TDG News 4-14-08
Drakes,
This is the last TDG news before the CSRI conference, TDG Annual Meeting, and the Robert Maynard Hutchins
Award Dinner. When all of that is complete we will have news on the new Executive Committee, a new executive
director, a new dues structure, and other important initiatives. For those of you coming to Memphis we look forward
to seeing you there. Below—much carryover from the Michigan disclosure case along with a request from TDG
member Bill Dowling to have all Drakes and respond to the Ann Arbor News with regard to their great coverage of
this issue. The rest of the news covers some of the academic issues regarding March Madness and the continued
rhetoric of the NBA and the NCAA to raise the NBA age limit under the guise of “education.”
Before I go—I have enjoyed my time as Executive Director of TDG and I look forward to working with the next
director as an ex-officio member of the Executive Committee. Many things are happening and stories like the
Michigan expose have happened largely because of our efforts to make sure the struggle for academic integrity
does not go unnoticed. I look forward to a productive annual meeting and Keep up the Fight!!!
Dave
---------------
Dave,
The Ann Arbor News, as you know, has just done a fantastic job of isolating and reporting on a structure of
academic fraud in the athletics department. Pulitzer-level investigative reporting, in my opinion.
The paper is taking an enormous amount of heat from the athletics department and the university administration,
not to mention the UM booster subculture.
If you haven't circulated it already, here's a live link to the 4-part series:
University of Michigan Academics and Athletics - MLive.com
Now. The News and the investigative team that did the series is seriously demoralized by the violence of the local
response -- in effect, a threat to cut off the major newspaper covering UM from sources on all subjects. The booster
reaction has been predictably violent.
One problem is that the local boosters are arguing that the series hasn't "gone national."
I think it would be a tremendous help if Drake people all over the country were to (1) read the series, and (2) send
letters to the News making it clear that it has aroused a national reaction. So long as the administration thinks
they've contained the damage (read "truth"), they're likely to remain adamant and mindlessly punitive. Here's a live
link to the letters page of the News. Readers can send in letters electronically:
The Ann Arbor News - Letters to the Editor
My guess is that letters from thoughtful people around the country who are deeply concerned about Div IA sports
corruption would help turn the tide of opinion in the newspaper's favor.. As I said, I expect the reporters will be
nominated for a Pulitzer for this series, but in the meantime holding off the yobbos is likely to be a lonely and
paranoid business. Truth-telling hasn't gotten any easier in this country in the last few decades.
Please circulate this to Drake people. If possible, simply by forwarding, rather than the attachment format that you
standardly use.
Thanks,
W.C. Dowling
Rutgers University
--------------
Educating athletes: Will faculty take lead?
Staff Editorial, Ann Arbor News, 24 March 2008
University of Michigan's athletic director, Bill Martin, has very publicly declared his goal of boosting graduation rates
among athletes. He has stated that academics should be the department's primary focus, and helped raised money
to build the impressive new Stephen M. Ross Academic Center, part of the university's athletic campus.
But boosting graduation rates is a far different mandate than truly helping students get a quality education, and it's
that latter goal that seems to trail a distant second, despite the rhetoric of the university's top leaders.
The department's Academic Success Program is the best example of the disparity between those two goals. Though
the program's co-directors report to both Martin and the provost's office, salaries for its employees are paid for by
the athletic department and it is clearly part of the athletics team, according to athletes and former staffers.
The result of this dual-reporting structure is that actual responsibility for the athletes' education falls in a convenient
gray area. ASP counselors are focused on keeping students eligible and getting them a degree - priorities for the
athletic department, particularly for the revenue-generating sports of football and men's basketball.
But no one on the academic or athletic sides is truly vested in overseeing the quality of that education.
The system - which is not unique to Michigan - is supported by the highest levels of the administration and, indeed,
by governing groups like the NCAA and Big Ten. That, too, provides convenient cover. By focusing on compliance
with rules and regulations, officials can avoid dealing directly with the disconnect between their professed
commitment to an athlete's graduation, and the actual education that some athletes receive.
Though Martin and U-M President Mary Sue Coleman have refused to discuss this issue with The News, it was a
topic last week at a closed door meeting between Coleman and U-M regents. Afterwards, Regent Andrew Richner, R-
Grosse Pointe Park, told The News that the university is conducting an internal review. "We're in the process of
reviewing these issues and I know the university has been spending considerable effort and time into ensuring we're
meeting the standards of the NCAA and Big Ten and other rules that apply to us,'' he said.
Yet previous internal reviews - ones that officials point to in defense of the way athletes are educated - have been
perfunctory at best, and seemed designed simply to prove that no rules have been broken, without a willingness to
dig deeper.
Given this context, who can take the lead in pushing for substantive reform?
In a forward to a 2004 report titled "The Faculty-Driven Movement to Reform Big-Time College Sports,'' former U-M
president James Duderstadt wrote: "A century of efforts to reform college sports have been largely ineffective. It is
time to acknowledge that working through athletic organizations such as the NCAA, the conferences or the athletic
departments is futile. These are led or influenced by those who have the most to gain from further commercialization
of college sports. It is my belief that you will never achieve true reform or control through these organizations, since
the foxes are in firm control of the hen house.''
Duderstadt and others believe that faculty leaders have the best chance of returning academic integrity to the
education of college athletes. Making academic units responsible for how athletes are educated - as they are for
other students - would go far to solve some of the problems outlined in our recent four-day series. That, coupled
with greater transparency, is the best way for universities nationwide to ensure that the decades-long, two-tier
system of education comes to an end.
We've said before that Michigan has the opportunity to take a leadership role here. Perhaps the faculty - who
understand the true value of a meaningful education, and whose reputation is being sullied by the current situation -
will step up to this daunting challenge.
Athletics at UM: academic disgrace
Staff Editorial, Jackson Citizen Patriot, 23 March 2008
Issue
Ann Arbor News series reveals academic gaps among the University of Michigan's athletes.
Our Say
Steering athletes toward easy-to-get degrees is a disservice to them, other students and the "Harvard of the
Midwest."
When former University of Michigan football player Jim Harbaugh maintained last year that U-M's student-athletes
get an easy ride, some labeled him a traitor. The Ann Arbor News, however, just finished looking at the school's
athletes and validated much of what Harbaugh said.
What's distressing is that this self-styled "Harvard of the Midwest" steers many athletes toward easy courses. The
result is that they continue to play while cheapening the academic environment for everyone else. So far, U-M
President Mary Sue Coleman and Athletic Director Bill Martin have been mum. That needs to change. They serve
not just the university but state taxpayers.
The Ann Arbor newspaper's four-part series uncovered many areas of concern within the athletic department,
particularly when it comes to football and basketball players. Among the findings:
• Many athletes are steered toward independent-study courses with one psychology professor. Interviews with
former players showed these students would meet sparingly, do little work and learn such topics as study habits.
• Athletes often start toward degrees in kinesiology, aka sports management, and transfer into general studies.
Many universities have abandoned general-studies degrees.
• Academic advisers in the athletic department discourage athletes from more-challenging coursework.
An illustration of the problem came from former hockey player Eric Werner. He took four courses in the Native
American language Ojibwe and got two As, an A-Minus and a B. Today, he said he is not sure even what Ojibwe is.
The devastating picture is this: a school that takes an interest in student-athletes only so they can keep playing.
Let's be clear on one thing: Athletes should not be expected to be a university's top scholars. Those who play sports
devote untold hours toward travel and practice that most other degree-seekers don't. And their athleticism, much
like a musicianship or another specialized talent, should count toward admission.
What can't be allowed is for them to get a pass academically. Student-athletes deserve advisers who help them face
their academic demands, not duck them with cop-out courses. Their degree (if they get one) means less. The
practices outlined in this series cross the line of acceptability, and something must be done about it.
First, President Coleman, who declined The Ann Arbor News' requests for an in-person or telephone interview, must
address these issues publicly. Can she possibly condone what's happening? What will she do about it, to maintain
the integrity of Michigan's top university?
We are deeply disappointed in the U-M Board of Regents as well. They announced an internal review Thursday but
also declared their support for the administration and athletic department. These regents are elected
representatives of the people, and they must not forget their role. This is not a time to circle the wagons.
If the board and the administration won't address the questions raised on their own, lawmakers and taxpayers who
fund the university should demand answers.
2 key academic areas need reform
Staff Editorial, Ann Arbor News, 24 March 2008
The concept underlying a general studies degree or an independent study course looks great: Give students the
flexibility to create an education tailored to their individual interests.
The reality can be far different - and when athletics intersects academics, it often is.
At the University of Michigan, general studies and independent studies are frequently used as tools to keep certain
athletes academically eligible to compete. Even as university leaders set U-M apart for its academic excellence,
student athletes are being guided into degrees and courses with far different - and sometimes negligible - standards.
And because no specific unit within the university is directly accountable for the general studies degree or
independent studies in aggregate, there's little if any oversight of how these degrees and courses are used.
That makes them ripe for abuse.
Because while it's possible to assemble a truly diverse and challenging degree path through general studies, it's
equally possible to string together a set of courses heavy on athlete-friendly professors.
The general studies degree was created in 1969 to allow students to craft a more interdisciplinary education, picking
a wider variety of elective courses than other degrees allowed. It's fairly unique among U-M's peer institutions - most
institutions we queried don't offer similar degrees.
Indeed, as other degree tracks at U-M began to widen the choice of electives, and as the university overall
developed more interdisciplinary programs, student interest in general studies declined. But while athletes make up
less than 3 percent of the overall undergraduate population, they account for an astounding 49 percent of students
pursuing degrees in general studies.
That disparity is striking - and should raise a red flag to university officials who claim that academic standards are
enforced for its student athletes. The disparity is even greater for certain sports: Within U-M's 2004 football team,
for example, 78 percent of team members on scholarship eventually listed their major as general studies.
Also worth note is that the trend for athletes to pursue general studies followed the strengthening of upper-level
coursework required for a sport management major - formerly the major of choice for many athletes.
The question isn't whether general studies is a worthy degree - no doubt students can use that major to design a
rigorous education.
The question that university officials don't want to ask is how the general studies degree is being manipulated to
create a safe harbor for athletes, a way to pick and choose less demanding courses or professors and ultimately
graduate without ever receiving a quality education.
The same is true for independent studies courses. A seven-month project by The News revealed how a high
percentage of athletes take courses from certain faculty members - courses with a reputation for an easy grade.
Until university leaders demand stricter oversight and greater transparency, abuses will continue.
At minimum, both general studies degrees and independent studies courses should be rigorously audited. Without
identifying individual students, those audits should be made public.
Are athletes clustering with certain professors largely out of proportion to their population in the student body? Is the
grading curve inflated in those classes? Are those situations being used to construct an easier path through
Michigan?
Transparency would quickly answer those questions.
Who'll take the lead in these reforms? Clearly not the athletic department, with its vested interest in manipulating the
system to keep athletes eligible to play.
Faculty leaders could play a role, but it's unclear whether they have interest in doing so.
What is clear is that without reform of both these areas - coupled with broader reforms linked to how athletes are
educated - student athletes have dim hope of receiving the kind of quality education the rest of Michigan's student
population attains.
Degree of denial at U-M
Staff Editorial, Grand Rapids Press, 25 March 2008
You don't have to be a Rhodes Scholar to conclude that something is amiss with the University of Michigan's
academic support program for student-athletes. Published reports indicate questionable methods are used to keep
athletes academically eligible to play. But instead of confronting the potentially embarrassing situation, university
officials have taken a kill the messenger approach.
A seven-month investigation by the Ann Arbor News found that scores of athletes pursue general studies degrees
and are steered to independent study courses taught by psychology professor John Hagen. Such courses are
generally one-on-one classes with the professor for a subject not offered by the university. Since 2004, more than
85 percent of the students taking independent studies from Mr. Hagen have been athletes. According to transcripts
reviewed by the newspaper, those athletes received grades much higher than their grade point average in their
other classes; high enough to keep them playing.
The report raises legitimate questions about the quality of education athletes are getting at U-M.
Instead of appointing a blue-ribbon committee to get to the bottom of the newspaper's troubling findings, university
president Mary Sue Coleman has not faced the issue head-on. She and athletic director Bill Martin have refused
face-to-face interviews with the News.
Athletes from every varsity sport at U-M except women's water polo and cross country -- including 22 members of
last fall's football team -- have taken independent studies with Mr. Hagen since fall of 2004. The professor has
taught as many as 45 independent studies in a single semester. That's a lot considering other professors usually
limit themselves to no more than three a semester. From the fall of 2004 to fall of 2007, Mr. Hagen taught at least
294 independent studies, 251 of them taken by athletes. Many of them described being taught how to use a day
planner, manage their time and take notes.
That's not rigorous academic subject matter for a school with Michigan's pedigree. The university is internationally
renowned for its academics and is proud of the image it has cultivated as a school where athletics don't trump
academics. Anything that would tarnish the university's well-earned reputation should prompt an immediate and
thorough probe.
Ms. Coleman's lack of strong leadership is particularly troubling. She has long paid lip service to increasing
graduation rates for student-athletes. She headed the NCAA task force that wrote new measures in 2004 penalizing
schools for low athlete graduation rates. Getting those graduation rates up at U-M shouldn't involve courses that
require little, if any, brain power. Ms. Coleman should be concerned if athletes at her institution are taking classes
simply to keep themselves eligible to play sports rather than contributing toward a degree.
University leaders ought not have to be shamed into acknowledging the problem or forced into fixing it. Anyone who
cares about athletes having futures beyond the lockerroom should be demanding answers.
University of Michigan's top leaders aren't part of the conversation
Ed Petykiewicz, Ann Arbor News, 2 April 2008
The topic of athletics and academics has been part of a communitywide discussion since The News published a four-
part series earlier this month that examined that topic at the University of Michigan.
Discussions have taken place in coffee shops, across tables at lunch and dinner, in classrooms at U-M and on
Internet message boards hosted by a variety of news organizations, including The New York Times, The Chicago
Tribune, The Chronicle of Higher Education and U.S. News and World Report, as well as numerous journalistic Web
sites.
The topic of athletics and academics has been part of a communitywide discussion since The News published a four-
part series earlier this month that examined that topic at the University of Michigan.
Discussions have taken place in coffee shops, across tables at lunch and dinner, in classrooms at U-M and on
Internet message boards hosted by a variety of news organizations, including The New York Times, The Chicago
Tribune, The Chronicle of Higher Education and U.S. News and World Report, as well as numerous journalistic Web
sites.
As the series unfolded, I found myself trading e-mails with local readers, sports fans across the country and U-M
grads across the globe. One was in China, and our real-time conversation was as seamless as the everyday chats
we have with friends and colleagues.
This is, of course, a testament to the digital world and the ability of the Internet to push a local story across the
globe.
The story's reach stretched with every Internet commentary - by a Yahoo sports columnist one day, pushed along
by Sporting News on another and written about by bloggers at The New York Times as well. One of the Times
bloggers told us he was amazed by the volume of responses triggered by our stories.
Some print journalists looked for local angles at campuses near their papers. Others, like The New York Times, kept
the story broad, and a blogger at insidehighered.com turned out a thoughtful story about the use of independent
study courses at universities.
I'm heartened by the conversations, including those critical of our efforts.
When we started this series, we had several goals. We wanted to examine U-M's response to Stanford football
coach and former Michigan quarterback Jim Harbaugh, who said athletes at the university are directed to easy
courses so they can maintain their eligibility to play sports. And we wanted to start a conversation about athletics
and academics, a topic that typically is ignored or dealt with superficially on campuses.
However, U-M's administration has not been part of this conversation in any meaningful way. The administration's
limited responses have focused on the bureaucratic instead of dealing with the real issues raised in the series.
President Mary Sue Coleman walked away from one of our reporters following a public meeting after the series was
published, and she and athletic director Bill Martin refused to meet with our editorial board to discuss questions
raised by our report.
A statement issued by the university talks of full compliance with the NCAA, even though our series never suggested
otherwise.
And the university's leadership dodges accountability by pointing out that the responsibility for standards and
academic integrity reside with faculty. "Academic degree requirements are determined solely by the faculty," said a
statement issued from the Fleming Administration Building.
The administration's response is disingenuous, at best.
This discussion should not be about how classes are approved. There is a much deeper discussion that needs to
take place and, sadly, the university's administration doesn't seem to have the stomach for it.
Here are some of the questions that Coleman should be asking, instead of power-walking away from:
n Are legitimate classes, appropriately approved by faculty, being used by the athletic department's Academic
Success Program to keep academically challenged athletes eligible to play sports?
n Why are some athletes admitted to the university and then pushed into programs they aren't interested in or didn't
even know existed until they were told to take them?
n Does the university have a moral responsibility to make sure that every athlete is getting the best education
possible?
n Are athletes treated as individuals, or are they quickly stereotyped and clustered into classes on the side streets
off the university's academic highway so they can play sports and feed the multimillion-dollar athletic department?
n Do you really believe, as Vice Provost Phil Hanlon suggested, that the clustering of athletes in certain disciplines is
akin to the clustering of marching band members in engineering?
n Would you want your kids to be treated the way some of the university's athletes are treated when they are
pushed into what one faculty member has described as "scut" courses?
These are the types of serious questions that few college administrators, including U-M's top leadership, want to see
asked or answered. It's much easier and it's much safer to talk about procedures and protocols instead of the
quality of the education received by athletes.
Sadly, the decision by Coleman and Martin to opt out of any public discussion on this important issue actually fulfills
one of Harbaugh's chief claims - that Stanford, not Michigan, is in the position to lead this discussion.
Our series showed that Michigan can do so much better for its athletes, and that point should be talked about daily
across the university. It's time for Coleman and Martin to stop acting like they are under attack and it's time for them
to show the leadership that is needed to make things better.
Michigan leadership responds to academics story
Ann Arbor News, 24 March 2008
School president Mary Sue Coleman, athletic director Bill Martin and provost Teresa Sullivan have issued a joint
response to last week's series in The Ann Arbor News on academics and athletics at the University of Michigan.
Among The News' findings in the series, psychology professor John Hagen taught at least 294 independent studies
from the fall of 2004 to the fall of 2007, and 85 percent of those courses, 251, were with athletes. Hagen, at times,
taught 40 or more independent studies a semester. Michigan athletes also described being steered to his courses
by their athletic department academic counselors and in some cases earning three or four credits for meeting with
Hagen for as little as 15 minutes every two weeks.
Coleman, Martin and Sullivan defended the university's academic support for athletes in the statement, said they
were "deeply disappointed" in the News' "tone and approach", but also said more could be done to help athletes
academically:
Is there room for improvement? Absolutely, and working with our coaches and faculty we continually strive to see
more student-athletes earn their degrees. Through our own rigorous reviews, audits, and assessments we are
constantly implementing changes and improvements to ensure that all standards are met as we support the success
of our student athletes.
We are also committed to full compliance with NCAA and Big Ten regulations. When the issues publicized by the
News were initially raised within the University, we not only reviewed them internally, but also notified the Big Ten
and the NCAA. We stand ready to rectify any irregularities that may surface at any time.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE from THE COALITION ON INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS (COIA)
http://www.neuro.uoregon.edu/~tublitz/COIA/index.html
08 April 2008
In a series of four reports beginning on March 16, 2008 the Ann Arbor News contended that the University of
Michigan clusters athletes in programs that would put them on the easiest path to a degree and allows them to enroll
in independent study courses that enabled them to pad their grade point averages. The University has denied any
impropriety.
The Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics (COIA) has not investigated the charges; it is not our role to do so and thus
we take no position on the merits and specifics of the allegations.
We point out, however, that we have previously taken note of similar accusations at other universities and have
warned of the potential for such abusive practices in the absence of explicit policies and controls to prevent them.
Specifically, the COIA has called for universities to collect data on enrollment and grading patterns of students in
individual sports programs. Such data should be designed to reveal whether there are clusters of athletes enrolled
in identical courses or in courses with identical instructors, unusually high class GPAs in such courses or from such
instructors, or grades significantly higher than predicted for athletes as compared to others in such courses or from
such instructors. Faculty and administrators should be charged with the responsibility for reviewing the data and
ensuring that academic integrity is not being compromised. We now reiterate our appeal for universities to adopt our
proposals.
The COIA has, in the past, supported the NCAA’s efforts to enhance the academic experience of student-athletes.
Notably, the NCAA has established a program that requires member schools to measure the academic progress of
athletes and imposes penalties on both teams and individual athletes who fail to meet specified standards. We are
apprehensive, however, that some athletic departments and their academic counselors may be concerned more with
the athletic eligibility of students than with their education. Schools may be enhancing the academic progress ratings
of their athletes by steering them to courses that are not necessarily in their best academic and vocational interests,
encouraging them to enroll in independent study courses that are not, in fact, consistent with the spirit and rationale
for individualized research and scholarship, and by directing them to majors and programs that are designed mainly
for athletes.
The current controversy involving the University of Michigan once again underscores the importance of faculty and
administrative vigilance over academic practices as they pertain to athletes. It points to the urgency of the reforms
proposed by the COIA.
For more information on COIA's academic disclosure proposals, please refer to Section 1.2 (The Primacy of
Academics) in our 2007 white paper: "Framing the Future: Reforming Intercollegiate Athletics" paper (http://www.
neuro.uoregon.edu/~tublitz/COIA/index.html).
This statement has been approved by the Steering Committee of the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics (http://www.
neuro.uoregon.edu/~tublitz/COIA/SC.html)
Contacts: COIA Co-Chairs: Nathan Tublitz (Oregon; tublitz@neuro.uoregon.edu), Virginia Shepherd (Vanderbilt;
shephev@aol.com) and Carole Browne (Wake Forest; browne@wfu.edu)
Graduation Madness
By Ted Mitchell and Jonathan Schorr, Sunday, April 6, 2008; B07
Odds are, your bracket for the NCAA men's final didn't match up Butler and Western Kentucky.
But that's the way it would go in an alternate universe where graduation rates, rather than baskets scored, decided
the game. As it stands today, only one of the schools in this year's Final Four, North Carolina, manages to graduate
a majority of its players -- or more than a third of its black players.
In addition to all the fast-paced excitement it brings, March Madness shines a light on one of the most troubling
aspects of college sports: graduation rates of African American students, who make up most of the Division I athletic
teams. But while the players' high dropout rate gets much of the attention, non-athletes fare even worse.
A study of NCAA schools released last month by the University of Central Florida's Institute for Diversity and Ethics
in Sport found that 53 percent of African American basketball players finish college -- compared with a dismal 37
percent for black students overall at those schools. (Of the athletes, few are disappearing to play pro ball; despite
the dreams that may have lured them to the court, barely 1 percent of male players are drafted by the NBA.)
Once a year these numbers get some attention. In what has become an annual ritual, tucked between rounds of our
office pools, we heap criticism on college athletic departments each March for paying too little attention to the
"student" part of their student-athletes. No doubt it's a worthy issue on which to push universities, and they've made
some progress in this area. But focusing on the student-athletes leaves us missing the big picture.
The larger truth is that graduation is the last stop for an academic train whose passengers mostly disembark at
earlier stations. According to statistics released last week by America's Promise Alliance, only 53 percent of African
American students complete high school. Of those, federal data show, just over half enroll in college -- and most of
those in two-year colleges. In other words, by the time college begins, nearly three-quarters of African American
students already have been left behind. And even for those who enroll at four-year colleges, African Americans
make it through at two-thirds the rate of their white peers.
Rather than placing blame solely on university athletic departments, it's time we looked more deeply into why so
many low-income African American students (and Latinos, whose dropout rates are slightly greater) don't complete
college. Clearly, the answers have to do with failures of academic preparation, affordability barriers and a lack of
support in colleges. But colleges shouldn't have to do this work alone.
Entrepreneurial, creative organizations such as College Track, College Summit and Posse are working in
cooperation with colleges to change these numbers. At the NewSchools Venture Fund, we're delighted to work
closely with schools and organizations that are trying new things to change the numbers: providing intensive
connections with alumni; setting up college-level support groups; creating coaching and mentorship teams; and
forming partnerships among schools, colleges and data clearinghouses. It's important work. But we need to see
much more effort in this area.
Meanwhile, it's instructive to look at which colleges are evening the odds for graduation. In one intriguing analysis,
Education Sector created a final matchup using the whole team's graduation rate as the deciding factor. In that
competition, the last two teams standing would be Davidson and Stanford. Education Sector also calculated a
matchup using the smallest gap between a team's historic graduation rate and the school's overall graduation rate.
There, the teams to keep your eye on would be George Mason and Oklahoma.
New sports management major in development
Mark Norris, SMU Daily Campus, 27 March 2008
SMU wants new head coach June Jones to succeed, and he will soon have a helpful tool to make that happen. The
school is putting together a sports-fitness management and promotion major in the School of Education and Human
Development that could be offered as soon as fall 2009.
The major would be the biggest undergraduate program in the School of Education, which is primarily geared toward
graduate level and certificate programs. The program will aslo be offered as a minor, mostly likely combined with
another major like business.
"Student athletes may find this of interest," said David Chard, the dean of the school. Chard estimated 20 percent of
those who would take the major could be student athletes.
Jones said he didn't know much about the sports-fitness major, but thought the idea was a good one.
"It gives you more options," Jones said.
The lack of sports-friendly majors and academic restrictions has been a big issue for SMU as it tries to revive its
football program. After the school received the death penalty in 1987, the school imposed academic standards on
itself much tougher than the other schools in its conference. Coaches since then have complained they were unable
to recruit the type of players they wanted.
Former head coach Phil Bennett didn't mince words at the press conference announcing his firing about the issues
he had with the standards.
"This is a tough job, let's not lie about it," he said. "To say we're on equal footing with our competitors in a lot of
areas would be a lie."
Bennett says the school needs to ease the restrictions on the hours of transfers into the program and diversify the
types of academic options available. SMU, for both athletes and normal student transfers, restricts the number and
type of outside hours transferred in because it requires a majority of hours toward a major be taken at SMU.
"Steve [Orsini, athletic director] knows it, Gerald [Turner, SMU's President] knows it, that to get this thing where it
needs to be there's got to be some concessions made in a lot of different areas," Bennett said. "Both academic and
financial. From start to finish - the commitment."
SMU seems to be taking action.
The school received between $10 and $12 million from boosters to hire a new head coach. Jones is reportedly
receiving $1.7 million per year, easily making him the highest paid coach in SMU history.
The creation of the new sports-fitness major is another way to try and change the results on the field; it is also a
sign of a commitment from those in charge.
"That may be one sign," said athletic director Steve Orsini.
He said the facility's ability to raise and pay market value for a head coach is just one of many ways of showing a
commitment.
"Looking at our processes here, whether they be admissions or transfers or broadening the curriculum - that's trying
to be nationally competitive, not just for athletics though," Orsini said.
"It's going to appeal to more athletes than non-athletes and I don't want to lose sight of that. The trustees want this
university to grow and that's why they're doing that, at least in my opinion."
Chard, like Orsini, emphasized the major isn't solely for athletes. He said other potential students could include
dancers who want to own their own studio and those interested in working with senior citizens.
Chard said the school is currently developing the curriculum for the major with faculty that would teach some of the
courses. Then the curriculum would be submitted to the Academic Affairs Council of the Faculty Senate. If the
council signed off on it then the major needs approval from the entire Faculty Senate.
Next, the curriculum is sent to Provost Paul Ludden's office for approval by a committee appointed by him.
Eventually, Ludden would sign off on the program. Final approval rests with a vote of the Board of Trustees.
"By offering another school, range in the curriculum to go, that helps broaden the attraction to student athletes,"
Orsni said. "And they get the education they want."
Orsini said the athletic department is talking with the provost's office and the leaders of the different colleges to
keep track of possible changes to transfer hours.
"There's been progress. Is the job done yet? No," Orsini said.
Athletes major choice limited
Cassandra Landry, BU Daily Free Press, 04 April 2008
The NCAA has reformed its academic guidelines and may now penalize student-athletes wishing to take demanding
majors, and Boston University student-athletes said while the regulations are necessary, they do not necessarily
affect their academic decisions.
Student athletes are required to maintain a 2.0 GPA, complete a total of 12 credits per semester and keep up with a
measured percentage toward a degree, according to the National Collegiate Athletic Association's website. In some
cases, an athlete's inability to register for a class required by a certain major could result in failure to comply with
those guidelines.
Even though this problem occurs for student-athletes frequently, athlete-specific advisors work with regular
academic advisors to come up with alternatives, BU Senior Associate Director of Athletics Nancy Lyons said.
"We want students to be able to pursue whatever area of academic interest that they want to," Lyons said. "I just
think that there are times when that's just not possible. Some programs have very strict clinical or practical
requirements that involve a lot of time away from campus or a lot of dedication that would interfere with their athletic
commitments. There are some things you just can't get around, and that's when the decision has to be made."
Lyons said she though the decision to change a major or drop a sport is completely up to the individual student-
athlete, academics should come first.
"At the Division-I level in particular, a lot of their identity is tied to their sport," Lyons said. "Part of the reason a
student athlete chooses the institution they do is for that athletic part of it, but ultimately, they're here to get a
degree."
Metropolitan College junior Brandon Yip, a men's hockey forward, said he agreed with Lyons, but noted the decision
to sacrifice the sport is not only up to the athlete as "quitting the team would . . . affect all 27 of my teammates."
"It's a student athlete's responsibility to do well academically because he or she has been given an opportunity to
play for the school," Yip said. "They should take pride in succeeding academically to make the school look better. I
think the guidelines help enforce this attitude."
Yip, a criminal justice major, said he has yet to be affected by the reformed guidelines.
"I definitely think that the guidelines are necessary," College of General Studies freshman Kerry Cashman, a
women's basketball forward, said. "If a player is amazing, but just barely making it through school, it's not fair to let
them compete while everyone else is keeping up with their grades."
While many student-athletes acknowledged the importance of academic success, the majority interviewed said they
would rather change a chosen major than drop their sport.
"Graduating with a certain major doesn't mean I have to find a job that corresponds directly with that major,"
Cashman said. "I think that the memories and friends that you make in college athletics is something that is too
important to give up."
Men's hockey forward and history major Chris Higgins, a College of Arts and Sciences junior, said he would remain
on the team because of career prospects.
"I would like to play hockey as long as I can, and I know that I want to continue to be active in the sport whether it be
coaching or something else after I'm done playing," Higgins said. "Playing hockey here has allowed me to meet so
many people and make great contacts for jobs after college."
College of Communication junior Caroline Bourdeau said she thought that, for the most part, a student-athlete does
not need to choose.
"I don't think athletes need to choose between a certain major and their sport because both can be done,"
Bourdeau, a women's ice hockey forward, said. "I have teammates who are pre-med and have never had any
problems."
"Plus, not being able to take a class because of limited enrollment is something all college students must deal with,
and BU offers a wide enough variety of scheduling times," she said.
Fresno State fee increase opposed
Students vote nearly 2-1 to reject the boost, most of which would go to athletics.
George Hostetter, Fresno Bee, 11 April 2008
Fresno State students have voted nearly 2-1 against a proposal to help the university's financially troubled
intercollegiate athletic program by increasing their activity fee.
The result, announced late Thursday, heightens concerns about the future of a program that has grown to embrace
national ambitions, yet faces a half-million-dollar deficit this school year and persistent gender-equity challenges.
The nonbinding referendum asked students whether they favor or oppose a $70 increase to the instructionally
related activity fee that they pay every semester.
Fifty dollars of the increase would help fund all Fresno State sports, raising about $2 million a year. The rest would
go toward other purposes such as conferences, classroom equipment and field trips.
The current fee is $10 per semester, and none of the money goes automatically to sports.
By a vote of 777-412, Fresno State students said no to the fee increase. About 22,000 students were eligible to
vote.
Fresno State coaches had encouraged their athletes to get to the polls and vote yes, and to bring a friend willing to
vote the same way.
The coaches' reasoning: An extra $2 million every year will go a long way toward producing financial security for the
program that enables the athletes to compete.
Fresno State has about 450 athletes, many of whom wouldn't have to pay the fee increase out of their own pockets
because they're on full athletic scholarships.
"In these difficult economic times, we realize that students have tough choices to make and we respect today's vote,"
athletic director Thomas Boeh said in a written statement. "We will continue to advocate our position regarding this
issue on behalf of our student athletes."
The tally was announced Thursday evening at Fresno State by Stephen Trembley, executive vice president in the
student government, along with results of races for the 2008-09 student government. The three-day election ended
Thursday with 1,371 students voting.
Even though it is only advisory, the students' landslide rejection of the fee increase sends a strong message to
President John Welty. The weight he gives such a message, coming as it does from less than 10% of the electorate,
is the big unknown.
Welty can simply impose the fee. Among the considerations: where Fresno State will get an estimated $1.5 million to
fund the new women's lacrosse and swimming/diving teams that will begin competing in the 2008-09 school year.
Both programs are necessary for the university to comply with federal gender-equity laws.
First, though, Welty will await the decision of the nine-member Campus Fee Advisory Committee. Trembley, one of
five students on the committee, said it will meet Monday. The committee can make a recommendation or remain
neutral.
The student government strongly supported the fee increase.
The referendum vote was "a clear choice by a lot of students in terms of what they think our priorities should be,"
said outgoing student body president Juan Pablo Moncayo. He also is a member of the Campus Fee Advisory
Committee.
Moncayo then added the time-honored American postscript to any voter decision that disappoints the losing side:
How to read it?
Moncayo said university and student government leaders will analyze whether more voter education or having
students vote just on the $50 athletic portion of the fee increase would have changed the referendum result.
Hoops' leaders propose new player eligibility rule to NBA players
Dick Harmon, SLC Deseret Morning News, 8 April 2008
Should the NBA limit draftees to at least 20-year-olds, or college players who have finished their sophomore
seasons?
That's the big issue swirling around the NCAA's Final Four, the climax of a tournament that featured a ton of
freshmen who are considering putting their names in for the draft by April.
NBA commissioner David Stern and Myles Brand, president of the NCAA proposed the rule change on Monday,
replacing the existing rule at age 19 which will expire in 2011.
Any change would have to pass muster by the NBA Players Union since it would be part of the collective bargaining
agreement.
In the meantime, an army of underclassmen are considering, or have already announced, they will be coming out,
including half a dozen freshmen in a draft pool considered to be the best guard talent in draft history.
The guard-heavy draft could make Memphis freshman point guard Derrick Rose or Kansas State freshman forward
Michael Beasley the top pick.
If you go down mock drafts, the June 26 draft could include USC's O.J. Mayo; Indiana's Eric Gordon; Arizona's Jerryd
Bayless or a host of other underclassmen in the top 30 players taken, pushing ESPN's player of the year, North
Carolina Forward Tyler Hansbrough, a junior, down the list and perhaps out of the lottery pick zone.
Throw in the NBA's love affair with foreign players, say half a dozen, and what's left for a prospect like BYU's Trent
Plaisted? He is currently weighing options of staying at BYU, putting in for the draft, or testing the waters for a
professional career in Europe.
So far, Plasited is keeping his quest for answers to himself. Anything concerning his case is speculation.
Hoopshype.com's mock draft has only one senior picked in the first round, Memphis shooting guard Chris Douglas
Roberts. Other prognosticators see the same trend. Freshmen and sophomores may dominate the draft, pushing
down all seniors and even juniors like Plaisted and Hansbrough.
In the latest predictions, NBAdraft.net has Plaisted a second rounder, No. 53 to Phoenix. Collegehoops.net has the
Cougar No. 46. Draftexpress.com has Plaisted going No. 29 in 2009 if he stays for his senior year.
That site says Plaisted's best case is that he's another Channing Frye; the worst case is he's Jason Smith (CSU).
Monday, I spoke to one of BYU's most financially successful basketball players of late, Travis Hansen, who plays for
Dynamo, a Russian professional team in Moscow. Hansen is the beneficiary of going to Europe after being a second-
round draft pick of Atlanta.
That Hansen "played" in the NBA has made all the difference in the world for his "billing" and negotiating power.
Hansen said Plaisted should do what's best for him.
"He needs to look at everything and decide what's best for his future. He should sit down and have a long talk with
Dave Rose. He knows a lot of people and he knows the game and the system and what is going on.
"If he has a better chance to get drafted next year, it might be best to stay and play with a great supporting cast
around him and finish his senior year. Getting to the NBA is always a plus, especially if you end up playing in
Europe. It makes a difference over here."
And that's the big quandary.
European basketball for Americans can be big time. Hansen has a big salary, lower taxes, and is provided a house,
two cars with drivers and a cook, plus first-class airline tickets for family to visit him there, or for his wife to come
home. The money and benefits are alluring.
This draft will prove to be more complex than any before, with all the underclassmen throwing in their names and
dominating the picks that will get the guaranteed contracts and big money.
There might be wisdom in letting all these guys go early and clear the way for a more traditional draft in 2009.
A traditional draft is one where a premium is put on big guys in the 6-foot-10 to 7-3 range.
Big guys. They're in demand — if they're good.
They're hard to come by and if you look how big men have dominated the first picks over the years, you can easily
see that trend as the norm. What is not the norm is this march of freshmen and a bus load of point and shooting
guards.
The proposed new rule?
How can Brand and Stern make it stick if the player's union decides to open the gates? We have 18-year olds vote
and they're old enough to go to war. Why not earn a buck?
NCAA helps weed out those ready for NBA
Ray Melick, Birmingham News, 8 April 2008
What is it the NCAA ad says? Something about there being "thousands of NCAA student-athletes, most of whom will
be turning pro in something other than sports"?
That's a nice attempt at misdirection by college athletics' governing body, an attempt to divert our attention from
Monday night's culmination of the biggest fundraiser on the NCAA calendar. The payment due from the NCAA's 11-
year, $6 billion deal with CBS for this year is a cool $529 million.
But Kansas and Memphis didn't get to Monday night's national championship game by recruiting future doctors,
lawyers and Nobel prize-winning physicists.
They got there by hiring million-dollar coaches who could recruit and coach players who displayed more of an
aptitude for basketball than books.
The poster child is Memphis, with its roster full of kids who couldn't qualify academically for college right out of high
school and so spent a year in various prep schools. The running joke in San Antonio has been that the NCAA is
already printing up revised Final Four T-shirts that list the participants as "North Carolina-Kansas-UCLA-Vacated,"
because the last time John Calipari brought a team to the Final Four (Massachusetts in 1996), it was forced to
vacate that appearance because of rules violations; and shortly after Memphis made its last appearance in a Final
Four (1985), the Tigers' program went on probation shortly thereafter.
The problem with portraying this Memphis team as being built on academic loopholes is that there probably isn't a
coach in this Final Four who didn't at least consider recruiting these Tigers for himself.
Besides, the point of college basketball is not how the players got here, but where they are going.
And as of this morning, the best ones are gone. Expect Memphis freshman Derrick Rose and Kansas's junior
Brandon Rush to declare for the NBA Draft. (Rush actually declared last year, but then blew out a knee, forcing him
to come back this year).
Indiana's Eric Gordon, Kansas State's Michael Beasley, Arizona's Jerryd Bayless, UCLA's Kevin Love, USC's O.J.
Mayo - they all hung around their various college campuses just long enough to play 30-something games, and now
it's time to graduate to their ultimate destination, the NBA.
College players come and go in such a blur - think Kevin Durant, Greg Oden, Mike Conley Jr., Marvin Williams, Chris
Paul, Luol Deng, Carmelo Anthony - that it is hard for fans to develop any deep emotional attachment to them. The
only reason most of them were in college anyway was because NBA rules prohibit teams from drafting players
directly out of high school.
Don't knock the "one and done." For every Rose and Gordon, there are players who might have declared
themselves eligible right out of high school but who, by going to college, realized they weren't quite as ready for the
NBA as they were led to believe.
Because the NCAA is right: Not every athlete is going to turn pro in sports.
But it sure helps to have a roster with more of the ones who will.
NBA rule exploits collegians
David Climer, Nashville Tennessean, 11 April 2008
When basketball prodigy O.J. Mayo announced he was turning pro after one season at Southern Cal, his college
coach, Tim Floyd, said it was "no surprise."
No kidding.
These days, players such as Mayo, Michael Beasley, Derrick Rose and others use college as a one-and-done
stopover. They play like they've got one Nike out the door.
One NBA draft projection has five college freshmen among the first six picks. This list has Rose at No. 2 even
though the Memphis point guard has not declared for the draft.
But if you're likely to be the second pick of the draft — and perhaps No. 1 if Beasley slips for some reason — why
stay in school?
It's time for the NBA to admit this is a sham and go back to its open-door policy. Prior to the 2006 draft, players were
allowed to turn pro out of high school. Now they have to give it the old college try … for one whole season.
Granted, the college game has benefited from the rule change. In 2007, we got a brief glimpse of Greg Oden, Kevin
Durant and others before they jumped to the NBA. This season, freshmen phenoms further enlivened college ball.
Rose's draft stock peaked during the NCAA Tournament.
Brief stopover
But is this really good for all involved? While you can argue that spending part of a year on a college campus is a
positive whether you darken the door of a classroom or not, it makes a mockery of the concept of higher education.
OK, college sports has been making a mockery of higher education for decades, but bear with me on this one.
All the while, the NBA uses college basketball as a one-year minor league. Scouts get to see how players perform
against quality competition while also getting extra time to run background checks on any shady characters.
And the colleges go along for the ride.
A handful of college coaches play by their own rules. They insist upon recruiting players who are committed to at
least exploring what college has to offer beyond frat parties and $100 handshakes from adoring fans.
But most coaches can't help themselves. They see an NBA player in waiting and figure that one year of college ball
is better than none.
Baseball has it right
Meanwhile, the NBA gets the best of both worlds. It welcomes players who have established national reputations via
one year of college ball.
Accordingly, it is highly unlikely the NBA would adopt the NFL rule, where players cannot turn pro until after three
years of college.
But why not consider the way Major League Baseball handles it?
In baseball, a player can be drafted after his senior year of high school. He then weighs his options and either signs
a contract or heads off to college. If he chooses the college route, he is committed to three years.
Would it work?
Yes.
Will it happen?
No.
Because the NBA and college basketball are in this together.
KU's Bill Self makes millions, but what about Mario Chalmers?
Yael T. Abouhalkah, Kansas City Star, 10 April 2008
Bill Self will get millions of extra dollars for staying at KU, as he announced Thursday. But what about the players like
Mario Chalmers who put Self in the position to get a huge raise?
Chalmers made the last-second shot that essentially won the NCAA title game for Kansas against Memphis Monday
night.
Chalmers, of course, gets a scholarship worth the price of admissions, books, etc., to attend KU. So do the other
key players on the Kansas squad.
But even at more than $20,000 a year per player, that's pocket change for how much Self is making off the exploits
of Chalmers and others at KU.
Notice another discrepancy: If Self had bolted for Oklahoma State, he could have started coaching immediately in
the 2008-09 season.
But if Chalmers or any other undergraduate player leaves KU for another Division I school, they have to sit out a
year. That's an NCAA rule, partly designed to punish athletes for hopping from school to school, searching for
playing time.
Self would have faced no such challenge. He could have left his players in the lurch, including freshmen whom he
recruited just last year.
But, to Self's credit, he has decided to stay in Lawrence. Of course, Athletic Director Lew Perkins will use millions of
dollars to make sure Self is glad he stayed.
The dilemma: When a dream overtakes one's common sense
Bob Maginnis, Hagerstown Herald Mail, 9 April 2008
Writing in Imprint Magazine in April 2006, author Emily Krauser took a look at what happens to college athletes who
don't make it to the pros.
Krauser quoted D. Stanley Eitzen, former president of the North American Society for the Sociology of Sports, whose
studies found that there are now about 2 million male athletes each year involved in high school football, baseball
and basketball.
About 68,000 go on to play at the college level. Of those, just 2,500 - about .13 percent - become professional
athletes.
For some collegiate athletes, the dream of reaching the pros crowds out academics, leaving them nothing to fall
back on when their college careers end.
For William Emanuel, getting young men to focus on education as well as athletics is "The Great Dilemma" that he
and other speakers will address in the annual Manhood Training Retreat.
The three-day retreat, to be held Friday, April 18 to Sunday, April 20, at the Mount Aetna Camp and Retreat Center
on Mount Aetna Road, is the latest edition of a program that Emanuel has put on annually since 2001, with a variety
of speakers, including (though not this year) Dr. Michael "Mike" Parsons of Hagerstown Community College.
Emanuel said the dilemma the retreat will deal with is the dilemma of making decisions "and becoming men, instead
of remaining boys."
Emanuel said the decisions are, "No. 1: Are you going to graduate from high school?"
No. 2, Emanuael said, is "What are your plans?"
"Have you taken the SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) and what is your GPA (Grade Point Average?" he asked.
"You can't wait until you graduate in May to think about these things," Emanuel said.
If you have waited until then, Emanuel said a good strategy would be to think about whether anyone you know (or
someone they know) has completed a four-year degree and can offer advice on how to best do that.
At this point in time, Emanuel said, young women are better at thinking ahead, because they know they "might get
hold of a bad guy" and have to support themselves.
To bring home the idea of how unwise it is to depend on athletics as a career, Emanuel said one of the presenters
will be a student from Delaware State University.
According to Emaneul, the student concentrated on basketball to the exclusion of his studies.
Then he had a career-ending knee injury and because he hadn't kept up with his studies in mechanical engineering,
"he lost his scholarship," Emanuel said.
But the retreat will include success stories, too, Emanuel said.
An African-American entrepreneur in his early 50s will talk about his push to succeed in the engineering field,
Emanuel said.
"He has 14 employees now and he'll talk about how you succeed in America and the headaches involved," Emanuel
said.
Other guests will include Darien McKinney, a graduate student in criminal justice at Virginia State University with a
4.0 GPA, and Jabari Emanuel, a sophomore at Morgan State University, on a full scholarship studying computer and
electrical engineering.
The elder Emanuel said the idea is to get the younger people who present this year to eventually take over the
retreat.
Emanuel, an electrical engineer by trade, has taught algebra and Hagerstown and Frederick community colleges. In
past interviews, he has lamented the fact that many young people of color don't find minority professors as role
models when they reach college.
In previous interviews, Emanuel told me that "our goal is to reach young men, to help them understand what it does
mean to be a man." Learning to be a true man, he said, means learning how to prepare for life, for college and how
to conduct a relationship with a woman, before and after marriage.
"We're trying to make them into true men with some purpose and some direction so they can help their communities
and themselves," Emanuel said.
Participants will stay in cabins on the site, where meals will be provided through Sunday, when the retreat ends.
The cost for the weekend is $140 per person. This year, I've had a tuition commitment for that amount from a man
who wants to remain anonymous.
If you can help, checks should be made payable to the Mount Aetna Camp and Retreat Center. Please note that it is
for the Manhood Retreat. Mail them to The Faith of Jesus Center, 935 Marion St., Hagerstown, MD 21740.
For more information, call 301-791-5776 or visit Emanuel's Web site at www.peopleofcolor1.com.
UO agrees to donor’s strict guidelines for athletic center
Greg Bolt, Eugene Register-Guard, 6 April 2008
The next new building on the University of Oregon campus won’t be built by the University of Oregon, the state of
Oregon or anyone working for them.
Instead, the new Academic Learning Center for Student Athletes, a 35,000-square-foot building slated to go just
northwest of the UO’s pending new basketball arena, is being designed and built by a private company run by Nike
co-founder and UO superdonor Phil Knight.
When Knight finishes it, he’ll hand the keys over to the university, and the state-of-the-art center will officially
become a state-owned campus building.
But it comes with many strings. The agreement between the UO and Knight giving him a license to work on university
property also spells out in detail the beefed-up staff the university must employ in the new building, the computer
equipment it must buy and how the operation will be funded for 10 years.
The agreement also commits the university to running the center “at the leading edge of academic excellence” to
help student athletes with their school work, and goes so far as to specify the number and location of parking
spaces the UO will provide for building users.
Some are skeptical about such a high level of donor involvement in a university project.
But Allan Price, the UO’s vice president for advancement, said having operational standards known up front helps
because it allows the building to be tailored to its expected use and ensures that both Knight and the UO get what
they want.
“It’s actually very helpful to do it on the front end,” he said. “So it doesn’t open in five years and people look around
and say, ‘Why’d you do that?’ ”
But for all the detail in the deal, one particular is missing: its cost. University officials say they have no idea how
much Knight will spend on the building.
“The donor does want that kept anonymous, and in fact I’m not sure we’ll even know,” Price said. “We’re getting a
great gift, so how much it costs, it’s almost irrelevant to us.”
This is the second time Knight has built something for the UO without publicly disclosing what it cost. Last year, he
remodeled the first floor of the Casanova Center into a first-class medical treatment center for student athletes.
Best estimates are the treatment center cost $6 million to $8 million and the learning center will exceed $10 million.
Knight keeps the price off the official records by temporarily leasing university property through Phit LLC, a
subsidiary of the nonprofit UO Foundation. Then, Knight brings in his own people to do the work. Once he’s done,
the lease expires, and the building becomes part of campus.
That has advantages for Knight, among them abbreviating the review process that campus buildings typically go
through. The UO’s Campus Planning Committee did get a chance to review and make suggestions on the academic
center project, but the lease gives Knight “sole discretion” over design and construction.
That means it’s not clear whether such projects will meet the same standards required of public buildings
constructed directly by the UO or its foundation.
For example, all public buildings are required to meet energy efficiency standards and qualify for at least a silver
LEED rating. And the campus planning group recommended strengthening the sustainability features of the
academic center plans.
But the lease with the UO does not impose any specific requirements on sustainability. Its only reference to such
standards is a single sentence: “Consider incorporating sustainable features as feasible and practical.”
Having the building constructed as a privately funded project also could allow it to sidestep state laws that require
public building projects to pay prevailing wages to construction and other workers. The lease requires Knight to pay
“reasonable and competitive wages,” but it leaves the definition of those terms to him and states that if the project
for some reason is required to pay higher prevailing wages, the university must cover such “excess costs” if Knight
chooses not to.
Knight lays out operational rules
The agreement between Knight and the UO sets out copious requirements for how the UO will run the building once
it is operational.
The agreement is sprinkled with language requiring the UO to run the center “at the leading edge of excellence,”
“substantially expand” personnel, “exceed nationally accepted staffing ratios” and make “a significant investment in
technology.” In almost all cases, the costs must be borne by the athletic department.
Nike said Knight would not comment on the agreements.
The idea of donors being involved in spelling out how buildings and programs are run has drawn increasing concern
among many higher education officials, especially as donors seek greater involvement in the projects they fund and
as falling state and federal support makes schools increasingly dependent on private gifts to finance growth.
Such deals put universities in the position of having to choose between ceding some operational control or falling
behind other schools in the race for better buildings.
Terry Ruprecht, campus academic facilities officer at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, said the kind of
donor involvement in the UO deal can lead to conflicts.
“I can understand why a donor wants to minimize or eliminate the risk that in fact the building that they fund ends up
being used or operated in a way that is not in accordance with their intent,” he said. “But at the same time, from the
university’s standpoint I find that level of string attachment to be onerous. It’ll work fine for the first five years, but it’s
very difficult to perceive that working in the long haul.”
Having a donor build a building and then giving it to a university is unusual but not unheard of. Besides Knight’s two
projects, the Bowerman Family Building at Hayward Field was built the same way in 1991, and the Chiles Business
Center used a similar process in 1986.
But such arrangements appear to be rare. Rodney Rose, a strategic consultant with STRATUS, a division of the
Atlanta-based worldwide planning, construction and management firm Heery International, said he’s not aware of
many such cases.
But Rose, author of a book called “Buildings … The Gifts That Keep on Taking,” said it’s an issue universities are
likely to face as they compete for better facilities.
Universities “are going to have to give up more and more control, and they’re going to have to involve donors in
their decisions if they want to compete. But it’s going to cost them,” he said. “There are lots of long-term trade-offs,
and sometimes that’s going to be the price they’re going to have to pay.”
Agreement calls for hiring spree
What it will cost the UO to run the new student athlete center is not immediately clear. The site license deal between
Knight and the UO required the UO to have created an operating agreement by Dec. 21, 2007. The Register-Guard
on March 18 asked the UO for a copy of that document under the state’s public records laws. The UO has not yet
provided it.
But the license agreement lists 20 full-time job positions the university must have at the center, along with at least six
graduate student positions, two student receptionists and an undefined number of full-time academic advisers.
Currently, the athletic department’s Web page lists 13 people in the academic and student support services office,
meaning the office might have to approximately double its staff. All that cost would have to be borne by the athletic
department, which also will be facing the added expense of building and running a new basketball arena that won’t
bring in enough money to cover its costs.
And those new employees probably won’t come cheap. The agreement with Knight requires the UO to hire “the best
professionals reasonably possible” for the center.
The deal also requires the UO to buy 100 computers, 225 laptops and 75 monitors for the center, at a cost up to
$750,000. If the cost is higher, Knight will pay the excess.
Athletic Director Pat Kilkenny said the new center will cost significantly more to operate thanthe current athlete
academic program. He put that extra cost at “several hundred thousand dollars” a year. As of Friday, he was unable
to give more details.
Kilkenny said he is comfortable with the deal with Knight and said much of the additional cost is for services the
department would offer now if it could. The current academic center, he said, is too old and cramped to make the
kind of improvements the new center will allow.
He also said there is a “fiscal sanity clause” in one of the agreements with Knight that prevents the department from
having to spend more on the center than it can afford. It’s unclear which agreement contains such language.
Costs concern students, faculty
Outside the UO athletic department, concern is sharper over increasing athletics costs. Many faculty members and
students already are skeptical about whether the department can afford the $200 million basketball arena it plans to
build using borrowed money.
English professor Gordon Sayre, president of the University Senate, said piling new costs onto the budget to run the
learning center only raises more concern.
“It sounds like as well as upgrading the building they’re going to upgrade the services,” he said. “And while the
building may be paid for, the services might not be. I’m already concerned, with the arena, that the athletic
department is taking on liabilities it may not be able to afford.”
Price, the UO vice president of advancement,said the way the requirements are laid out in the license agreement
might make it look as though Knight is calling the tune, but in reality the wording is the result of collaboration with the
university.
“There’s a mutuality that may not appear in the documents,” Price said. “This is not something that’s being dictated
to the university. This is really something where the university and the donor have agreed that this is what we’d like
to see happen.”
Price said it’s wise to have such pacts. Without a clear understanding of what the university wants and how the
building will be used, both the donor and the university are likely to be unhappy in the end, he said.
As the size and number of charitable gifts to higher education explode — colleges and universities received about
$28 billion in private gifts in 2006 alone — clarity over their use becomes increasingly important. Several
universities, including Princeton, Tulane and St. Bonaventure, have recently fallen into bitter legal fights with donors
or their heirs over how a gift was used.
Price said the UO takes pains to craft gift agreements that spell out a donor’s intent and ensure that the university
gets something it needs.
“If you look across the country at the problems that are going on in terms of fights with donors, the largest majority
of those problems occur when there isn’t good work on the front end,” he said. “We’ve learned the more we can do
on the front end the better. It’s really a way to prevent problems and really make sure we’re on the same page.”
Kilkenny said he can live with Knight’s operational strings.
“Early on, I had some trepidation,” he said. “But after we went through and negotiated the agreement, I felt good
because I understood what the spirit of the agreement was.”
Rose, of STRATUS, says he would be concerned about the extra strings placed on the operation of the new
academic center, but he has no problems with a donor of Knight’s stature building it.
“If I were at Oregon, I’d say that’s great,” he said. “It’s good for Nike, it’s good for this guy (Knight), it’s good for the
university. I think it’s wonderful that they have that opportunity.”
If anything, some might say the Knight buildings are too nice. The level of luxury can be far above just about
anything on the academic side of campus, adding to the tension between some faculty and the athletic department
over university priorities.
More donor money goes to academic buildings than athletic ones, but the size and needs of the academic side are
far greater. Many campus classrooms and faculty offices lack the latest technology, are uncomfortable or aren’t up
to modern teaching standards, many UO professors say.
The money pouring into athletics facilities across the country is one of the factors behind a push by some faculty
nationwide to curb what they see as athletics excess.
“It rankles me to no end that somehow athletics manages to bring in these wealthy donors that build these palaces
for the athletics folks,” Illinois’ Ruprechtsaid. “We’ve got huge portions of this institution going wanting, and yet the
athletics people get all this money. It really is aggravating.”
Q&A - FARA President Alan Hauser
The NCAA News, 26 March 2008
With the Division I men’s and women’s basketball championships in full swing, Appalachian State Faculty Athletics
Representative Alan Hauser took time to answer a few questions about the academic success of Division I student-
athletes, academic reform and the role of the FAR. Hauser, whose long service to the NCAA includes stints on the
Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet and the Division I Management Council, is a biblical studies professor who
became FAR in 1986. His term as president of the Faculty Athletics Representatives Association will end in
November.
How do we focus more on the student side of student-athlete?
One thing that often gets lost in focusing on student-athletes as athletes is how they have to be so good at time
management. If you have a lot of practices, games and away trips, you’ve got to manage your time very efficiently.
Most student-athletes do that very well. That’s not to say that there aren’t some who are struggling, but there are so
many who do well academically. Sometimes they get lost in the media. We don’t tend to focus on the quality work of
most student-athletes. I have been a faculty rep since 1986, and I have seen countless cases in which student-
athletes have excelled off the field. They don’t go professional in sports. They become doctors, teachers and
lawyers – and do extremely well.
How do you think academic reform is progressing?
NCAA President Myles Brand should be commended for his leadership in advancing academic reform. Student-
athletes need to be student-athletes. We can help ensure that by admitting to our institutions student-athletes who
are academically well-qualified. There’s nothing worse than having a student-athlete come in for a couple of years
and then leave the institution because they couldn’t do the academic work. Often overlooked is monitoring the
performance of the student-athletes while they are at an institution. The Academic Progress Rate has done an
excellent job of doing just that. Yes, we have things we still have to work out. But one spinoff of the APR is that we’re
doing things more carefully, especially in those sports in which the numbers demonstrate the need for improved
academic performance.
Are there any changes you’d like to see in academic reform?
There are cases where teams or coaches are unduly penalized when perhaps some student-athletes may have a
legitimate reason for leaving an institution. We’re taking serious steps to alleviate those types of situations. Much of
the negativity toward the APR comes from people who don’t remember that we’re doing the best we can to make
allowances for specific instances gradually. No system is perfect when you put it in place, but there has been some
fine tuning that will help the APR be more fair. Also, there’s a perception of the APR structure that I would like to
change – while the structure comes with penalties, nobody involved with developing that structure wants the system
simply to be punitive; rather, it is meant to help our coaches, teams, administrators and student-athletes be more
focused on academics. By and large, the academic reform movement has done just that. Yes, it needs fine-tuning,
but I’d say it’s been a very large success.
In the last issue of FARA’s newsletter, the FARA Voice, you wrote about the partnership between the National
Association of Academic Advisors for Athletics and the NCAA to provide educational initiatives to bolster
understanding of and strategies for improving an institution’s APR. Why do you think those activities are important?
Because they provide ways for both conferences and institutions to look closely at what they can do to improve how
they deal with the academic well-being of their student-athletes. The sessions are very well done and provide a lot
of potential to help institutions improve what they are doing and to get some serious help in analyzing where they
need to make changes.
What is the most important job of an FAR?
Ensuring the academic well-being of student-athletes. And when I say ensure, I don’t mean that you can go out and
talk to 462 students – nobody can do that. But make sure that the way coaches recruit, the way in which athletics
departments encourage coaches to interact with their players, the way academic support services are set up, the
way in which initial eligibility and continuing eligibility is monitored and all those areas the faculty rep needs to be
closely involved – make sure that these opportunities are maximized to ensure the academic well-being of student-
athletes. Supporting the academic well-being of student-athletes is the most critical thing an FAR can do.
What are the primary challenges in that regard?
One of the things I’ve found rewarding my last few years as a faculty rep is that our coaches are saying, ‘Well, I’m
interested in (recruiting) this one person, but I don’t know if they’re going to do well here or it will take a lot of extra
effort to get them to do well. Maybe that’s somebody I really shouldn’t be recruiting. Maybe there’s another institution
where they can do well.’ That is a significant shift, in my opinion. In the recruiting process, there has to be a fit on a
lot of different levels, and one of those is academics. The coaches on my campus at least have begun to look
carefully at attracting student-athletes who, taking a number of things into account, are a good fit for the institution
and for their team.
Why are you an FAR?
The chair of our faculty senate sits on the athletics council, and I was chair of the faculty senate for several years.
That’s how I became involved in athletics. Little by little, year by year, my involvement and interest grew. I have so
thoroughly enjoyed working with the student-athletes, the coaches and administrators. I’ve done a lot of things with
the NCAA, too. I just continue to be impressed with the quality of people I meet all around, from the student-athletes
up to Myles Brand and everywhere in between. They are fine people who do indeed have the best interests of the
student-athletes in mind. If you ask me 10 years after I quit being faculty rep what I remember most about being
faculty rep, hopefully it’s that I had at least a tiny bit of a role to play in helping to improve the chances for academic
success of our student-athletes.
UT ATHLETICS
Open meetings could end for UT athletics councils
Regents may vote to allow private meetings by panels that advise about athletics.
Mark Lisheron, Austin American-Statesman, 25 March 2008
The Board of Regents is considering a resolution that could shut the public out of meetings by appointed athletic
councils that advise the University of Texas System officials who set policy on athletics.
The idea for the resolution came about while officials sought to renew the University of Texas at Austin's NCAA
certification.
The councils for the men's and women's athletics programs, made up of appointed faculty members, alumni and
students, offer advice on everything from the hiring of coaches to the recruitment of student-athletes to athletic and
academic standards.
If the regents pass a resolution Wednesday accepting the language changes, those councils would no longer be
subject to the state's Open Meetings Act.
Men's Athletics Director DeLoss Dodds said Monday that UT would volunteer to keep parts of council meetings
open, except when dealing with matters involving individual students that might violate federal privacy laws.
Patti Ohlendorf, UT's vice president for legal affairs, said the resolution was the result of a review of guidelines
undertaken to prepare the school's intercollegiate athletics departments for NCAA certification in April. The
resolution makes clear that all decisions concerning UT System athletics are made by the Board of Regents. Athletic
councils are strictly advisors to the decision makers, Ohlendorf said.
The language of the resolution was adopted from a 1976 opinion by then-Attorney General John Hill, who said the
Texas Tech University Athletic Council was not subject to the Open Meetings Act as long as it could demonstrate
that it did not have any actual or implied control over the public business upon which it was advising.
Many schools in the Big 12 make clear in their guidelines that their athletic councils are advisory only. Texas Tech
and Texas State University-San Marcos, passed resolutions based on Hill's opinion shortly after it was issued. Some
meet publicly.
Two years before that opinion, Hill had been asked to rule on whether the UT Athletics Council was required to meet
in public under the state Open Meetings Act. In a 1974 opinion, Hill wrote that the council was a governmental body
subject to the open meetings law at least in part because the council had "considerable independent authority over
intercollegiate athletics."
The UT System's athletic councils have since conducted their meetings in public.
The resolution that the regents will consider, Dodds said, frees athletic councils to meet in private to discuss
individual student-athletes' academic eligibility — something that has been off limits because of privacy laws.
Ultimately, Dodds said, issues raised by advisory councils will be taken up in public by the Board of Regents.
"To me it's a nonissue," Dodds said. "The public will continue to get everything they have gotten before."
Bill Aleshire, an Austin attorney who works with the Freedom of Information Foundation, said citizens should not be
required to take the regents at their word and accept Dodds' promise that at least some of the meetings will remain
open.
It's important that the public be able to decide whether a governing body such as the regents is independent or a
rubber stamp for recommendations made by councils that call themselves advisory, Aleshire said.
"It is the arguments made during the actual deliberation; it's how our government officials came to their decisions
that the public has a right to hear," Aleshire said. "That is the reason for the Open Meetings Act."
'Flutie Effect'
Success in sports draws students
Dena Potter, Associated Press, 24 March 2008
RICHMOND, Va. - Turns out there's some basis for the long-held belief among college admissions officials that the
better their schools' teams do in high-profile sporting events, the more applications they'll see.
Until recently, evidence about the ''Flutie Effect'' - coined when applications to Boston College jumped about 30
percent in the two years after quarterback Doug Flutie's Hail Mary pass beat Miami in 1984 - had been mostly
anecdotal.
So two researchers set out to quantify it, concluding after a broad study that winning the NCAA football or men's
basketball title means a bump of about 8 percent, with smaller increases the reward for more modest success.
''Certainly college administrators have known about this for a while, but I think this study helps to pin down what the
average effects are,'' said Jaren Pope, an assistant professor in applied economics at Virginia Tech who conducted
the study with his brother Devin, an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School.
The brothers compared information on freshman classes at 330 NCAA Division I schools with how the schools'
teams fared from 1983 through 2002.
Among their conclusions in a paper that is to be published this year in Southern Economic Journal:
* Schools that make it to the Sweet 16 in the men's basketball tournament see an average 3 percent boost in
applications the following year. The champion is likely to see a 7 percent to 8 percent increase, but just making the
65-team field will net schools an average 1 percent bump.
* Similarly, applications go up 7 percent to 8 percent at schools that win the national football championship, and
schools that finish in the top 20 have a 2.5 percent gain.
There has been wide debate over the legitimacy of the Flutie Effect, especially when it comes to whether schools
should pour money into athletics programs.
Pope said that's certainly not what he is suggesting.
For George Mason University, just outside Washington, the positive effects of its unlikely Final Four appearance two
years ago were wide-reaching.
In addition to increases in fundraising, attendance at games and other benefits, freshman applications increased 22
percent the year after the team made its magical run. The percentage of out-of-state freshmen jumped from 17
percent to 25 percent, and admissions inquiries rose 350 percent, said Robert Baker, director of George Mason's
Center for Sport Management who conducted a study called ''The Business of Being Cinderella.''
''You will certainly have critics who say it would have happened anyway, but I think the general consensus is that it
happened faster because of this and that it allowed this university to reach new heights more quickly,'' Baker said.
Gonzaga was virtually unknown in most parts of the country until it broke into the national tournament in the
mid-'90s. The Zags have been in the tournament every year since 1999, and during that time enrollment has grown
from just over 4,500 to nearly 7,000, said Dale Goodwin, a university spokesman.
Inquiries have jumped from about 20,000 per year to 50,000, and the Spokane, Wash., school attracts students
from Eastern states where it doesn't recruit.
''There's no other way they would have heard about Gonzaga,'' Goodwin said.