A Call to Action: A Call to Action

A Call to Action: Reconnecting College Sports and Higher Education

Download a PDF of A Call To Action

• A Call to Action: Letter of transmittal
• A Call to Action: Foreword
• A Call to Action: Ten Years Later
• A Call to Action: A Call to Action
• A Call to Action: Appendix A: Additional Issues for Consideration
• A Call to Action: Appendix B: Action on Knight Commission Recommendations of March 1991
• A Call to Action: Appendix C: Meeting Participants
• A Call to Action: Appendix D: Acknowledgments
• A Call to Action: Appendix E: Statement of Principles

A Call to Action

Ten years ago, when the Knight Commission's first report was circulated, Bo Schembechler, former director of athletics at the University of Michigan, said that the reforms then proposed would sound great for awhile, but "by the turn of the century, things will return to their normal state. This hubbub will pass, as will the so-called reformers."

It would seem that at first blush Mr. Schembechler was correct. The next decade did wind up looking a lot like the last.

But that's not to say reform should be written off or the failures in any way ignored. To the contrary. The fallout from having already waited too long to act is all the more reason to persevere. Each passing day compounds the academic corruption and makes the need for curative measures more compelling.

The Commission has pursued this work over the years because it believes the nation's best purposes are served when colleges and universities are strong centers of creative, constant renewal, true to their basic academic purposes. In the opening years of the new century, however, those basic purposes are threatened by the imbalance between athletic imperatives and the academy's values. To say it again, the cultural sea change is now complete. Big-time college football and basketball have been thoroughly professionalized and commercialized.

Nevertheless, the Commission believes that the academic enterprise can still redeem itself and its athletic adjunct. It is still possible that all college sports can be reintegrated into the moral and institutional culture of the university. Indeed, in sports other than football and basketball, for the most part that culture still prevails. Athletes can be (and are) honestly recruited. They can be (and are) true "student-athletes," provided with the educational opportunities for which the university exists. The joys of sport can still be honorably celebrated.

But the pressures that have corrupted too many major athletic programs are moving with inexorable force. If current trends continue, more and more campus programs will increasingly mirror the world of professional, market-driven athletics. What that could look like across the board is now present in high-profile form: weakened academic and amateurism standards, millionaire coaches and rampant commercialism, all combined increasingly with deplorable sportsmanship and misconduct.

Even if the larger picture is not yet fully that bleak, the trend is going in entirely the wrong direction. As it accelerates, so too does the danger that the NCAA might divide - with the major programs forming a new association to do business in very much the same way as the professional sports entertainment industry.

Perhaps 40 to 60 universities (mostly those with large public subsidies) could and might indefinitely operate such frankly commercial athletic programs. Critics might say good riddance. But the academic and moral consequences implicit in such an enterprise are unacceptable to anyone who cares about higher education in this nation.

Such a division must not be allowed to happen. It is time to make a larger truth evident to those who want bigger programs, more games, more exposure, and more dollars. It is this: Most Americans believe the nation's colleges and universities are about teaching, learning and research, not about winning and losing. Most pay only passing attention to athletic success or failure. And many big donors pay no attention at all to sports, recognizing in Bart Giamatti's words that it is a "sideshow."

Part of this larger truth requires understanding something that sports-crazed fans are inclined to ignore or denigrate: Loss of academic integrity in the arenas and stadiums of the nation's colleges and universities is far more destructive to their reputations than a dozen losing seasons could ever be.

Time has demonstrated that the NCAA, even under presidential control, cannot independently do what needs to be done. Its dual mission of keeping sports clean while generating millions of dollars in broadcasting revenue for member institutions creates a near-irreconcilable conflict. Beyond that, as President Cedric Dempsey has said, the NCAA has "regulated itself into paralysis."

The Need to Act Together

The plain truth is that one clear and convincing message needs to be sent to every member of the academic community: What is needed today is not more rules from above, but instead a concerted grassroots effort by the broader academic community - in concert with trustees, administrators and faculty - to restore the balance of athletics and academics on campus.

But a grass-roots effort cannot be expected to flourish campus by campus. As long as there is an athletics arms race, unilateral disarmament on the part of one institution would most assuredly be punished swiftly by loss of position and increased vulnerability. Change will come, sanity will be restored, only when the higher education community comes together to meet collectively the challenges its members face.

Presidents and trustees must work in harness - not wage the battles so commonplace today over control of the athletic enterprise. Presidents cannot act on an issue as emotional and highly visible as athletics without the unwavering public support of their boards. As John Walda, president of the Indiana University board of trustees, told the Commission in early 2001:

"Trustees must insist that their presidents not only be dedicated to recapturing control of college sports, but that they stand up to the media, the entertainment industry, coaches, and athletics directors when the institution's values are threatened. And when a president takes bold action …trustees must support and defend their president and his or her decision."

National higher education associations such as the American Council on Education (ACE) and the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB), in particular, can and should do more to help resolve the persistent problems addressed in this report. Intercollegiate athletics should loom larger in their programming priorities. New and creative programs and services should be offered directly to institutions and their governing boards through joint collaboration among these associations.

Conferences and the NCAA must work together as well. Tensions between conference commissioners and the NCAA must be resolved so that the best interests of intercollegiate athletics and higher education prevail. Power struggles for control of big-time football, revenue distribution, and other matters reflect a culture dominated by competitive rather than academic concerns, and one that often ignores the welfare of the athletes representing their institutions.

Faculty, too, have a critical role to play. Above all, they must defend the academic values of their institutions. Too few faculty speak out on their campus or fight aggressively against meaningless courses or degrees specifically designed to keep athletes eligible, suggesting they have surrendered their role as defenders of academic integrity in the classroom. Further, the academy has capitulated on its responsibility and allowed commercial interests - television, shoe companies, corporate sponsors of all sorts - to dictate the terms under which college sports operate. No academic institution would allow television to arrange its class schedule; neither should television control college athletic schedules. There are scattered signs of faculty awakening, but on many campuses, faculty indifference prevails even when informed critics make their case.

Athletics directors and coaches bear a huge responsibility. Directors of athletics steer the enterprise for their institutions and, in that regard, are in the best position to monitor its direction and raise flags and questions when it heads off course. Coaches are closest to the athletes and have the most influence on the quality of their collegiate experiences. Clearly, pressures on athletics directors and coaches to generate revenues and win at all costs must be mitigated. In turn, athletics directors must see to it that athletics programs are conducted as legitimate and respected components of their institutions. And coaches, quite simply, need to be held more accountable for what goes on around them. They set the tone. "When the cheating starts," the legendary Bear Bryant used to say, "look to the head coach. He's the chairman of the board."

Alumni pressure to escalate athletics programs and produce winning teams distorts and ultimately compromises the values of the institutions they claim to cherish. Alumni must offer strong and visible support to the president and trustees of their alma mater as they work to balance athletics and academics on their campuses. Alumni, better than anyone, should realize that the reputation of their institution depends not on its won-lost record but on its reputation for integrity in all that it undertakes.

A Coalition of Presidents

The Commission understands that collective action is key to overcoming the dynamic of the athletics arms race. No single college or university can afford to act unilaterally, nor can one conference act alone. But a determined and focused group of presidents acting together can transform the world of intercollegiate athletics. Just as Archimedes was convinced he could move the world with the right fulcrum for his lever, presidents from a group of powerful conferences could, in collaboration with the NCAA, create the critical mass needed to bring about the fundamental changes this Commission deems essential.

In its earlier reports, the Commission defined a "one-plus-three" model, with the "one" - presidential control - directed toward the "three" - academic integrity, financial integrity, and certification. The Commission here proposes a new "one-plus-three" model for these new times - with the "one," a Coalition of Presidents, directed toward an agenda of academic reform, de-escalation of the athletics arms race, and de-emphasis of the commercialization of intercollegiate athletics. The Coalition of Presidents' goal must be nothing less than the restoration of athletics as a healthy and integral part of the academic enterprise.

The creation of the Coalition is the first order of business, but its creation will be no panacea in and of itself. Given the enormous scope of this reform effort, the Commission recognizes that change will have to be accomplished in a series of steps over time. As in its earlier reports, the Commission feels no obligation to rewrite the NCAA Manual or propose solutions to every problem on campus. Starting from the broad principle that athletic departments and athletes should be held to the same standards, rules, policies and practices that apply elsewhere in their institutions, the Commission makes the following recommendations for the Coalition's agenda:

Academics. Our key point is that students who participate in athletics deserve the same rights and responsibilities as all other students. Within that broad framework, the Coalition should focus on the following recommendations:

• Athletes should be mainstreamed through the same academic processes as other students. These specifically include criteria for admission, academic support services, choice of major, and requirements governing satisfactory progress toward a degree.
• Graduation rates must improve. By 2007, teams that do not graduate at least 50 percent of their players should not be eligible for conference championships or for postseason play.
• Scholarships should be tied to specific athletes until they (or their entering class) graduate.
• The length of playing, practice and postseasons must be reduced both to afford athletes a realistic opportunity to complete their degrees and to enhance the quality of their collegiate experiences.
• The NBA and the NFL should be encouraged to develop minor leagues so that athletes not interested in undergraduate study are provided an alternative route to professional careers.

These recommendations are not new. What is novel is the Commission's insistence that a new and independent structure is needed to pursue these proposals aggressively.

The Arms Race. The central point with regard to expenditures is the need to insist that athletic departments' budgets be subject to the same institutional oversight and direct control as other university departments. The Coalition should work to:

• Reduce expenditures in big-time sports such as football and basketball. This includes a reduction in the total number of scholarships that may be awarded in Division I-A football.
• Ensure that the legitimate and long-overdue need to support women's athletic programs and comply with Title IX is not used as an excuse for soaring costs while expenses in big-time sports are unchecked.
• Consider coaches' compensation in the context of the academic institutions that employ them. Coaches' jobs should be primarily to educate young people. Their compensation should be brought into line with prevailing norms across the institution.
• Require that agreements for coaches' outside income be negotiated with institutions, not individual coaches. Outside income should be apportioned in the context of an overriding reality: Advertisers are buying the institution's reputation no less than the coaches'.
• Revise the plan for distribution of revenue from the NCAA contract with CBS for broadcasting rights to the Division I men's basketball championship. No such revenue should be distributed based on commercial values such as winning and losing. Instead, the revenue distribution plan should reflect values centered on improving academic performance, enhancing athletes' collegiate experiences, and achieving gender equity.

Again, the recommendations put forth here have been heard before. The Coalition offers a chance to make progress on them at long last.

Commercialization. The fundamental issue is easy to state: Colleges and universities must take control of athletics programs back from television and other corporate interests. In this regard, the Coalition should:

• Insist that institutions alone should determine when games are played, how they are broadcast, and which companies are permitted to use their athletics contests as advertising vehicles.
• Encourage institutions to reconsider all sports-related commercial contracts against the backdrop of traditional academic values.
• Work to minimize commercial intrusions in arenas and stadiums so as to maintain institutional control of campus identity.
• Prohibit athletes from being exploited as advertising vehicles. Uniforms and other apparel should not bear corporate trademarks or the logos of manufacturers or game sponsors. Other athletic equipment should bear only the manufacturer's normal label or trademark.
• Support federal legislation to ban legal gambling on college sports in the state of Nevada and encourage college presidents to address illegal gambling on their campuses.

The Commission is not naïve. It understands that its recommendations governing expenditures and commercialization may well be difficult to accept, even among academics and members of the public deeply disturbed by reports of academic misconduct in athletics programs. The reality is that many severe critics of intercollegiate athletics accept at face value the arguments about the financial exigencies of college sports. In the face of these arguments, they conclude that little can be done to rein in the arms race or to curb the rampant excesses of the market.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The athletics arms race continues only on the strength of the widespread belief that nothing can be done about it. Expenditures roar out of control only because administrators have become more concerned with financing what is in place than rethinking what they are doing. And the market is able to invade the academy both because it is eager to do so and because overloaded administrators rarely take the time to think about the consequences. The Coalition of Presidents can rethink the operational dynamics of intercollegiate athletics, prescribe what needs to be done, and help define the consequences of continuing business as usual.

Membership and Financing

The Commission recommends that the president of the American Council on Education (ACE), working with the NCAA and the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB), bring together presidential and trustee leadership drawn from ACE, the NCAA, AGB, and Division I-A conferences to establish the Coalition of Presidents. We emphasize the importance of the commitment and active involvement of presidents; Coalition members must be drawn from their group. This is an extraordinary undertaking that cannot be delegated to conference commissioners or the executive staffs of the organizations represented. As we said in our initial report 10 years ago, "The Commission's bedrock conviction is that university presidents are the key to successful reform."

The presidents who must step forward should represent the conferences conducting the most visible and successful athletics programs - in terms of national championships and revenues produced. These are the conferences representing the lion's share of big-time programs. They include: the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC), the Big East, the Big Ten, the Big 12, the Pacific-10, and the Southeastern Conference (SEC). But membership must not be restricted to presidents from those conferences alone. Institutional compromises in favor of athletics are not limited to the biggest sports schools. Coalition membership, therefore, should be strengthened by presidents from conferences that are not founding members of the BCS but that also compete at the Division I-A level.

The Coalition of Presidents should work collaboratively with the NCAA Division I Board of Directors, meeting jointly from time to time to identify priorities for review and discussion, focus on reform solutions, and develop a comprehensive timeline for appropriate action by the Division I board and by the officers of other higher education associations.

To protect the Coalition's objectivity and the credibility of its recommendations, it is absolutely critical in the Commission's view that it be financially independent of the athletics enterprises it is designed to influence, namely, the NCAA and the conference offices. The Commission believes the Coalition should be financed independently with assessments and dues from its member institutions, support from the higher education associations, and perhaps grants from the philanthropic community.

To complement and support the critical work that must be done, we recommend that Knight Foundation consider helping fund the Coalition of Presidents with matching grants based on performance to the American Council on Education, and establishing, perhaps with other foundations and the Association of Governing Boards, a separate and independent body - an Institute for Intercollegiate Athletics. The Commission envisions the Institute not as an action agency but as a watchdog to maintain pressure for change. It should keep the problems of college sports visible, provide moral leadership in defense of educational integrity, monitor pro g re s s toward reform goals, and issue periodic report cards.

A Final Word

This Commission concludes its work with an admission and an exhortation. The admission first. Most of us who serve on the Knight Commission have held leadership positions while the excesses we deplore here have distorted American higher education. We offer our indictment of the existing situation painfully aware that it calls us, no less than others, to account.

The exhortation involves a strong reaffirmation of the role and purpose of higher education in enhancing the well-being of our nation. That role is best filled and these purposes best achieved when integrity, character and honor are the hallmarks of academic activities across the board - on the playing field as much as in the classroom and laboratory.

There are no downsides to thoroughgoing reform. When and if accomplished, athletic contests would still be attended by their fans and covered by the media even if the players were students first and athletes second. None of the measures proposed here will diminish competitiveness. The games will continue and be just as exciting - perhaps more so if played without television timeouts interrupting and changing the very nature of the game. Although there might be some grumbling in the short term, the enthusiasm of students and alumni will not be abated over the long haul, largely because most will not notice the difference.

But if there is no downside to deep and sustained reform, continued inattention to the problems described here is fraught with potential dangers. Failure to engage in self-corrective action may leave higher education vulnerable to external interventions, especially legislative. In some areas that would be welcome, as in steps to control the influence of gambling. In others, it would be unwelcome, as in a possible attack on college sports' tax-exempt status.

Worse, some predict that failure to reform from within will lead to the collapse of the current intercollegiate athletics system. Early warning signs of just that are abundant and should not be ignored. If it proves impossible to create a system of intercollegiate athletics that can live honorably within the American college and university, then responsible citizens must join with academic and public leaders to insist that the nation's colleges and universities get out of the business of big-time sports.

The Knight Foundation Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics trusts that day will never arrive. The search now is for the will to act. Surely the colleges and universities of the land have within their community the concerned and courageous leaders it will take to return intercollegiate athletics to the mainstream of American higher education. If not, it is not the integrity of intercollegiate sports that will be held up to question, but the integrity of higher education itself.