economics reform in college athletics l.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Economics & Reform in College Athletics PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Economics & Reform in College Athletics

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 32

Economics & Reform in College Athletics - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

Economics & Reform in College Athletics. Part 1: Reform. Problems in College Sports Demanding Action. Dennehy v. Baylor University Facts – Although recruited D was asked to give up scholarship for another player

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

Economics & Reform in College Athletics

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
problems in college sports demanding action
Problems in College Sports Demanding Action
  • Dennehy v. Baylor University
    • Facts –
      • Although recruited D was asked to give up scholarship for another player
      • He was concerned with various “improprieties and suspicious activities” involving men’s coach Dave Bliss
      • Bliss had history or problems at other institutions
      • Told administration and athletic department no one listened
      • Planned to go public himself
      • Soon after subject to death threats
      • Again administration ignored concerns
      • Soon after another player killed him
    • Counts
      • Negligence and gross negligence for breaching duty to protect him from harm
      • Negligent misrepresentation of facts of what really happened
      • Entered in to conspiracy to avoid dealing with Dennehy
      • Claim extensive damages tied to what he went through
responses to problems
Responses to Problems
  • Reform Movement
  • Knight Commission
  • Critiques of College Sports
  • Collegiate Model of Sports
  • Other Groups
  • Current NCAA Reform
knight foundation commission on intercollegiate athletics
Knight Foundation Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics
  • Commission itself
    • Knight Foundation
      • The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation was established in 1950 as a private foundation independent of the Knight brothers' newspaper enterprises. It is dedicated to furthering their ideals of service to community, to the highest standards of journalistic excellence and to the defense of a free press
    • Created Commission in 1989 in response to athletic abuses that threatened the integrity of higher education
  • Problems noted
    • 1980s 109 colleges and universities were censured, sanctioned or put on probation
    • 1/3 pro football players said they had accepted illicit payments while in college
    • Out of 106 D1 schools 48 had 30% grad. Rates for men’s basketball and 19 for football
    • TV other revenues increased big business of sports
    • Focus on men’s football and basketball
knight foundation commission on intercollegiate athletics5
Knight Foundation Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics
  • 3 reports 1991, 1992 and1993
  • 1991 report –Keeping Faith with the Student Athlete: A New Model for Intercollegiate Athletics
    • Recommendation – one plus three model
    • Use – One - presidential control to achieve – Three - academic integrity, fiscal/financial integrity, and independent certification of intercollegiate athletic programs (one-plus-three model)
      • General recommendations calling for more institutional control
      • 2/3 of proposals endorsed by NCAA by 1993
        • Institutional control – 2.1 Principle of Institutional Control and Responsibility
knight foundation commission on intercollegiate athletics6
Knight Foundation Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics
  • Presidential control: Presidents should act on their obligation to control conferences and should control the NCAA
    • Presidential approval is required for conference legislation
    • NCAA Exec. Committee and Board of Directors all Presidents, mainly D1
  • Academic Integrity: Should strengthen and refine initial eligibility requirements
    • Recommended that scholarships should be awarded on 5 year period
      • Not supported by NCAA membership
  • Financial Integrity: Reduce costs for athletics& All athletics’ coaching income should be reviewed and approved by the university
    • Blame on more sports, higher coaching salaries / leave up to presidents
2001 02 and beyond a look ahead
2001-02 and Beyond : A Look Ahead
  • NCAA President Cedric Dempsey Update
    • Went through proposals from initial Knight Foundation review in 1991 – recognized changes and challenges
      • (1) Presidents now run NCAA
      • (2) DI initial eligibility standards increased and academic satisfactory progress proposals initiated
      • (3) All DI schools now participate in certification process
    • Main problem area – fiscal integrity
      • Seems to blame the law – Law case for hesitation to reform - attempted to control but lost
      • Admits D1 has become overly commercialized
        • Notes $6.2 B TV deal
        • Notes Knight Commission concerns
critiques of college sports
Critiques of college sports
  • James Duderstadt, Intercollegiate Athletics and the American University: A University President’s Perspective (2000)
    • Ivy and DII schools
    • Major college sports “do far more damage to the university, to its students and faculty, its leadership, its reputation and credibility than most realize”
  • James Shulman & William Bowen (former president of Princeton), The Game of Life: College Sports and Educational Values (2001)
    • Skewed priorities of top programs have infected men’s and women’s sports at all levels even Ivy League
2001 report a call to action
2001 Report: A Call to Action
  • Reconvened to look at what has happened since 1991
    • NCAA has moved a long way toward achieving initial goals
    • Still a lot needs to be done
  • Report is findings from meetings with NCAA, presidents, coaches, ADs, players, etc.
  • Recognize NCAA has moved a long way toward meeting goals of 1991 report
  • Athletics continue to
    • Threaten to overwhelm the universities in whose names they were established
    • 58 out of 114 D1A schools (52%) were censured, sanctioned or put on probation for major violations
    • Skewed priorities of top programs have infected men’s and women’s sports at all levels (including Ivy League and private liberal arts colleges)
2001 report a call to action10
2001 Report: A Call to Action
  • Three areas
    • (1) Academic transgressions
      • Some compare graduation rates of athletes favorably with rest of student body – should not as they do not have advantage of full scholarships and tutoring
      • Athletes often admitted to institution they have no chance to succeed at
    • (2) Financial arms race
      • 15% of athletic programs operate in the black
      • Over half of D1A schools expenses exceeded revenues by an average of $3.3 M
      • Last 7 years capital expenses up 250%
      • College facility boom $4 billion
2001 report a call to action11
2001 Report: A Call to Action
  • (3) Commercialization
    • Big time college sports in many ways mirrors professional model
    • CBS paying $6.2 billion for 11 years for men’s basketball tournament -- $780,00 per win
    • TV (80% of NCAA revenues) and shoe deals for teams
      • Result schools sacrifice class time to be on television
      • Revenues not equally distributed
    • BCS schools major beneficiaries – often presidents of these schools not involved
    • Contradicts purpose of NCAA – clear line of demarcation education & athletics and athletics as integral part of educational program
2001 report a call to action12
2001 Report: A Call to Action
  • Call on presidents, associations, conferences, NCAA, faculty , ADs, and coaches to act together
  • New model – One-plus-three
    • One – Coalition of presidents – directed toward – Three -academic reform, de-escalation of the arms race, de-emphasis on commercialization
      • Coalition drawn from schools that are most visible and successful athletic programs
      • Should be financially independent
    • Academics (p. 26-27)
    • Arms Race (p. 27-28)
    • Commercialization (p. 28-29)
    • Future concerns (p. 32-33)
2001 report a call to action13
2001 Report: A Call to Action
  • End –Commission’s analysis of NCAA progress on 1991 report
    • Issue – reduction of athletics costs
      • Has not happened in fact have increased
    • Issue – Institutions should review and approve compensation of individuals within athletic departments
      • Has not happened
    • Some steps have been taken but more can be done and process has gotten worse
critique of college sports
Critique of college sports
  • William Bowen and Sarah Levin, Reclaiming the Game: College Sports and Educational Values (2003) – (DIII schools)
    • Need to reestablish athletics as a means of fulfilling not undermining educational mission of colleges.
    • Problems
      • Recruits 4 times more likely to be admitted even to Ivy schools
      • Recruits in football, basketball, hockey SAT scores 119-165 lower than nonathletes
      • ¾ of male recruits in high profile sports and 2/3 in low profile are in bottom 1/3 of their classes.
    • Proposals
      • Athletes should be “truly” representative of their student bodies
      • Opportunities to participate in athletics should be widely available to both men and women not only recruited athletes
      • Athletes should be integrated in to campus life and participate in a wide range of activities
      • Should be extensive opportunities for vigorous competition without focus on national rankings/championships
ncaa president myles brand platform
NCAA President Myles Brand Platform
  • Role of athletics in a university
    • Educational development value of athletics
    • Positive visibility for campus / high morale
    • Lose this if athletics does not embrace the educational mission of the university or fails to meet the academic, social and athletics needs of SAs
  • Guideposts
    • Advocacy
    • Reform
ncaa president myles brand platform16
NCAA President Myles Brand Platform
  • Advocacy
    • Articulate the role of intercollegiate athletics on campuses and the benefits that accrue to SAs
    • Values of athletics
      • Education developmental value
        • Teaches excellence, teamwork, respect for rules, resilience, self-discipline, making judgments on the basis of performance and not race or gender
      • Positive visibility for campus
      • Encourages high moral
      • Serves SAs changes them for the better
ncaa president myles brand platform17
NCAA President Myles Brand Platform
  • Reform
    • National office adopting “reasonableness” criterion to interpretation and waivers –
      • Allow NCAA to make sound judgments not rigidly follow the rules
    • D1
      • Changes in initial and continuing eligibility (greater reliance on preparation in high school)
      • Measure academic performance by timely progress toward degree and graduation
    • Still recognize “athletics is about winning”
      • Still reform must be in wider context of the mission of colleges and universities – first and foremost are academic institutions
collegiate model of athletics
Collegiate Model of Athletics
  • Characteristics
    • Distinct from Professional Model
    • 150 years of development
    • Last 20/30 years focus on winning and interest of broadcast media have changed it
    • Education-based – extension of the learning environment
      • College sports must serve educational mission of university
    • Participants are student-athletes in pursuit of an education – are students first
      • Central feature is success of participants as students – why measure graduation rates
      • Pay for play is antithetical to this – instead only support is toward education
      • Keep in mind student athlete has always been the only amateur in college sports
    • Teams
      • are attached to college or university – is an extension of the academy (cannot stand alone)
      • consist of students enrolled in the academic program of the university
  • Problems have come in in the way athletics functions in context of higher education – move toward pro model
    • TV contracts / corporate sponsorship / attendance based revenue
    • Does not support college as minor leagues
reform movements in college sports faculty
Reform Movements in College Sports - Faculty
  • The Drake Group
    • Group of faculty nationwide
    • Mission: to help faculty and staff defend academic integrity in the face of the burgeoning college sports industry
    • Proposals
      • Retire term “student-athlete”
      • Emphasize importance of class attendance and scheduling of athletics not conflicting with class
      • Multi-year athletic scholarships – 5 year maximum
      • Require SAs to maintain cumulative GPA of 2.0 each semester
reform movements in college sports faculty20
Reform Movements in College Sports - Faculty
  • Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics
    • Coalition of faculty senates of D1A schools
      • Wants to be faculty voice in national debate over the future of college sports
      • Goal to preserve and enhance contributions athletics can make to academic life by addressing problems in college sports that undermine those contributions
        • Academic integrity
          • Eligibility – only enroll students who have reasonable prospects to graduate
        • Athlete welfare
          • Schedule should not interfere with student academic needs
        • Governance of athletics at school and conference level
          • Responsibility of president / with faculty role
        • Finances
          • Supports revenue sharing and controls on spending
        • Over-commercialization
          • Television is dangerous
reform movements in college sports faculty21
Reform Movements in College Sports - Faculty
  • American Association of University Professors
    • Concerned with preferential treatment to athletes in admissions and scholarship aid, low graduation rates, ethical breaches by athletes, coaches, etc.
    • Faculty must be part of reform of athletics
      • Must ensure athletes can participate in full educational experience – SAs are students first
      • Must be part of setting athletic’s policy and provide oversight
      • Set admission standards
      • Must be involved in setting athletic’s budget
        • Measure allocations by benefit to educational institution
reform movements in college sports administration
Reform Movements in College Sports - Administration
  • Workers Rights Coalition
    • Created by college and university administrations, students and labor rights experts to assist in the enforcement of manufacturing Codes of Conduct adopted by universities
    • Codes designed to ensure that factories producing clothing and other goods bearing college and university names respect the basic rights of workers
      • Sets out standards for work
    • 134 colleges as of 1/4/2005 (MU is member)
      • Really only half actively monitor things
    • Group investigates and reports on conditions at factories worldwide to force schools to use their influence to better workers rights –
      • Responsibility of licensee to ensure workers are not exploited
        • influence really on brands like Nike, GEAR, Russell, etc.
      • University role to define expected standards and hold licensees accountable
        • No penalties left to institution
reform movements in college sports outside of ncaa
Reform Movements in College Sports – Outside of NCAA
  • College Basketball Partnership
    • 27 member panel of coaches, administrators, broadcast representatives and NCAA senior staff appointed to address the challenges/opportunities that face the sport (not NCAA endeavor)
    • Oversight group that will make recommendations to strengthen the game, using NCAA governance when necessary
    • Goals
      • Celebrate game’s success and ensure its position as an asset for all of college athletics
      • Competitive equity in recruiting
      • Retain SAs until they earn their degrees
overview of critiques and problems
Overview of Critiques and Problems
  • Academic
    • Connect athletics to overall mission of university
    • Initial eligibility/Preparation
    • Graduation
    • Demands on Student Athletes
  • Financial
    • Commercialization
      • TV, BCS, Coaches salaries
    • Arms Race
      • Facility and expenditure
  • Institutional
    • Presidential control
    • Maybe faculty control
ncaa reform division i
NCAA Reform: Division I
  • Goal -- to encourage improved academic performance and progress toward graduation for all student-athletes
    • Enhance academic standards
    • Improve measurements of academic success
    • Increase accountability and consequences for SA academic success
    • Adjust SA time demands to assure time available to meet academic standards
ncaa reform division i26
NCAA Reform: Division I
  • Phases
    • 1: Standards
      • Increased core course requirements beginning in fall 2003 will be 16 by 2008
    • 2: Measurements, Management Tools and Consequences
      • Incentive/disincentive program
    • 3: Time Demands and Other
      • Beginning to study – to assure athletes necessary time to fulfill academic standards
incentives disincentives program
Incentives/Disincentives Program
  • Academic Performance Program
    • Penalize those programs that fail to meet established requirements for educational progress
      • Institutions/teams that excel will be recognized and those that fail to meet the minimums will be penalized
    • Oversight with new Committee on Academic Performance
    • Graduation Rates
      • D1A – overall 64% all students / 62% SA
        • Men – 55% / women – 70%
        • Men’s basketball 39% / women’s 64%
        • Football 57%
      • D1 – overall 60% / SA 62%
academic performance program
Academic Performance Program
  • Constitution
    • Defines Academic Performance Program
    • Failure to Satisfy the Academic Performance Program
  • Bylaws (becomes Bylaw 23)
    • 23.01.1: Purpose
    • 23.02.1: Academic Progress Rate
    • 23.02.2: Graduation Success Rate
    • 23.1: Committee on Academic Performance
academic performance program penalties
Academic Performance Program - Penalties
  • Failure to Satisfy the Academic Performance Program
  • 13.01.9: Additional Recruiting Restrictions
  • 15.01.10: Additional Financial Aid Limitations
  • -ineligibility for preseason/postseason competition
academic performance program penalties30
Academic Performance Program - Penalties
  • 23.2.1: Penalties
    • Self applied by institution
    • 23.2.2: Determination of Penalties
      • Three levels
      • Various penalties
  • 15.5.7: Limitations on Re-Awarding of Financial Aid
ncaa recruiting task force
NCAA Recruiting Task Force
  • Focus-
    • Reducing prospects’ sense of entitlement and providing an accountability mechanism for both NCAA rules and institutional policies related to the behavior of all individuals involved in the recruiting process
  • Academic
    • Connect athletics to overall mission of university
    • Initial eligibility/Preparation
    • Graduation
    • Demands on Student Athletes
    • **Reform is focused here
  • Institutional
    • Presidential control
    • Maybe faculty control
    • **Clear university presidents more control than ever left to them to involve faculty
  • Financial – Next Focus
    • Commercialization
    • Arms Race