10-27-2005, 03:02 PM
For Immediate Release
Saturday, January 8, 2005
The Myths of College Sports:
Debunking the Four Great Commonly Held Misperceptions About Intercollegiate Athletics
By Dr. Myles Brand
At the NCAA 99th Annual Convention
Dallas, Texas
This month, I begin my third year as president of the Association, and this is my third State of the Association speech.
In my first speech, delivered a little more than a week after taking office, I said that my efforts on behalf of intercollegiate athletics would be led by the twin guideposts of advocacy and reform. These two pillars are as important today as they were two years ago.
Last year, I spoke about the collegiate model of athletics that I believe is and must be value based. Athletics must be fully integrated into the educational mission of its home university or college. I have spent the past year talking with groups across the country, building on that theme and helping differentiate college from professional sports.
Today, I want to provide some observations on what I have come to see as commonly held but generally inaccurate perceptions regarding intercollegiate athletics. I want to debunk four of the great myths about college sports. Doing so will set the stage for progress and advances in intercollegiate athletics.
By necessity, my focus will be limited in these remarks. In particular, I have to leave for another occasion a much needed discussion concerning fairness and equity in the current hiring practices of college sports.
The paucity of African-American head football coaches in Division I – as well as in Divisions II and III – and women in high positions from head coaches to athletics directors, is simply appalling. The search process used to identify individuals for high level positions is not universally open and fair.
I can find no moral justification for excluding from serious consideration qualified persons who are not of the over-represented race or gender. While some progress is being made, for example, the increase of African-American males in Division I athletics directorships and men’s basketball has achieved a critical mass of head coaches, there is a great deal more that must be accomplished in many areas.
As one of my colleagues told me during the first week on the job in January 2003, there is no shallow end to the pool we call intercollegiate athletics. You simply have to dive in and begin swimming.
The advice was correct. It is not possible to merely get your feet wet or tread water; it’s a complete emersion from the first day.
However, I have been able to observe intercollegiate athletics with a fresh eye. As a university president for nearly 15 years, I was no stranger to intercollegiate athletics, but the administration of college sports was not my primary focus. The last two years in the office of NCAA president has led me to better appreciate a uniquely American experience – the relationship between athletics and higher education.
Let me make clear that I have great respect for the enterprise and for the presidents, conference commissioners, athletics directors, other sports administrators, and for coaches and student-athletes. If you had followed me across America the last two years and visited with these individuals from campus to campus, you would have come away uplifted. I have met countless individuals who believe that what they do or support on the field or court is critically important to the development of future citizens and leaders.
And they are right.
To give one example, the Division II National Student-Athlete Advisory Committee made a decision more than a year ago to embark upon a fundraising initiative with the Make-A-Wish Foundation. With the help of Division II institutions and conferences, they met their goal almost ten times over! This is only one instance of incredible success beyond the athletics arena.
This is citizenship and leadership of the finest kind. This is what the majority of the athletics programs in the NCAA are doing. This is the energy for public good generated by the majority of student-athletes. This is what college sports is about – day to day and year to year.
At the same time, I have also come to understand that there are often repeated, commonly held, mostly apocryphal, but sometimes self-fulfilling perceptions of intercollegiate athletics that focus on the worst cases and burden the balance of college sports to such a degree that the value and values of the enterprise are largely obscured.
Let’s be honest. Myths exist because there is a modicum of truth to the perceptions that then evolve into popularly accepted lore. The four myths that I will identify here have associated with them concerns that need serious attention. I am not a Pollyanna; all is not right with college sports. There are serious and complex challenges. But without reservation, we can say that these four areas are far more myth than reality.
Myth No. 1: College sports is more about sports than college. The perception is that student-athletes on their own or because of pressure from their coaches disproportionately attend to athletics skill development and winning than to the classroom and getting an education. These are athlete-students, not student-athletes.
That’s the problem, according to this view. Intercollegiate athletics, as a component of the university, is failing at its most basic mission – educating student-athletes.
The evidence, however, does not support the myth. This fall, the NCAA released the latest federally collected and federally mandated graduation rates for students and student-athletes at NCAA member institutions.
These estimates are too conservative. The way the federal government calculates the rates, transfers who leave an institution – no matter their academic standing – count against the institution, and those who transfer in and earn their degree never get counted at all. In addition, the government only tracks those who are on scholarship, so while a significant portion of Division I student-athletes are included, a much smaller group are counted in Division II and the numbers are virtually meaningless for Division III.
Nonetheless, student-athletes in both Divisions I and II graduate at a higher rate than the student body – two percentage points in Division I, eight percentage points in Division II. Women graduate at higher rates than men, whites graduate more often than blacks, but all demographic cohorts among student-athletes, including African-Americans, graduate at higher rates than among the general student body.
However, and this is why the myth has grown, football student-athletes and more so male basketball student-athletes – the two highest profile sports – graduate below both the student-athlete rate and the general student-body rate for both Divisions I and II. In Division I, the differential in football is modest, five percentage points, though in men’s basketball, it is truly problematic with a differential of 16 percentage points.
Although some leave to try their hand at professional sports, there are not nearly enough of these young men to explain the disappointing low numbers. The bottom line is that too many student-athletes in these two sports are simply leaving before they earn a degree.
Make no mistake; there is a real concern about the numbers in these sports in both Divisions I and II. And Division III has its own concern about under-achievement among student-athletes compared to the rest of the Division III student body. A year ago at this Convention, Division III passed some of the most sweeping reforms in many years to refocus the time and attention of student-athletes on their educational goals.
This is an ongoing initiative for the Division III Presidents Council as it looks to the future and works to define the philosophical underpinning of those 421 Institutions. Results from a membership-wide survey shows overwhelming support for the emphasis Division III puts on academics. This is important work for the division as it sets an agenda for the years ahead.
In April of 2004, the Division I Board of Directors approved a package for academic reform that raised the bar for both incoming freshmen and enrolled student-athletes. To participate in college sports in Division I, high school student-athletes must present a significantly higher level of academic preparation than ever before. And enrolled student-athletes have to make genuine progress term by term toward a degree. The Committee on Academic Progress is meeting at this Convention to define the parameters for these penalties for specific sports teams that fail to achieve team-wide educational success.
These measures will change the culture of college sports. Success as a student as well as an athlete, simply, is the only acceptable standard for the future in college sports.
Student-athletes and their coaches will continue to focus on their sports during their seasons. It would be a denial of human nature to expect otherwise. And by the way, the available research data show that student-athletes do better academically during their season than when they are not competing. The academic reform measures are designed to increase the graduation rates of student-athletes in Division I to bring to fruition the educational process for student-athletes.
One other piece to this myth that should not be ignored is the claim by cynics – based, in all fairness, by some evidence and considerable anecdote – that student-athletes are directed to easy courses, worthless majors and accommodating professors.
I have not seen a reliable and empirical measurement for the extent of this problem. But this I know. Some courses are easier than others. Some majors are more obviously career based than others. Personally, I seriously doubt that, to any appreciable degree, faculty members are more accommodating to student-athletes. In fact, student-athletes sometimes claim that the opposite is true, that some faculty members intentionally fail to accommodate their needs for travel and other aspects of student-athlete life. But the main point is that all of these courses and majors are available to the entire student body.
The academic integrity of an institution is primarily in the hands of the faculty. They create and approve the courses and curriculum, and they set the standards for instruction. You cannot bring national policy to bear on the courses or majors or instructors a student – or even a group of students – select. And you cannot monitor or dictate the content of courses or majors from off-campus; that is an abridgement of academic freedom.
We presume that the courses and majors offered are worthy of the university. If they are not, shame on the university faculty. If student-athletes are deliberately herded into courses and majors that do not allow them to emerge with an honorable degree or a quality higher education experience, shame on those who permit such practices.
Recently, the football coach of a major Division I-A program was quoted saying, “I was hired to win; I wasn’t hired to graduate student-athletes.
Saturday, January 8, 2005
The Myths of College Sports:
Debunking the Four Great Commonly Held Misperceptions About Intercollegiate Athletics
By Dr. Myles Brand
At the NCAA 99th Annual Convention
Dallas, Texas
This month, I begin my third year as president of the Association, and this is my third State of the Association speech.
In my first speech, delivered a little more than a week after taking office, I said that my efforts on behalf of intercollegiate athletics would be led by the twin guideposts of advocacy and reform. These two pillars are as important today as they were two years ago.
Last year, I spoke about the collegiate model of athletics that I believe is and must be value based. Athletics must be fully integrated into the educational mission of its home university or college. I have spent the past year talking with groups across the country, building on that theme and helping differentiate college from professional sports.
Today, I want to provide some observations on what I have come to see as commonly held but generally inaccurate perceptions regarding intercollegiate athletics. I want to debunk four of the great myths about college sports. Doing so will set the stage for progress and advances in intercollegiate athletics.
By necessity, my focus will be limited in these remarks. In particular, I have to leave for another occasion a much needed discussion concerning fairness and equity in the current hiring practices of college sports.
The paucity of African-American head football coaches in Division I – as well as in Divisions II and III – and women in high positions from head coaches to athletics directors, is simply appalling. The search process used to identify individuals for high level positions is not universally open and fair.
I can find no moral justification for excluding from serious consideration qualified persons who are not of the over-represented race or gender. While some progress is being made, for example, the increase of African-American males in Division I athletics directorships and men’s basketball has achieved a critical mass of head coaches, there is a great deal more that must be accomplished in many areas.
As one of my colleagues told me during the first week on the job in January 2003, there is no shallow end to the pool we call intercollegiate athletics. You simply have to dive in and begin swimming.
The advice was correct. It is not possible to merely get your feet wet or tread water; it’s a complete emersion from the first day.
However, I have been able to observe intercollegiate athletics with a fresh eye. As a university president for nearly 15 years, I was no stranger to intercollegiate athletics, but the administration of college sports was not my primary focus. The last two years in the office of NCAA president has led me to better appreciate a uniquely American experience – the relationship between athletics and higher education.
Let me make clear that I have great respect for the enterprise and for the presidents, conference commissioners, athletics directors, other sports administrators, and for coaches and student-athletes. If you had followed me across America the last two years and visited with these individuals from campus to campus, you would have come away uplifted. I have met countless individuals who believe that what they do or support on the field or court is critically important to the development of future citizens and leaders.
And they are right.
To give one example, the Division II National Student-Athlete Advisory Committee made a decision more than a year ago to embark upon a fundraising initiative with the Make-A-Wish Foundation. With the help of Division II institutions and conferences, they met their goal almost ten times over! This is only one instance of incredible success beyond the athletics arena.
This is citizenship and leadership of the finest kind. This is what the majority of the athletics programs in the NCAA are doing. This is the energy for public good generated by the majority of student-athletes. This is what college sports is about – day to day and year to year.
At the same time, I have also come to understand that there are often repeated, commonly held, mostly apocryphal, but sometimes self-fulfilling perceptions of intercollegiate athletics that focus on the worst cases and burden the balance of college sports to such a degree that the value and values of the enterprise are largely obscured.
Let’s be honest. Myths exist because there is a modicum of truth to the perceptions that then evolve into popularly accepted lore. The four myths that I will identify here have associated with them concerns that need serious attention. I am not a Pollyanna; all is not right with college sports. There are serious and complex challenges. But without reservation, we can say that these four areas are far more myth than reality.
Myth No. 1: College sports is more about sports than college. The perception is that student-athletes on their own or because of pressure from their coaches disproportionately attend to athletics skill development and winning than to the classroom and getting an education. These are athlete-students, not student-athletes.
That’s the problem, according to this view. Intercollegiate athletics, as a component of the university, is failing at its most basic mission – educating student-athletes.
The evidence, however, does not support the myth. This fall, the NCAA released the latest federally collected and federally mandated graduation rates for students and student-athletes at NCAA member institutions.
These estimates are too conservative. The way the federal government calculates the rates, transfers who leave an institution – no matter their academic standing – count against the institution, and those who transfer in and earn their degree never get counted at all. In addition, the government only tracks those who are on scholarship, so while a significant portion of Division I student-athletes are included, a much smaller group are counted in Division II and the numbers are virtually meaningless for Division III.
Nonetheless, student-athletes in both Divisions I and II graduate at a higher rate than the student body – two percentage points in Division I, eight percentage points in Division II. Women graduate at higher rates than men, whites graduate more often than blacks, but all demographic cohorts among student-athletes, including African-Americans, graduate at higher rates than among the general student body.
However, and this is why the myth has grown, football student-athletes and more so male basketball student-athletes – the two highest profile sports – graduate below both the student-athlete rate and the general student-body rate for both Divisions I and II. In Division I, the differential in football is modest, five percentage points, though in men’s basketball, it is truly problematic with a differential of 16 percentage points.
Although some leave to try their hand at professional sports, there are not nearly enough of these young men to explain the disappointing low numbers. The bottom line is that too many student-athletes in these two sports are simply leaving before they earn a degree.
Make no mistake; there is a real concern about the numbers in these sports in both Divisions I and II. And Division III has its own concern about under-achievement among student-athletes compared to the rest of the Division III student body. A year ago at this Convention, Division III passed some of the most sweeping reforms in many years to refocus the time and attention of student-athletes on their educational goals.
This is an ongoing initiative for the Division III Presidents Council as it looks to the future and works to define the philosophical underpinning of those 421 Institutions. Results from a membership-wide survey shows overwhelming support for the emphasis Division III puts on academics. This is important work for the division as it sets an agenda for the years ahead.
In April of 2004, the Division I Board of Directors approved a package for academic reform that raised the bar for both incoming freshmen and enrolled student-athletes. To participate in college sports in Division I, high school student-athletes must present a significantly higher level of academic preparation than ever before. And enrolled student-athletes have to make genuine progress term by term toward a degree. The Committee on Academic Progress is meeting at this Convention to define the parameters for these penalties for specific sports teams that fail to achieve team-wide educational success.
These measures will change the culture of college sports. Success as a student as well as an athlete, simply, is the only acceptable standard for the future in college sports.
Student-athletes and their coaches will continue to focus on their sports during their seasons. It would be a denial of human nature to expect otherwise. And by the way, the available research data show that student-athletes do better academically during their season than when they are not competing. The academic reform measures are designed to increase the graduation rates of student-athletes in Division I to bring to fruition the educational process for student-athletes.
One other piece to this myth that should not be ignored is the claim by cynics – based, in all fairness, by some evidence and considerable anecdote – that student-athletes are directed to easy courses, worthless majors and accommodating professors.
I have not seen a reliable and empirical measurement for the extent of this problem. But this I know. Some courses are easier than others. Some majors are more obviously career based than others. Personally, I seriously doubt that, to any appreciable degree, faculty members are more accommodating to student-athletes. In fact, student-athletes sometimes claim that the opposite is true, that some faculty members intentionally fail to accommodate their needs for travel and other aspects of student-athlete life. But the main point is that all of these courses and majors are available to the entire student body.
The academic integrity of an institution is primarily in the hands of the faculty. They create and approve the courses and curriculum, and they set the standards for instruction. You cannot bring national policy to bear on the courses or majors or instructors a student – or even a group of students – select. And you cannot monitor or dictate the content of courses or majors from off-campus; that is an abridgement of academic freedom.
We presume that the courses and majors offered are worthy of the university. If they are not, shame on the university faculty. If student-athletes are deliberately herded into courses and majors that do not allow them to emerge with an honorable degree or a quality higher education experience, shame on those who permit such practices.
Recently, the football coach of a major Division I-A program was quoted saying, “I was hired to win; I wasn’t hired to graduate student-athletes.