Keeping Faith: A New Model

Keeping Faith with the Student-Athlete: A New Model for Intercollegiate Athletics

Download a PDF of this publication

• Letter of Transmittal
• Introduction
• Reform
• A New Model
• Putting Principles into Action
• Principles for Action
• Appendix A: Acknowledgements
• Appendix B: Meeting Particpants
• Download a PDF of this publication

A New Model

“ONE-PLUS-THREE”

Individual institutions and the NCAA have consistently dealt with problems in athletics by defining most issues as immediate ones: curbing particular abuses, developing nationally uniform standards, or creating a “level playing field” overseen by athletics administrators. But the real problem is not one of curbing particular abuses. It is a more central need to have academic administrators define the terms under which athletics will be conducted in the university’s name. The basic concern is not nationally uniform standards. It is a more fundamental issue of grounding the regulatory process in the primacy of academic values. The root difficulty is not creating a “level playing field”. It is insuring that those on the field are students as well as athletes.

We reject the argument that the only realistic solution to the problem is to drop the studentathlete concept, put athletes on the payroll, and reduce or even eliminate their responsibilities as students.

Such a scheme has nothing to do with education, the purpose for which colleges and universities exist. Scholarship athletes are already paid in the most meaningful way possible: with a free education. The idea of intercollegiate athletics is that the teams represent their institutions as true members of the student body, not as hired hands. Surely American higher education has the ability to devise a better solution to the problems of intercollegiate athletics than making professionals out of the players, which is no solution at all but rather an unacceptable surrender to despair.

It is clear to the Commission that a realistic solution will not be found without a serious and persistent commitment to a fundamental concept: intercollegiate athletics must reflect the values of the university. Where the realities of intercollegiate competition challenge those values, the university must prevail.

The reform we seek takes shape around what the Commission calls the “one-plus-three” model. It consists of the “one”—presidential control—directed toward the “three”—academic integrity, financial integrity and accountability through certification. This model is fully consistent with the university as a context for vigorous and exciting intercollegiate competition. It also serves to bond athletics to the purposes of the university in a way that provides a new framework for their conduct.

The three sides of the reform triangle reinforce each other. Each strengthens the other two. At the same time, the three principles can only be realized through presidential leadership. The coach can only do so much to advance academic values. The athletics director can only go so far to guarantee financial integrity. The athletics department cannot certify itself. But the president, with a transcendent responsibility for every aspect of the university, can give shape and focus to all three.

With such a foundation in place, higher education can renew its authentic claim on public confidence in the integrity of college sports. All of the subordinate issues and problems of intercollegiate athletics—athletic dorms, freshman eligibility, the length of playing seasons and recruitment policies—can be resolved responsibly within this model. Without such a base, athletics reform is doomed to continue in fits and starts, its energy rising and falling with each new headline, its focus shifting to respond to each new manifestation of the underlying problems. It is the underlying problems, not their symptoms, that need to be attacked. The “one-plus-three” model is the foundation on which those who care about higher education and student-athletes can build permanent reform.

THE “ONE”: PRESIDENTIAL CONTROL

Presidents are accountable for the major elements in the university’s life. The burden of leadership falls on them for the conduct of the institution, whether in the classroom or on the playing field. The president cannot be a figurehead whose leadership applies elsewhere in the university but not in the athletics department.

The following recommendations are designed to advance presidential control:

1. Trustees should explicitly endorse and reaffirm presidential authority in all matters of athletics governance. The basis of presidential authority on campus is the governing board. If presidential action is to be effective, it must have the backing of the board of trustees. We recommend that governing boards:
   
   • Delegate to the president administrative authority over financial matters in the athletics program.
     
   • Work with the president to develop common principles for hiring, evaluating and terminating all athletics administrators, and affirm the president’s role and ultimate authority in this central aspect of university administration.
     
   • Advise each new president of its expectations about athletics administration and annually review the athletics program.
     
   • Work with the president to define the faculty’s role, which should be focused on academic issues in athletics.
2. Presidents should act on their obligation to control conferences. We believe that presidents of institutions affiliated with athletics conferences should exercise effective voting control of these organizations. Even if day-to-day representation at conference proceedings is delegated to other institutional representatives, presidents should formally retain the authority to define agendas, offer motions, cast votes or provide voting instructions, and review and, if necessary, reshape conference decisions.
3. Presidents should control the NCAA. The Knight Commission believes hands-on presidential involvement in NCAA decision-making is imperative. As demonstrated by the overwhelming approval of their reform legislation at the 1991 NCAA convention, presidents have the power to set the course of the NCAA - if they will use it. The Commission recommends that:
   
   • Presidents make informed use of the ultimate NCAA authority - their votes on the NCAA convention floor. They should either attend and vote personally, or familiarize themselves with the issues and give their representatives specific voting instructions. Recent procedural changes requiring that pending legislation be published for review several months before formal consideration simplify this task enormously.
     
   • The Presidents Commission follow up its recent success with additional reform measures, beginning with the legislation on academic requirements it proposes to sponsor in 1992. The Commission can and should consolidate its leadership role by energetic use of its authority to draft legislation, to determine whether balloting will be by roll call or paddle, and to order the convention agenda.
     
   • Presidents must stay the course. Opponents of progress have vowed they will be back to reverse recent reform legislation. Presidents must challenge these defenders of the status quo. They cannot win the battle for reform if they fight in fits and starts — their commitment to restoring perspective to intercollegiate athletics must be complete and continuing.
4. Presidents should commit their institutions to equity in all aspects of intercollegiate athletics. The Commission emphasizes that continued inattention to the requirements of Title IX (mandating equitable treatment of women in educational programs) represents a major stain on institutional integrity. It is essential that presidents take the lead in this area. We recommend that presidents:
   
   • Annually review participation opportunities in intercollegiate programs by gender.
     
   • Develop procedures to insure more opportunities for women’s participation and promote equity for women’s teams in terms of schedules, facilities, travel arrangements and coaching.
5. Presidents should control their institution’s involvement with commercial television. The lure of television dollars has clearly exacerbated the problems of intercollegiate athletics. Just as surely, institutions have not found the will or the inclination to define the terms of their involvement with the entertainment industry. Clearly, something must be done to mitigate the growing public perception that the quest for television dollars is turning college sports into an entertainment enterprise. In the Commission’s view it is crucial that presidents, working through appropriate conference and NCAA channels, immediately and critically review contractual relationships with networks. It is time that institutions clearly prescribe the policies, terms and conditions of the televising of intercollegiate athletics events. Greater care must be given to the needs and obligations of the student-athlete and the primacy of the academic calendar over the scheduling requirements of the networks.

THE “THREE”: ACADEMIC INTEGRITY

The first consideration on a university campus must be academic integrity. The fundamental premise must be that athletes are students as well. They should not be considered for enrollment at a college or university unless they give reasonable promise of being successful at that institution in a course of study leading to an academic degree. Student-athletes should undertake the same courses of study offered to other students and graduate in the same proportion as those who spend comparable time as full-time students. Their academic performance should be measured by the same criteria applied to other students.

Admissions — At some Division I institutions, according to NCAA data, every football and basketball player admitted in the 1988-89 academic year met the university’s regular admissions standards. At others, according to the same data, not a single football or basketball player met the regular requirements. At half of all Division I-A institutions, about 20 percent or more of football and basketball players are “special admits,” i.e., admitted with special consideration, That rate is about 10 times as high as the rate for total student body.

The Commission believes that the freshman eligibility rule known as Proposition 48 has improved the academic preparation of student-athletes. Proposition 48 has also had some unanticipated consequences. Virtually unnoticed in the public discussion about Proposition 48 is the requirement that the high school grade point average be computed for only 11 units of academic work. Out of 106 Division I-A institutions, 97 of them (91 percent) require or recommend more than 11 high school academic units for the typical high school applicant. In fact, 73 Division I-A institutions, according to their published admissions criteria, require or recommend 15 or more academic high school units from all other applicants.

Academic Progress — The most recent NCAA data indicate that in one-half of all Division I institutions about 90 percent of all football and basketball players are meeting “satisfactory” progress requirements and are, therefore, eligible for intercollegiate competition. Under current regulations, however, it is possible for a student-athlete to remain eligible each year but still be far from a degree after five years as a full-time student. The 1991 NCAA convention began to address this issue in enacting provisions requiring that at the end of the third year of enrollment, student-athletes should have completed 50 percent of their degree requirements.

The 1991 convention also made significant headway in reducing the excessive time demands athletic participation places on student-athletes. Throughout the 1980s, according to the recent NCAA research, football and basketball players at Division I-A institutions spent approximately 30 hours a week on their sports in season, more time than they spent attending or preparing for class.

Football and basketball are far from the only sinners. Baseball, golf and tennis players report the most time spent on sports. Many other sports for both men and women, including swimming and gymnastics, demand year-round conditioning if athletes are to compete successfully. It remains to be seen whether the recent NCAA legislation will make a genuine dent in the onerous demands on students’ time.

Graduation Rates — At some Division I institutions, 100 percent of the basketball players or the football players graduate within five years of enrolling. At others, none of the basketball or football players graduate within five years. In the typical Division I college or university, only 33 percent of basketball players and 37.5 percent of football players graduate within five years. Overall graduation rates for all student-athletes (men and women) in Division I approach graduation rates for all students in Division I according to the NCAA—47 percent of all student-athletes in Division I graduate in five years.

Dreadful anecdotal evidence about academic progress and graduation rates is readily available. But the anecdotes merely illustrate what the NCAA data confirm: About two-thirds of the student-athletes in big-time, revenue-producing sports have not received a college degree within five years of enrolling at their institution.

The Commission’s recommendations on academic integrity can be encapsulated in a very simple concept—“No Pass, No Play.” That concept, first developed for high school athletics eligibility in Texas, is even more apt for institutions of higher education. It applies to admissions, to academic progress and to graduation rates.

The following recommendations are designed to advance academic integrity:

1. The NCAA should strengthen initial eligibility requirements. Proposition 48 has served intercollegiate athletics well. It has helped insure that more student-athletes are prepared for the rigors of undergraduate study. It is time to build on and extend its success. We recommend that:
   
   • By 1995 prospective student-athletes should present 15 units of high school academic work in order to be eligible to play in their first year.
     
   • A high school student-athlete should be ineligible for reimbursed campus visits or for signing a letter of intent until the admissions office indicates he or she shows reasonable promise of being able to meet the requirements for a degree.
     
   • student-athletes transferring from junior colleges should meet the admissions requirements applied to other junior college students. Moreover, junior college transfers who did not meet NCAA Proposition 48 requirements when they graduated from high school should be required to sit out a year of competition after transfer.
     
   • Finally, we propose an NCAA study of the conditions under which colleges and universities admit athletes. This study should be designed to see if it is feasible to put in place admissions requirements to insure that the range of academic ability for incoming athletes, by sport, would approximate the range of abilities for the institution’s freshman class.
2. The letter of intent should serve the student as well as the athletics department. Incoming freshmen who have signed a letter of intent to attend a particular institution should be released from that obligation if the head coach who recruited them leaves the institution, or if the institution is put on probation by the NCAA, before the enroll. Such incoming student-athletes should be automatically eligible to apply to any other college or university, except the head or assistant coach’s new home, and to participate in intercollegiate athletics. Currently student-athletes are locked into the institution no matter how its athletics program changes—a restriction that applies to no other student.
3. Athletics scholarships should be offered for a five year period. In light of the time demands of athletics competition, we believe that eligibility should continue to be limited to a period of four years, but athletics scholarship assistance routinely should cover the time required to complete a degree, up to a maximum of five years. Moreover, the initial offer to the student-athlete should be for the length of time required to earn a degree up to five years, not the single year now mandated by NCAA rules. The only athletics condition under which the five-year commitment could be broken would be if the student refused to participate in the sport for which the grantin- aid was offered. Otherwise, aid should continue as long as the student-athlete remains in good standing at the institution.
4. Athletics eligibility should depend on progress toward a degree. In order to retain eligibility, enrolled athletes should be able to graduate within five years and to demonstrate progress toward that goal each semester. At any time during the studentathlete’s undergraduate years, the university should be able to demonstrate that the athlete can meet this test without unreasonable course loads. Further, eligibility for participation should be restricted to students who meet the institution’s published academic requirements, including a minimum grade point average when applicable.
5. Graduation rates of athletes should be a criterion for NCAA certification. The Commission believes that no university should countenance lower graduation rates for its student-athletes, in any sport, than it is willing to accept in the full-time student body at large. Fundamental to the restoration of public trust is our belief that graduation rates in revenue-producing sports should be a major criterion on which NCAA certification depends.

THE “THREE” : FINANCIAL INTEGRITY

An institution of higher education has an abiding obligation to be a responsible steward of all the recourse that support its activities — whether in the form of taxpayer’s dollars, the hardearned payments of students and their parents, the contributions of alumni, or the revenue stream generated by athletics programs. In this respect, the responsibility of presidents and trustees is singular.

Costs - A 1990 College Football Association study indicated that in the prior four years, the cost of operating an athletics department increased 35 percent while revenues increased only 21 percent. For the first time in its surveys, said the CFA, average expenses exceed average income. Overall, 39 of 53 institutions responding — including some of the largest and presumably the most successful sports programs — are either operating deficits or would be without institutional or state support. More comprehensive data from the NCAA confirm that, on average, the athletics programs of Division I-A institutions barely break even. When athletics expenses are subtracted from revenues, the average Division I-A institutions is left with $39,000.

The Larger Economic Environment - Big-time sports programs are economic magnets. They attract entertainment and business interests of a wide variety. They support entire industries dedicated to their needs and contests. But while college sports provide a demonstrably effective and attractive public showcase for the university, potential pitfalls abound because of the money involved. Particular vigilance is required to assure that central administrators set the terms under which the university engages the larger economic environment surrounding big-time college sports. The lack of such monitoring in the past explains many of the financial scandals that have tarnished college athletics. The Commission therefore recommends that:

1. Athletics costs must be reduced. The Commission applauds the cost control measures — including reductions in coaching staff sizes, recruiting activities and the number of athletics scholarships — approved at the 1991 NCAA convention. It is essential that presidents monitor these measures to insure that, in the name of “fine tuning,” these provisions are not watered down before they become fully effective in 1994. We urge the Presidents Commission, athletics directors and the NCAA leadership to continue the search for cost-reduction measures.
2. Athletics grants-in-aid should cover the full cost of attendance for the very needy. Despite the Commission’s commitment to cost reduction, we believe existing grants-in-aid (tuition, fees, books, and room and board) fail to adequately address the needs of some student-athletes. Assuming the ten percent reduction in scholarship numbers approved at the 1991 NCAA convention is put in place, we recommend that grants-in-aid for low-income athletes be expanded to the “full cost of attendance,” including personal and miscellaneous expenses, as determined by federal guidelines.
3. The independence of athletics foundations and booster clubs must be curbed. Some booster clubs have contributed generously to overall athletics revenues. But too many of these organizations seem to have been created either in response to state laws prohibiting the expenditure of public funds on athletics or to avoid institutional oversight of athletics expenditures. Such autonomous authority can severely compromise the university. Progress has been made in recent years in bringing most of these organizations under the control of institutions. More needs to be done. The Commission believes that no extra-institutional organization should be responsible for any operational aspect of an intercollegiate athletics programs. All funds raised for athletics should be channeled into the university’s financial system and subjected to the same budgeting procedures applied to similarly structured departments and programs.
4. The NCAA formula for sharing television revenue from the national basketball championship must be reviewed by university presidents. The new revenue-sharing plan for distributing television and championship dollars has many promising features - funds for academic counseling, catastrophic injury insurance for all athletes in all divisions, a fund for needy student-athletes, and financial support for teams in all divisions, including increased transportation and per diem expenses. Nonetheless, the testimony before this Commission made it clear that a perception persists that the plan still places too high a financial premium on winning and that the rich will continue to get richer. The Commission recommends that the plan be reviewed annually by the Presidents Commission during the seven-year life of the current television contract and adjusted as warranted by experience.
5. All athletics-related coaches’ income should be reviewed and approved by the university. The Commission believes that in considering non-coaching income for its coaches, universities should follow a well-established practice with all faculty members: If the outside income involves the university’s functions, facilities or name, contracts for particular services should be negotiated with the university. As part of the effort to bring athletics-related income into the university, we recommend that the NCAA ban shoe and equipment contracts with individual coaches. If a company is eager to have an institution’s athletes using its product, it should approach the institution not the coach.
6. Coaches should be offered long-term contracts. Academic tenure is not appropriate for most coaches, unless they are bona fide members of the faculty. But greater security in an insecure field is clearly reasonable. The Commission suggests that within five years of contractual employment, head and assistant coaches who meet the university’s expectations, including its academic expectations, should be offered renewable, long-term contracts. These contracts should specifically address the university’s obligations in the event of termination, as well as the coach’s obligations in the event he or she breaks the contract by leaving the institution.
7. Institutional support should be available for intercollegiate athletics. The Commission starts from the premise that properly administered intercollegiate athletics programs have legitimate standing in the university community. In that light, general funds can appropriately be used when needed to reduce the pressure on revenue sports to support the entire athletics program. There is an inherent contradiction in insisting on the one hand that athletics are an important part of the university while arguing, on the other hand, that spending institutional funds for them is somehow improper.

THE “THREE”: CERTIFICATION

The third leg of our triangle calls for independent authentication by an outside body of integrity of each institution’s athletics program. It seems clear that the health of most college athletics programs, like the health of most individuals, depends on periodic checkups. Regular examinations are required to ensure the major systems are functioning properly and that problems are treated before they threaten the health of the entire program. Such checkups should cover the entire range of academic and financial issues in intercollegiate athletics.

The academic and financial integrity of college athletics is in such low repute that authentication by an outside agency is essential. Periodic independent assessments of a program can go a long way toward guaranteeing that the athletics culture on campus responds to academic direction, that expenditures are routinely reviewed, that the president’s authority is respected by the board of trustees, and that the trustees stand for academic values when push comes to shove in the athletics department.

Regarding independent certification, the Commission therefore recommends:

1. The NCAA should extend the certification process to all institutions granting athletics aid. The NCAA is now in the midst of a pilot effort to develop a certification program which will, when in place, certify the integrity of athletics programs. We recommend that this pilot certification process be extended on a mandatory basis to all institutions granting athletics aid. Of critical importance to the Commission in its support of this new activity is the assurance of NCAA officials that certification will depend, in large measure, on the comparison of student-athletes, by sport, with the rest of the student body in terms of admissions, academic progress and graduation rates. Equally important are plans to publicly identify institutions failing the certification process.
2. Universities should undertake comprehensive, annual policy audits of their athletics program. We urge extending the annual financial audit now required by the NCAA to incorporate academic issues and athletics governance. The new annual review should examine student-athletes’ admissions records, academic progress and graduation rates, as well as the athletics department’s management and budget. This activity should serve as preventive maintenance to insure institutional integrity and can provide the annual raw data to make the certification process effective.
3. The certification program should include the major themes put forth in this document. If the new certification program is to be effective and institutions are to meet its challenge, we believe colleges and universities will be forced to undergo the most rigorous self-examination of the policies and procedures by which they control their sports programs. This document concludes with ten principles that, in the form of a restatement of the Commission’s implementing recommendations, can serve as a vehicle for such self-examination. We urge the NCAA to incorporate these principles into the certification process.