Scott Hirko,
Central Michigan University
Today, there is a deafening buzz about change and hypocrisy
in major college sports. I’ve recently
had discussions with some who work in college athletics, others who study
college sports, several leaders in higher education, as well as other
stakeholders. Most are disenchanted about
the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and how it represents
colleges and college sports.
The NCAA’s
Executive Committee and its Board of Directors met in early August - the
meetings resulted in much hand-wringing about money, but likely little focus on
the 95 percent of the 400,000-plus NCAA athletes that are NOT involved with
raising 95 percent of the money. The
lack of focus on athlete’s well-being is decades in the making, including allowing
freshman to participate in game day action instead of focusing on transition to
college life, allowing for a redshirt fifth year to enhance expertise in a
particular sport, and even coining the term “student-athlete” in order to avoid
worker’s compensation claims (Branch, 2012). These NCAA policies were all
created to earn more money for the athletics system.
Some recent
NCAA policies were created in response to issues relating to a few but impacting
the majority of athletes. ACPA Commission for Recreation Athletics (CRA)
created a thought paper about the campus-wide impact of NCAA legislation limiting schools’
ability to rent out campus facilities for basketball and football camps (Hirko
et al, 2010). The current research project by
CRA is aimed at measuring this impact on individuals and divisons of campus from
a student development perspective.
Another example
of the unforseen consequences of NCAA policies is embedded in the Academic
Progress Rates (APR) at the NCAA’s most competitive level, Division 1. Recent scholarship has noted concerns about
the impact of APR on the learning of athletes (McLaughlin, 2012), even with
respect to the size (Butterworth & Rich, 2013) or type (Kirkpatrick,
2013) of the institution. To be fair, the benefit of APR is requiring
Division 1 athletes to remain on track to graduate – a primary mission of
colleges and universities. And, student affairs professionals work daily to
help athletes navigate their complicated schedules and continue toward
graduation. Schools have incentives to help teams meet APR benchmarks because failure
can result in penalties for an athletic team including a loss of scholarships
or a loss of participating in post-season tournaments.
However, Division
1 APR is not a panacea to academic needs of athletes as students. Because of
the demands by coaches for athletes to practice at certain times, and because
many athletes (particularly at-risk football and basketball players) rely on
their athletic scholarship to attain an education, athletes are often forced
into a choice: either, (1) choose a major that impacts practice time (and risk
of losing a scholarship), or (2) choose a generalized major with coursework
that does not impact practice time (and reduce the risk of losing a scholarship)
(Gurney and Southall, 2012; Hirko, 2011).
And, there are both successes and concerns about the impact of APR
affecting athletes who have a learning disaibility, or when there is a coaching
change (Johnson et al, 2013). Student affairs
professionals who advise athletes and who work with athletes’ academic advisors
are often handcuffed. At the Division 1
level, advice is typically based on school policy and athletic need, rather
that what is in the student’s best interest. In other words, one may consider the current NCAA
policy as leading institutions toward: “Let’s make sure the athlete is passing
a class (or is in an easy major) to remain academically eligible to play, and keep
their scholarship to at least earn a degree.”
But, it may be better for the NCAA and its member institutions to lead
with policy better in line with institutional mission, such as: “What does the
student want to learn or be exposed to learn and how can we work with coaches
to make that learning occur and succeed?”
Student
affairs professionals can become involved in leading and directing the above complex
policies to benefit the well-being of athletes at their institution. For instance, several Division 1 institutions
have their football (and other sport) practices in the morning in order to
allow athletes the opportunity to access course labs and other educational
activities that would not be possible with afternoon athletic practices. Other schools have faculty appointed as
academic liaisons to athletic teams ro improve direct communication between instructors
and players. The collaboration inherent in creating these policies is
student-centered and reflects educational needs as an institutional priority
(Hirko, 2011; Zimmerman &
Wickersham, 2013).
Furthermore,
the recent memorandum from the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics (in full
disclosure, I serve as a consultant to the Knight Commission) to the NCAA shares
a thought reflecting the fact that not all athletes are the same, even though
they may be treated the same. The Commission asked NCAA leaders to investigate
a “differentiated model” with different rules for different sports. In otherwords, football and men’s basketball
players are the primary revenue generators, and are significant contributors to
an institution’s image at all levels, including Divisions 1, 2 and 3; yet, the
expectations of football and basketball players are different than athletes in
field hockey, soccer, or all other varsity sports. Social norms, institutional climate, and
community environment create significant expectations on, and perceived by, football
and basketball players in comparison to the expectations of players of most
other sports. Student affairs
professionals are in the position to share their knowledge and experience of
student identity development when considering rules for a new type of
“differentiated” system. Rules for athletes that impact their academic and social
engagement should take current realities into consideration, and should
ensure athletes’ well-being is
adequately protected.
Current
litigation by former athletes against the NCAA, particularly the EddieO’Bannon and SamKeller cases and their potential impact on the definition of “amateurism” may
force NCAA membership to change its policies as they relate to the compensation
of certain college athletes. Yet,
student affairs professionals will be around before and after this and other
similar cases. To meet the needs of
athletes in this and future environments, ACPA and its membership are well
placed to use their knowledge and understanding of student development to serve
the education and goals of college athletes.
References
Branch, T.
(2012, October). The shame of college sports. The Atlantic.
Butterworth,
J., & Rich, J. (2013). Examing academic-athletic support and academic
success of student athletes. Unpublished Undergraduate Student Research, University of New Hampshire.
Gurney, G.
S., & Southall, R. M. (2012, August 9). College sports' bait and switch. ESPN.com.
Hirko, S.
(2011). Using sanctioned athletics programs to understand stakeholders'
perceived influence in decisions at major research universities.
Unpublished dissertation. Michigan State University,
East Lansing.
Hirko, S., Clark, K., Fulford, M., Byrne, D., Harmon, N., &
Hill, K. (2010). A campus student affairs perspective on NCAA Proposal
2009-100: American College Personnel Association.
Johnson, J.,
Blom, L., Judge, L., Lee, D., Pierce, D., & Ridley, M. (2013). The impact
of Football Bowl Subdivision head coaching changes on NCAA Academic Progress
Rate. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 6, 131-154.
Kirkpatrick,
W. (2012). The impact of the academic progress rate (APR) on low resource or
non-bcs institutions as it relates to football and/or men’s basketball
programs. University of Georgia, Athens,
GA.
McLaughlin,
J. (2012). An examination of the influence of institutional context on
Academic Progress Rates at Division I institutions: A multilevel approach. North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, NC.
Zimmerman,
W., & Wickersham, L. (2013). Examining the support of modern athletic
reform proposals developed by the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics in
response to higher education athletic reform: A case study. Current Issues
in Education, 16(1).
No comments:
Post a Comment