Blog Archives: August 2009

[Ashlen]

This is an archive of blog entries I published to the old Other Side Sports blog during August 2009.

[Ashlen]

Raising the issue of Urban Meyer’s raise
08/05/2009   

It was announced this week that Urban Meyer, University of Florida’s highly successful football coach, will receive a six year contract extension paying the coach $4 million a season.  Previously, Meyer was earning $3.25 million per season.  This makes Meyer the highest paid football coach at a public institution, but I’m sure some of Meyer’s colleagues will be seeing raises soon as well. 

On the one hand, it makes sense for the most successful coach of recent times to be rewarded with the richest contract.  On the other hand, the University of Florida has recently cut $42 million from their budget including the loss of nine faculty positions and 42 staff positions.  Florida’s contention is that Meyer’s salary comes from the University Athletic Association and not from the university’s funds. 

Florida’s University Athletic Association has a mission statement on their website.  The first paragraph of the statement leads to some interesting questions:

The University Athletic Association, Inc. exists to advance the University of Florida’s teaching, research and service missions. Through the education and the promotion of the health and welfare of students, the University Athletic Association seeks to link experiences of all backgrounds, races, origins, genders, and cultures to prepare generations of students and staff, including women and minorities, to be productive members of society. The character of the athletics programs at the University Athletic Association reflects the character of the University of Florida as a major, public, comprehensive institution of higher learning.

I would like to know how the UAA, and the Florida athletic department, is helping the university with teaching, research, and service missions.  I suppose the UAA helps provide first class entertainment for the public, but is that a legitimate service mission given the budgetary struggles the university is having with teaching and research?  If the UAA really wanted to help the university with those missions, perhaps they should donate the quarter of a million dollars a year that Meyer is adding to his yearly compensation to the university to help retain faculty and necessary staff.  That would directly help all three missions instead of marginally helping one.

I’m also not clear on how the UAA promotes the health and welfare of the student body.  There are a few hundred athletes at Florida that arguably see the health benefits of big time sports.  I say arguably because many athletes wear out their bodies to a point where it causes permanent damage in the quest for top performance.  But what about the rest of the 51,000 plus student body at Florida?  Are they motivated to exercise because of the varsity athletic teams?  Not likely.  Do they receive so much exercise when they cheer on Florida’s successful teams?  Maybe a little bit, but the consumption of alcohol and snack food probably negates any gain there.     

Lastly, I question the character of the Florida athletic program.  In particular, I question the character of Urban Meyer’s football program.  Their federal graduation rate is about half of the graduation rate for the male student body.  Perhaps more importantly, Florida football has had 24 legal incidents since 2005.  Florida football would not be the definition of good character.  Of course, University of Florida President Bernie Machen seems to have his own character issues given what has to be considered fraudulent responses he gave to the 2009 U.S. News peer assessment survey. 

The UAA is doing a great job if their true mission is to support winning athletics.  Florida’s record speaks for itself.  However, UAA has some questions to answer if their mission is to really advance the university’s academic side.  Yes, Meyer’s raise may not come from the struggling general university fund, but the athletic department is still (at least in name) part of the university and requires a great deal of time and attention.  Florida may have no choice but to feed the athletic monster that they created, but perhaps Florida’s administration would not have to outright lie and cheat to make their undergraduate program look elite if they just focused on academics instead of athletics. 

[Ashlen]

CIS on scholarship policy
08/07/2009

Joe Lemire from Sports Illustrated published an interesting article this week discussing the scholarship policies of Candian Interuniversity Sport.  Simon Fraser University in British Columbia will become the first Canadian institution to be a member (albeit provisionally for now) of the NCAA when they start competing in Division II.  One of the primary reasons why Simon Fraser wanted to compete in Division II rather than CIS is because Division II allows full ride athletic scholarships.  As the article states, many Canadian athletes look to go to college in the United States in order to obtain a full paid ride.  Although it does not appear that there will be a widespread exodus from the CIS to the NCAA, the CIS is considering adopting more American like scholarship policies:

Simon Fraser's southward migration is already forcing the CIS to reevaluate its practice of prohibiting full athletic scholarships. Noting the different athletic culture, in which college sports in Canada don't draw the same crowds, interest or television contracts that they do in the U.S., CIS president Clint Hamilton says matching the scholarship allotment of NCAA's Division I isn't possible, but increasing scholarship dollars -- and offering at least a few full rides to blue-chip recruits -- is under consideration. About 1,500 Canadians are playing for U.S. colleges, including many of the country's top recruits.

As the article points out, many Canadian athletes will still want to come to America even if Canadian schools offer full scholarships.  There is more visibility and competition in the United States.  Also, elite athletes will want to compete in Division I, not CIS or Division II.  Thus, changing the rules may just serve to burden CIS coaches and athletics departments to fundraise additional scholarship money.  It may also raise  recruiting costs as coaches will have greater international recruiting clout if they can offer better scholarships.  Although it would be nice for Canadian universities to retain their student-athletes, they need to realize that the system they have know is more cost efficient and more in line with the missions of higher education institutions.       

[Ashlen]

Alcohol and College Sports
08/07/2009

Minnesota Public Radio had an interesting discussion yesterday regarding the impact of alcohol at college football games.  Minnesota’s new football stadium, TCF Bank Stadium, has a new policy where students kicked out from football games for being drunk will have to pass a breathalizer test before being admitted to future games.  Ervin Cox (a student affairs official at Wisconsin), Toben Nelson (assistant professor at Minnesota and alcohol researcher), and Murray Sperber (visiting professor at University of California Berkeley and long time college athletics critic) are interviewed during the hour long discussion archived on the MPR website. 

[Ashlen]

College sports ethics from a bookie’s perspective
08/07/2009

Gambling is often seen as one of the corrupt byproducts of college athletics, but Charles Jay of the popular online betting site BetUS sees far greater problems in college athletics than gambling.  Jay chronicles the story of a Florida football player, Jamar Hornsby, that was arrested for using a credit card of a teammate’s dead girlfriend.  The player was kicked off the team and wound up at Ole Miss where he tried to carjack someone at a McDonald’s drive-thru line.  According to Jay, many coaches, including Ole Miss’ Houston Nutt speak out against sports betting, but yet partake in all sorts of questionable behavior in order to keep their well paying jobs:

Let's hope the criminal thug [Hornsby] doesn't see daylight for a while, but if he does, there is no doubt in my mind that the next coach who takes a chance on this athlete, probably at the Division 1-AA level, will talk about how the incident was "blown out of proportion" and how "everyone deserves a second chance." That's because, truth be told, most coaches are whores, without any regard for dignity or honesty or decency or, that's right, the "integrity of college athletics."

You know what they care about? Money. Everything else can take a back seat.

To them, this isn't about education. It's not about "building character." It is about nothing but business, and that is no surprise.

The NCAA opposes rules changes supporting sports gambling that are being considered in a few states right now.  Obviously, Jay is not a neutral party in this discussion, but he does bring up an interesting point.  Sadly, Jay’s translation of coachspeak is spot on. 

[Ashlen]

College sports in Louisiana
08/12/2009

Two of the biggest sports stories concerning the economic recession center around two colleges in Louisiana.  The University of New Orleans has cut off institutional financial support of intercollegiate athletics.  The UNO student body rejected a student fee addition to help support athletics.  UNO athletics still exists thanks to sizable private donations.  The Centenary College board of directors have elected to drop Centenary athletics from Division I to Division III. 

The reaction to these moves has been interesting.  The Ultimate Sports Insider blog posted commentary from Dr. Tony Weaver about Centenary's athletics and institutional prestige.  He quotes a story from the Shreveport Times where a Centenary supporter is so upset about the move that he pledges to no longer support the college:

"Once we are D-III, I will not support Centenary College in any manner in the future," said Timothy W. Wilhite, CFO and general counsel of Wilhite Electric Co. Inc. "I will not buy a T-shirt, attend a game, donate money, take part in an alumni function. And I now have to change my last will and testament. I would rather Centenary College close its doors than be compared to East Texas Baptist or Louisiana College. Today, a long tradition was destroyed. Therefore, I weep."

The Chronicle of Higher Education ran a story today concerning UNO.  One student upset about the lack of support for athletics commented:

"Athletics has not made itself a part of the average UNO student's college experience," one student wrote on a Facebook forum about the referendum on student fees in late April. "So why should those students want to support athletics?"

But plenty of students did argue for athletics. Not having sports, said one, would make the University of New Orleans no different from a for-profit venture like the University of Phoenix.

As I said on the comments section of the Ultimate Sports Insider blog, those withdrawing support of Centenary solely based on athletics are not real supporters of the institution.  Instead, they are just supporters of the athletic program.  Yes, their money is just as good as that from another supporter, but not if most of the money goes to athletics or if the support is outweighed by the financial and educational costs of supporting elite athletics.

The comment about UNO being just like the University of Phoenix without athletics is an odd statement.  Yes, there are those that believe a university is not a university without sports, but what justification is there with that ideology?  Is it that there are so many colleges out there that people determine academic quality based on athletic success? 

The difference between a school like UNO and the University of Phoenix is that students at UNO (at least in theory) get increased access and attention from the faculty and get to live in a community of scholars and students.  Sports can help build a sense of community, but it is just a small part of the formula.  A city like New Orleans has plenty of sports to rally behind even without UNO and Tulane athletics.  In fact, things like a fitness center and intramural sports may build a much greater sense of community rather than spectator sports where the teams are less popular than the Hornets and Saints.

UNO's chancellor, Timothy Ryan, made a couple of interesting comments.  I disagree with one, but I agree with the other.  First the one I disagree with:

The university has no plans to move to the NCAA's Division II, or to Division III, which does not offer scholarships, the chancellor says.

"My mama used to tell me, 'Son, you're judged by the company you keep,'" he says. "We're a public research university. We didn't feel that it would be appropriate for the University of New Orleans to be in one of those other divisions."

The University of Chicago, Washington University in St. Louis, and NYU, among others, are in Division III.  Is UNO too good for that group?  Yes, the schools I listed are private schools, but what difference does that make?

Now the statement I agree with:

The highly ranked chemistry department, for instance, brings in research dollars and attracts talented faculty members despite its modest budget. Athletics, he [Ryan] says, should do the same.

"Money helps," he says. "But you can accomplish great things without a huge budget."

That may not be the best fundraising line ever, but there is some truth to that statement.

[Ashlen]

Taxing naming rights sponsorships
08/12/2009
 
The Chronicle of Higher Education is reporting that a new Congressional Budget Office report states that the federal government can raise money by taxing college stadium naming rights deals and other sponsorships:

If colleges paid taxes on the money they make by granting companies the naming rights to football stadiums and marquee sports events, the government could raise $86-million in the next five years and more than $207-million by 2019, says the report, released last week by the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan research arm of Congress.

$207 million is not even a drop in the bucket as far as the federal budget is concerned, but mandating some forms of sponsorships be taxed might be a wise educational idea.  One really has to wonder why bowl games are considered educational ventures.  Yes, bowl payouts can be used to fund education, but many schools use bowl appearances to wine and dine administrators and boosters to the extent that the bowl appearance ends up being a net loss.  For example, is Tostitos really supporting education when they sponsor the Fiesta Bowl?  I cannot see how they are!  According to non-profit law, however, Tostitos is supporting an educational institution.  A college sports sponsorship tax alone will not help the federal budget, but it may go a long way in damaging pseudo-charities and the professionalization of college athletics.     

[Ashlen]

School sports gets a boost in New Zealand
08/16/2009

TVNZ is reporting that the New Zealand government is spending NZ $82 million (approx. $55 million USD) on organized sports under the Kiwisport project.  NZ $24 million (approx. $16 mil. USD) will go to primary schools and NZ $21 million (approx. $14 million USD) will go to high schools.  The rest will go to community organizations.  New Zealand's Prime Minister, John Key, believes the expense is justified:

"Schools are a vital catchment area in which we can introduce young New Zealanders to organised sport."

He [Key] says involvement in sport helps with physical fitness, teamwork and leadership.

It should not be surprised that these are the same justifications (some may say excuses) for having organized school sports in the United States.  While it is possible for New Zealand's youth to achieve the Prime Minister's goals through sport, the New Zealanders must be careful to keep sports in check and focused on education and enjoyment rather than focusing on schools beating each other at any cost.  Also, I hope New Zealand is focusing on physical fitness education through non-sport means in addition to sporting means.

Somethings don't change no matter where in the world one is.  There is controversy regarding the new funds as some schools are claiming that they are losing money on the deal in exchange for others gaining funding.  The source is not clear on the details, it is not surprising to see fighting amongst those wanting access to new funding sources!

[Ashlen]

Kentucky's colleges suffer from the ills of professional sports
08/16/2009
 
Mark Story from the Lexington Herald-Leader commented this week that the athletics departments of the University of Kentucky and University of Louisville are suffering from the same ills that professional sports deal with.  Story discusses how Kentucky gave their new men's basketball coach, John Calipari, an outlandish contract just like many pro players get while dumping their old coach, Bill Gillispie, before he had a chance to establish himself.  Along the same lines, Story claims that Kentucky has little loyality to their players just like pro teams when they released at least five eligible players from the basketball roster in order to replace them with supposedly more talented players.  The issue of performance enhancing drugs, a hot topic in pro sports, became an issue at Kentucky this year when a top football player tested positive for a banned substance.  Of course, Story likens the Rick Pitino sex scandal to the hundreds of behavioral controversies involving professional players and coaches over the years.   

It does seem like UK and UL are having an unfortunate year when it comes to making the headlines for the wrong reasons, but I doubt these incidents can be attributed to bad luck.  The administrators at these two schools, and many others around the country, focus on winning completely without even considering character and other factors.  I doubt this will change anytime soon.  Professional teams do not have to worry about academic and pay-to-play scandals, but it seems like it is only a matter of time before UK and UL will have to deal with those issues.  To some extent, UK is already dealing with these issues because of Calipari's history.  Of course, their responses will be very predictable.     

[Ashlen]

How to not make bullies
08/18/2009

Newsweek's The Human Condition blogger Kate Dailey posted a research summary of a recently published study in Developmental Psychology looking at the impact of sports participation on youth development conducted by Nicole Zarrett, Kristen Fay, Yibing Li, Jennifer Carrano, Erin Phelps, and Richard M. Lerner.  Dailey summarizes:

A recent study in the journal Developmental Psychology suggest that jocks really are jerks—if they focus exclusively on sports at the expense of other more-well rounded programs. But kids who both play sports and are exposed to youth-development program like scouting or 4-H show the most markers of personal growth and maturity.

The study (which was funded in part by 4-H) looked at more than 1,000 fifth through seventh graders, rating both extracurricular involvement and common indicators of youth development. They found that kids who focus exclusively on sports are more likely to be bullies, more likely to lack positive childhood-development markers, and more likely to be a little depressed. Kids who did sports and a youth-development group, like scouting or 4-H, were the most likely to follow the Daniel-san model: good kids who contribute to the community and know how to interact with adults. “Kids who are just involved in sports are focusing in on what it is to be competitive with other kids. To dominate and win and not lose: that life is a zero-sum game,” says study author Richard Lerner.

The study and Dailey's analysis are certainly worth a look.

[Ashlen]

Where are the donations going?
08/18/2009

Many people, including those in the media, believe that college athletics is a profitable exercise for the university.  However, there have been many articles recently talking about the economic challenges facing college athletics.  Richard Moore discussed this in detail in an article published today in The Lakeland Times (WI). 

However, there is also a widely believed idea that college athletics inspires alumni and others to donate to the university as a whole.  This notion does not get discussed very frequently by the media, but Moore analyzed some of the research in the area:

For example, at UW-Madison, alumni and other gifts comprise 23.9 percent of the athletic department's revenue. But would this gift giving go to academics if athletics did not exist? Are sports a drain on academic gift giving? New research suggests it is, Denhart, Villwock and Vedder state [researchers for the Center of College Affordability and Productivity].

"Increasingly athletic giving is taking a greater share of total donations to a university," they wrote. "While athletic success appears to significantly impact giving to a school's athletic department, it does not show a positive relationship to academic giving. It is possible that athletics may be imposing a crowding-out effect to a certain degree on donations that may have gone to traditional academic missions of the university were athletics not to exist."

As proof of that, critics point to an analysis published in the April 2007 issue of the Journal of Sport Management.

According to that analysis, 26 percent of all dollars donated to Division I-A colleges and universities now go to athletics. In 1998, the comparable figure was 14.7 percent.

Many administrators justify their athletics by stating that athletics serves as a booster for the general university budget.  However, there is certainly evidence that athletics serves as a booster for the athletics department instead of the whole university.  It is quite possible that some of the growth in athletic donations stems from required donations for tickets.  Some administrators like to claim that their sports programs receive no tax money, but they fail to mention that donor tickets may be eligible for tax dedications.  Thus, there still is a public cost.  Either way, there has to be concerns about a quarter of all donations being earmarked for an ancillary service that is well outside the university's mission given the dubious academic and economic benefits of intercollegiate sports. 

[Ashlen]

State subsidization of athletics in North Carolina
08/25/2009

Yesterday, Justin Caudell of the Western Carolinian discussed the impact of the State of North Carolina giving tuition breaks to out-of-state athletes by allowing them to pay in-state tuition:

In a budget filled this year with tax increases and cuts to classrooms and medical services, some North Carolina lawmakers sought to include curbs on the use of state money for college athletics. The budget bars community colleges from funding their sports teams with tuition or state funds, and eliminates a small tuition break for university athletes. But it keeps another one that helps non-state residents, mainly athletes, at a cost to the state of $13.8 million a year.

[…]

“These are athletes from all over the country, in fact all over the world, that have come here, and we treat them as if they are in-state students,” Representative Leo Daughtry, a Republican from Johnston County, told fellow House members during budget discussions, “and that greatly offends my constituents, and I believe it probably offends a number of constituents in your neck of the woods.”

Republicans like Daughtry and top House Democrats called it a subsidy for athletic booster clubs. The provision was supported by foundations like the Rams Club at UNC Chapel Hill and the Wolfpack Club at N.C. State University that raise money for athletes' scholarships.

The funding also had the support of key Senate leaders, who kept it from being cut from the budget.

The fact that community colleges are barred from using tax and tuition money to fund athletics does not necessarily mean much.  Other institutions with similar restraints placed on them still manage to use students’ money to subsidize the athletics department.  Instead of taking money from the tuition bill, they add fees to the bill to make up the difference.  Technically, these fees are not tuition and abide by the rules.  I do not know if North Carolina has any restrictions on student fees, but it is likely that schools will exploit this loophole if it exists if they are not doing it already.

North Carolina's laws are designed to help support booster organizations that provide scholarships for various reasons.  School administrators probably see this policy as a way to help the budget as they have to pay less in scholarship money, but that money could potentially be used for facilities, faculty, or any number of other academic activities if it was appropriated differently.  Granted, outstanding regular students can benefit from this law, but there is no doubt that athletic success was a factor in the decision.  Is the state so addicted to winning to the point that they are willing to essentially pay athletes to come to North Carolina schools? 

This might make North Carolina’s schools more competitive in athletics, but it may take opportunities away from local North Carolina athletes.  Either way, this situation shows how powerful relatively wealthy booster clubs can be at lobbying their position.  Elite level college sports booster clubs may state many wide ranging goals, but ultimately their goal is to win games and championships. That is exactly what they are lobbying for.

[Ashlen]

Some fiscal sense in college football
08/27/2009

It is not hard finding articles displaying out of hand spending in NCAA Division I football.  However, there have been two articles published this week discussing leagues implementing or thinking of.implementing fiscally smart policies.  The Associated Press published an article by Joedy McCreary describing the Pioneer Football League.  The PFL, formed in the early  1990's, is an FCS/DI-AA football-only conference that does not allow athletic scholarships.  The PFL stretches from coast to coast as there are teams in California, Florida, New York, and other places in between.

The article discusses how PFL schools have higher travel costs than other schools, but those costs are more than offset by the money the schools save by not offering scholarships.  The PFL also has other cost-cutting methods like limiting road team rosters to 55 players.  The article described one example of how a PFL team tries to save money:

For San Diego's trip to Morehead State in November, the Toreros will save $200 per plane ticket by flying to Columbus, Ohio, and then busing roughly 4 hours to eastern Kentucky. They did the same thing last year before their game at Drake, flying to Kansas City and busing three hours north to Des Moines, Iowa, to trim each $600 plane ticket to about $400.That travel schedule might sound pretty extreme, but it is  worthwhile to make that  sacrifice because the games are on weekends where there won't be any missed classtime.

In another article by Mike Carmin, from the Lafayette Journal & Courier, discusses proposed NCAA Division I legislation banning home teams from staying in hotels before games.  Obviously there are economic reasons for the proposal, but there is also hope that this proposal could help integrate the athletes with the regular student body. 

Of course, there are concerns that this move will lead to athletes being distracted as they may stay up all night partying with other students.  Certainly this can and will happen.  That said, the coaches know what the athletes are capable of and do not settle for A- effort.  Many people believe that coaches are mentors, but that is often not the case.  This allows a teachable moment where the coaches can mentor the athletes to take care of themselves before games.  If not, their performance will slip and they may get less playing time.  Who knows, athletes abstaining from partying before games could lead the regular student body to tone down their wild ways.  I'm not sure if we can count on that happening!   It might be a moot point anyway as many colleges still have athletic dorms even though they were banned years ago. 

[Ashlen]

Athletics and an institution's commitment to academics
08/27/2009

Inside Higher Ed's David Moltz published a Q&A session today with Kurt Edward Kemper.  Kemper is the author of a new book, College Football and American Culture in the Cold War Era.  Moltz asked several interesting questions about the impact of the armed forces and the GI Bill on football, football's impact on racial integration in the south, and the view of anti-football being communist.  However, the most interesting question in my opinion was about the 1961 Ohio State football team that was barred from playing in the Rose Bowl by the faculty senate.  According to Kemper, the faculty wanted to make a bold statement about the importance of academics in a college environment that was being taken over by football.  Interestingly enough, the 1961 Ohio State situation came up earlier this week when the Kalamazoo Gazette reprinted a 1999 column by the former head of Western Michigan University, Diether H. Haenicke.  Haenicke noted:

An anecdote from Ohio State football history illuminates probably the last time when academics attempted to control the growing influence of sports in their university. In 1961, undefeated in the Big 10 and having trounced Michigan 50-20, OSU was scheduled to go to the Rose Bowl. However, the Faculty Council, fearing that the academic reputation of the school was being overshadowed by the enormous popularity of coach Woody Hayes' football program, voted not to send his team to the Rose Bowl. Open warfare ensued on campus and all over the state of Ohio. But the faculty prevailed, and the Big Ten champion did not go to Pasadena that year.

I don't think it would be a reach for me to say that this would never happen today.  OSU's president, E. Gordon Gee, has stated several times that he would be pumping gas in his home state of Utah if he ever tried messing with OSU athletics.  He would be lucky if that is the worst that happens to him if he tried to change the culture of OSU athletics!

That said, the current faculty has every reason to take the same stance that the 1961 faculty senate took.  The state, the country, and the world could benefit from the teaching and research that can take place at a world class university, but instead the university puts so much attention and focus on athletics that the academic side naturally is slighted at least somewhat so.  My guess is that the faculty senate will not speak up about this issue because they think they have no power, but what happened in 1961 was pretty revolutionary as well.  The 1961 stand for academics may have not had any lasting impact, but it is quite possible that faculty senates working together, perhaps through organizations like COIA or The Drake Group, could make a much needed dent in the college athletics machine. 

[Ashlen]

Scholarships and amateurism
08/29/2009

Earlier this week, Inside Higher Ed published commentary by Allen Sack discussing the amateur myth in college sports and a possible solution to the problem. According to Professor Sack, athletes should be able to receive a multi-year scholarship contingent on academic performance. According to Sack, the current system of one-year renewable scholarships based mostly on athletic performance is just like an employment contract.

I fully agree with Dr. Sack that his model, which he calls the collegiate model, is superior to the status quo in Division I athletics. The crucial component of any scholarship should be academic performance. In theory, athletes would have added incentive to stay focused on academics. Of course, many coaches and athletic administrators will find ways to keep athletes scholarship eligible. The same GPA game has been going on for years in order to keep players eligible and to keep schools APR compliant. Also, it is possible that a few rogue coaches would find ways (or try to at least) to set up an underperforming athlete for academic failure if the coach wanted the scholarship back.

I believe the best solution is to eliminate athletic scholarships under all conditions. That may not be as realistic of a solution as Dr. Sack’s proposal, but it might be the only way to keep intercollegiate athletics consistent with ideals of higher education. An athletic scholarship is nothing more than paying students money solely based on their physical ability and performance. The idea of top universities offering modeling scholarships based on a person’s physical attractiveness and ability to show off the body seems like a ridiculous idea, but is an athletic scholarship any different?

Higher education scholarships should be based on need and academic potential. Athletic scholarships should be reserved for institutions whose stated mission is to be an athletic academy. Perhaps athletic scholarships would have a place in higher education if athletics was a major, but that brings up a whole new set of issues outside the scope of this post. 

This may seem like a foreign idea to some, but all Division III and a few Division I and II schools subscribe to this ideology. In fact, the NCAA released the results of a new survey of Division III coaches, athletics directors, faculty, and athletes. The results show that there isn’t universal praise for the way things are going in Division III, but the numbers are still pretty favorable. The Chronicle of Higher Education summarized the results:

Some faculty members have long felt disconnected from athletics at universities with big-time sports programs. But the sentiment tends to be less common at smaller, Division III colleges.

Granted, athletes often make up a larger percentage of the student body at Division III schools as compared to schools with big-time athletics. Thus, it is necessary to give athletes a good education in order to maintain high standards. Still, Division III athletics is much closer to what college sports should be than most Division I schools.  Systematically funding athletes solely based on athletic ability assumes that athletic ability is a fundamental reason for a university’s existence, but that is simply not the case. Athletes, like models, should be admitted and funded based on academics.