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).
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.
A very enjoyable read. A lot of educating needs to be done regarding the true costs associated with college football.As you point out (but which can still be made much clearer) is that only a small handful of institutions actually generate any revenue from their football or mens basketball programs, and most programs annually cost the institution a large chunk of change. In fact, if your proposal were to be taken seriously, I would guess that between 60-80% of programs would be cancelled immediately (even more if you factor in DIII schools. One problem is those darn alumni...who are often not happy about getting rid of programs or writing checks to cover actual costs. And BTW, one of the most significant costs that has only recently entered into our thinking about college contact sports are the long term effects of brain injuries.
ReplyDelete