that there should be accountability - not on an entire school level - but at the very least a team level. I believe accountability should be considered on a team level, a coach level and a player level. By and large, I believe the individual player level goes without being said. Many players (and Lisa said so herself) make absolute sure they are academically eligible to participate. I think the issue here is when student athletes are not dedicated to their academics and have an "I'd do anything" attitude. This situation is where one gets into cheating, etc. just like Cindy eluded to.
To me, this is where coaching staff should be held accountable. If a student-athlete is being academically dishonest, they're held accountable whether it be by a faculty member, the institution or the coach. Bottom line, the coach should back up the faculty and institution to hold the student responsible for their actions.
There can also be accountability as a team. Like Beau said - you live as a team, you die as a team. I never played collegiate varsity sports but even in high school there was pressure from teammates for everyone to stay academically eligible. If a teammate was struggling and needed help, we did what we needed to do. If that meant we did homework on the bus to help that person, that's what we did.
I'll leave it at that since most of my other thoughts would be repetative of what others have said.