Pay the Coach Less and Hire More Professors?

Parents Forum
41

<p>I am not bashing the athletes. I agree that their contributions to campus life and fabric are very important. I don't have any sympathy for the uni-dimensional 2400 candidate passed over for a 2100, or even 1800, athlete. I am just pointing out the irony, if not hypocrisy, of the Univs being more than happy enough to take all they can from a free market on the side of ticket sales, naming rights, seat licenses, deductible contributions, TV and radio rights, while at the same time controlling through the NCAA rules and regs what they can pay the athletes. Chris Weber at Michigan, while not necessarly a model scholar-athlete, liked to point out that Michigan sold thousands of his "Number 4" basketball jersey, while he had to borrow pizza money (well, as it turned out, maybe over $200,000 in pizza money). The athletes at big time programs are for all practical purposes in full time, year round jobs. NCAA rules restrict (as I understand it) even summer jobs that athletes can hold - God forbid a booster hires them - so I guess the athlete will have to spend the summer on campus helping coach at his camp and working out in the weight room. And again not to take this in another direction, but many of the blue chip athletes put in this position are from first generation college families, less well off families, single parent households. I don't know that there is any equality of bargaining power in that environment. I guess that all I am trying to say is that it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. (Gotta go now; time to pack the picnic basket for the tailgate party ...)</p>

42

<p>PublicIvyDad,</p>

<p>Understood . . . and agreed. I think the balance has tipped too far in the corporate direction at the Unis and it is not just in athletics. The enrollment management system of the colleges being on both sides of the testing, admissions and financial aid equations.</p>

<p>BTW, yes I have trouble with the NCAA rules on who can hire the student athletes over the summer . . . no restriction on the math whiz who can land a summer job on Wall Street though. However, I do understand the intent, they want to keep it on the amatuer side. Though, the Olympics no longer have such a restriction. I just find all the contortions difficult.</p>

43

<p>Some schools certainly but less emphasis of football and basketball players getting degrees than others. The NCAA is moving toward including grad rates into the calculation os scholarships available in a sport--a good thing overall. Also many young men--and a few women--are not all that interested in getting a degree but are athletes first. I hope they get something out of the time they spend in college.</p>

<p>Also for the record I am for many professors getting better pay. Problem is most people get much more upset when tuition goes up than when football tickets go up.</p>

44

<br>


<br>

<p>The reason that athletics is not taken seriously in an academic setting is that too many of us are familiar with the "dumb jock" stereoptype from scandalous news stories and from knowing several at our own colleges. With a few bright exceptions, big-time football and basketball programs are particularly riddled with athletes who have no business being in college - guys who had to take a year of crib courses at a community college in order to get their GPA up to the appallingly-low NCAA minimum. Same story with the incredibly-low NCAA SAT minimum. </p>

<p>Despite their very low academic standing, these guys get treated like royalty on campus - special dorms, special food, special tutors, etc. And occasionally the school treats them a little too special and we hear about scandals where profs were pressured to give athletes unearned grade boosts to keep them eligible, and/or having others write term papers for these "scholars."</p>

<p>You just don't see this sort of nonsense in the other ECs you mention: Music, Theater, etc.</p>

<p>Unfortunately for the athletes, the schools' indulgence of them does not extend to awarding them degrees. The schools are perfectly happy to exploit them for their four years of eligibility and then push them out the door with a transcript littered with dropped classes, incompletes, and mediocre grades in gut courses that don't even come close to adding up to a degree. To the very few who succeed in going on to a successful pro career, this doesn't matter much. But for the huge majority of these athletes, it's nothing but a shame.</p>

<p>So until schools start treating athletes the same as they treat students in other disciplines, and the athletes themselves start qualifying for and living up to the academic standards applied to other disciplines, athletics is not going to be "viewed as legitimate in an academic setting...."</p>

45

<p>Not every school is Tennessee. The Big 10 does not allow special dorms or food. There is both exploitation and an opportunity many of these kids would never have had without football/bball. The schools are not the only ones exploiting the system. It's getting pretty common for top bballers to come in for a year or two of polishing and then head to the NBA.</p>

46

<p>Hmmm . . . nice stereo-type painting all athletes as "dumb jocks". Yes some sports and some schools are more notorious than others, i.e. the University of Colorado football team over the last few years. I hope the new rules imposed by the NCAA will help address this. If a school's football team does not get a sufficient graduation rate then they will lose athletic scholarships in that sport making it harder to compete and generate revenue from a particular sport. Probably a very good thing for the schools on the top of the list linked earlier in this thread with high graduation rate, i.e. Duke, Stanford, and the Ivy league.</p>

<p>I think we hear more about any issues with the sports program because those students are public figures. When some other student has an issue it is not on the front page of the paper the next day. Regarding the special treatment, it really gets back to the revenue generated. The schools are doing what they can to enable the athletes to compete and compete at the highest level.</p>

<p>It does seem that the money generated by the schools is the corrupting component, not the athletics itself. If the other ECs were as publicly facing as some of the sports programs perhaps we would see more corner cutting in keeping a certain musician in school.</p>

<p>BTW, do we know what the graduation rate is for students who are in the other ECs? I suspect it is much higher than some of the more notorious basketball or football programs. However, there is no NCAA for theatre to get at this type of information.</p>

47

<br>


<br>

<p>Throwing this out for fun, there appears to be no shortage of high profile music/theater/art types who leave school. If the following site is to be believed, the list includes Tom Hanks, Warren Beatty, Dustin Hoffman - and, astoundingly, Nina Totenberg:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/7734/cdoaa.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/7734/cdoaa.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>And that great chanteuse Madonna is a well known drop out from the University of Michigan.</p>

<p>For those talents, no differently than the Allen Iversons, et al of the sports world, college made little difference. For the rest of us - well, time to get back to work.</p>

48

<p>Well, I just read that Mark Zuckerberg, the creator of the Facebook.com has dropped out of Harvard (after taking a year off). No real surprise there. But it's different from athletes dropping out because they can't handle the academics.</p>

49

<br>


<br>

<p>I wouldn't hold up the Big 10 as an example of athletic virtue. The Golden Gophers of Minnesota had a major jocks'-term-papers-being-ghost-written-by-hired-help-provided-by-the-school scandal just a few years back.</p>

<br>


<br>

<p>Yep, in many cases the charade of pretending to be pursuing "higher education" is a fraud going in both directions -- perpetrated by both the schools and the athletes. All the more reason big-time athletics doesn't fit within the mission of a university.</p>

50

<p>PublicIvyDad,</p>

<p>I would add one of the Olsen twins to the list. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/14/entertainment/main946484.shtml%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/14/entertainment/main946484.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Marite,</p>

<p>Happens all the time with many high-tech types. Particularly at MIT and Stanford. Though the comparison I would make is the athlete that leaves for the NFL or NBA instead of finishing.</p>

51

<p>Publicivydad, the difference with the list of entertainers which you posted is that they were not <em>stars</em> when they were in college. They weren't recruited to be there because of their talent. They were typical college kids who for whatever reason decided that college wasn't for them. Not an accurate analogy, in my opinion. A more clear example, although not one which would support the side of the debate in favor of athletics, is to look at those who attend college when they've already established themselves as stars. The list of successful academic graduates is impressive; Jodie Foster-Yale, Brooke Shields-Princeton, Natalie Portman-Harvard, Sara Gilbert-Yale, Fred Savage-Stanford, Lauren Ambrose-Boston University, Jaleel White-UCLA, Kellie Martin-Yale, Sean Astin-UCLA, to name just a few. It should be noted that these kids are almost always getting their degrees in an area other than the one in which they have excelled.</p>

<p>Eagle, it's true that M.K. Olsen has taken a leave from NYU. However, she and her sister had the academic stats to get into NYU to start with, and they were not 'recruited' to study acting.</p>

<p>Kids who participate in music and theatre, for example, at the college level, are more often than not majoring in one of those areas. If this is the case, they usually are required to audition to gain admission. Most arts programs offered at the college level also include liberal arts requirements to complete the degree. These kids have to pass academic muster just as in any other major, and having said that, music, theatre, visual arts, are all MAJORS. Football, basketball, hockey are not.</p>

52

<p>Eagle79, it is a misconception that MIT has a lot of dropouts. They <em>used to</em>, it's true--but these days their graduation rate is quite high. 840/1042 graduated in four years; 963 in six years. (Many MIT students do simultaneous bachelor's/master's programs.)</p>

<p><a href="http://web.mit.edu/ir/cds/2005/cds2005.html#b%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://web.mit.edu/ir/cds/2005/cds2005.html#b&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Stanford has similar (very slightly better percentages) rates.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.stanford.edu/home/statistics/#enrollment%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.stanford.edu/home/statistics/#enrollment&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

53

<p>Lets look at some FACTS about student athletes base on available NCAA data? But first a question, which category of colleges do you think fare worse, DivI, DivII or DivIII; public or private?</p>

<p>Drumroll please-here are the agregate statistics</p>

<p>Division I Public:All student graduation rate= 55%
Student athlete graduation rate=56%</p>

<p>Division I Private:All student graduation rate= 73%
Student athlete graduation rate=71%</p>

<p>Division II Public:All student graduation rate= 43%
Student athlete graduation rate=49%</p>

<p>Division II Private:All student graduation rate= 50%
Student athlete graduation rate=54%</p>

<p>Division III Public:All student graduation rate= 48%
Student athlete graduation rate=50%</p>

<p>Division III Private:All student graduation rate= 68%
Student athlete graduation rate=51%</p>

<p>The data indicate that at most colleges, student athletes, based on graduation rates, perform as well or slightly better academically than the overall student body. The only exception is at private Div III colleges where graduation rates of student athletes lag the all student graduation rate by 17%</p>

<p>So much for conventional wisdom!</p>

<p>Having said that, football and basket ball participants have historically underperformed in the classroom. However they make up a relatively small percentage of the total number of student athletes. And consider this, take them out of the mix and the remainder of the student athletes have even higher graduation rates relative to the overall student body.</p>

<p>Another thing to consider, at my beloved alma mater OSU there are less than 600 student athletes representing less than 2% of the overall student body. A college like Williams has a like number of student athletes represention more than 30% of the student body. While some may claim that the Williams SA's are more representative of the overall student body, they should read "The Game of Life" which presents data indicating that the deleterious effects of athletics is in fact more profound at colleges such as Williams.</p>

54

<p>I seem to remember that either congress or the NCAA mandated that colleges publish the facts on student-athlete 6-year graduation rates. The first list was published during the week of the 2005 Div. I basketball tournament. Some of the names of the poor performers would surprise you. I understand that beginning next years, schools with poor results will be punished by losing scholarships.</p>

55

<p>I guess I'll have to tell my football/la crosse playing S that he is a "dumb jock." I think he might disagree with me considering he is tied for valedictorian and works his butt off. But, hey, that is the word on CC, so it must be true.</p>

56

<p>
[quote]
I guess I'll have to tell my football/la crosse playing S that he is a "dumb jock."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't think that was anyone's point. No one is denying the accomplishments of your son and many others. Even the most damning post on this thread included this phrase:
[quote]
With a few bright exceptions

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The point that publicivydad and others make about the imbalance of benefits is a good one. However, the implication is that universities are pleased about the rules governing paying athletes. I haven't got that impression at all. I've heard coaches and others express deep frustration about the limitations, and the bind that puts their student-athletes in (especially those from limited means). I don't think many universities would lobby to be allowed to pay athletes semi-pro salaries, but they would like to be able to help them out more than they currently can.</p>

57

<p>I apologize for a knee jerk reaction. It is a sore point, always hearing that playing football equates stupidity, whereas piano playing equates brilliance.</p>

<p>My dh was a scholarship athlete (football) at UTexas in the 80's. He says that while there were some that probably could not realistically keep up without the aid of tutors, the majority, many of which he still keeps in touch with, did fine in college, graduated, and are now gainfully employed in a variety of fields. He says that most of the guys he played with were extremely appreciative of the opportunity to get a "free education," and that there were very few who quit early to go into the draft. On every team, there may be a small number of "Super Stars", but the vast majority of guys have no chance of making it in the pros and are playing for the love of the sport. They are willing to play by the NCAA rules to continue playing a sport that has meant so much to them throughout their life.</p>

58

<p>originalog, I think the point is that the original discussion was focussed on those who play football or basketball which are generally the two big college sports. Forgive me if I'm mistaken but I don't think that coaches of other college sports are making those huge salaries. In addition, as you mentioned and as others have said, the football and basketball players are probably most often those who are not academically successful. The stats you posted would probably be very different if they did not include ALL athletes. And again, no one is referring to all athletes in this discussion.</p>

59

<p>here's the link to the ncaa website and "academic reform" topic. </p>

<p><a href="http://www2.ncaa.org/academics_and_athletes/education_and_research/academic_reform/index.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www2.ncaa.org/academics_and_athletes/education_and_research/academic_reform/index.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Information on APR (Academic Progress Rate) is available. I think there may have been some articles written on the topic as well...........not sure which publications.</p>

60

<p>I guess my question is how much difference a single coach can make. A college coach at some of the Big 10 can make $500,000 or a million dollars. Is it appropriate? Should the coach instead make what a good professor makes and the program be scaled back a little? Is it really necessary for athletes (who are theoretically also students) to travel hundreds of miles to compete? Would they reap the same benefits with less strain if they competed in more regional competitions? Why does the University of Washington play against Notre Dame--at the huge expense of traveling 2000 miles?</p>

<p>Is college athletics about college or about commercial athletics? And if it's about commercial athletics,why? </p>

<p>Disclaimer: I think big-time college sports are a bastardization of what college and sports should be; I want colleges to be about college, not about money mills for TV or whatever. Our school district spends 1 1/2 million on sports every year--and has class sizes of 32. It's nuts.</p>