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 50th 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.
I see your argument as an attempt to "level-out" student athletes and the general student population. Well, I'm going to agree with you, and push you back in the same way.
ReplyDeleteYou proposed to "restrict the playing (or practice) time" for athletes who score low on their entry level SAT's or who fall in the lower quarter of reading and comprehension. Understandable. However, what about the general student population? Those who score in the same ranges, what do we do to "punish" them as well? Restrict them from going to work? Ground them to their dorm rooms?
You state, "What is wrong with expecting a football program to be completely transparent, above-board, and full of integrity?" I say nothing is wrong with this, but you also say "because its never happened." Do you have data to back that up? I know MANY football players who portray these qualities. I understand and respect a subjective opinion, and I also see there being a difference between subjectivity and discriminated bias.
Per your proposed solutions, I have a couple of comments. For your first solution, having academic standards as equal across the board, from student-athletes to non-athletes. I agree with you here. I also think that this is in place in many more universities and colleges than you might believe. I was an athlete, and I received no breaks in academia compared to my non-athlete peers. I do know it happens, but it is not a majority by any means.
Second--do criminal background checks on all athletes and coaches. Really? First of all, who is going to pay for that? Most likely the general student population. Secondly, you stated athletes are often seen in the public eye--you're absolutely right, so why do you think you hear of these "acts of violence" more often in areas of athletics than the general population? General population--just more statistics, student-athletes/coaches--news. Same with celebrities, popularity equals more media attention.
I do not condone violence in any form (I'm a DV counselor), but I don't agree with the tendency to point the finger at any one population for not being punished or held accountable. Just as an example, the shooter on the VA Tech campus wasn't a student athlete. He would have been coined a member of the "general student population" who was upset about other issues he had with the university. I appreciate the attempt to take a more proactive approach to ending violence and elitism, but there are many other circumstances and populations to take under consideration for implementing changes.
These are both great areas of discussion. I think that athletes do get more "perks" than the general student population. The mandatory study halls, the tutoring, "test files", and more importantly, the constant overlooking of grades from coaches and advisors for athletes. They get the push of getting their athletics taking away once they are on academic probation. general population students may not have the drive to improve as an athlete getting their playing days taken away from them. To me that is a perk.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the SAT scores go, the athletes do get an advantage getting into college with lower scores than the general student because they are giving something back to the college. They are giving the college a source of revenue by playing a sport, and in turn that student is given the opportunity to go to college where he/she may not have without playing a sport. Is it fair to say to put that athlete on limited practice time for their grades to slip..yes. I believe they should be help accountable for their academic achievements as well as their athletic performance. The general student does have the option of being grounded to their room or cutting back on their work hours if they aren't cutting the grade, but that is up to them. This is another "perk" athletes have because someone is constantly watching over them.
I do agree with Kylie that athletes are in the spotlight more so than other students. They are the celebrities on campus. The rapes, fights, cheating, etc that occur everyday on campus don't make the headlines, but they do make the Police Beat in the back of the school newspaper everyday. There needs to be actions taken for that, but those are more times than not handled by the coaches, which usually means a loss of playing time, even for drinking underage, which I have seen. Further, paying for background checks would come off as a really bad idea I think because of how much colleges have increased costs already...if tax payers have to pay for this, that would be horrible.
Mel, I do agree that athletes need to curb their extracurricular activities, but I think that comes directly from the coaches expectations of them. In the end, the coach is the guy who recruited them, so he knows the background already before they stepped on campus. If alumni wants a person in the school, they will get that person in the school. But, it the players are doing something that goes against the teams policy, it is up to the coach to decide. Example, the 4 CU football players that were caught stealing at the end of last year. The new CU coach kicked them all off the team because it went against the team he was trying to put together. One of the kids was a good friend of mine's son. Stupid mistake after stupid mistake. "Kids" know what they are going to get away with, so they will keep doing it until something bad happens to them, even if that means losing playing time.
I agree with Kylie that student athletes are in the spotlight therefore more attention is drawn to their failures and bad choices than the general student body. In this sense, you cannot compare these two populations equally in terms of scandals or crimes. It is like comparing oranges to apples.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Meloni that holding our student athletes accountable is important. However, we need to be careful about the generalizations we make about this population as a whole because their grades, behaviors, and issues are different from one athlete to the next.
If the attempt here is to "level-out" student athletes and the general population then the general student population should be drug tested, background checked, and punished for their test scores too. I completely agree that we need to set academic standards for our student athletes but I do not agree with punishing them for their test scores. First, these scores are not related to their performance as a student at the current institution. Second, what about the students who have learning disabilities, ADD, or perhaps personal/family struggles that have impaired their learning or test taking abilities? How can we possibly punish these students? We should be providing support, not punishment. While I know not every poor test score may not be due to a learning disability, we must consider this possibility. In this case, restriction of practice time is not fair to students with personal or learning struggles.
Unfortunately, I do not believe there is an easy, cut and dry solution. As this blog and the comments before me suggest, it will always be a struggle to find a balance between keeping our student athletes accountable and not generalizing/inappropriately punishing them.
My very first comment on the athletics blog…
ReplyDeleteI’m struck by your comment “I think it is fair to hold them to higher standards because they represent the institution in a very public way”. This reminds me a lot of statements often made about Greek organizations. In the case of a student who has chosen to join a fraternity or sorority, he/she has made a choice to join a values based organization which espouses character, service, and other similar traits in the membership. Greek organizations are held to higher standards because they publically claim to represent higher standards. Theoretically the Greek organizations select their members based on characteristics and traits which fit the organization’s values. Then, they have a period of training about membership in the organization which also theoretically includes training on living those common values and representing the organization accordingly.
When a student chooses to play a sport however, isn’t he or she just signing up to play? Sure, the expectations of the institution and the NCAA apply, but is it right to expect each student athlete to be a public ambassador of their team or institution, simply because they play the sport? I don’t know that it is.