TDG News 5-17-08
Drakes,
This might be one of the most detailed TDG news ever with the APR, NCAA economic survey, Indiana and Kelvin
Sampson, the furor over one and done in college basketball, and of course OJ Mayo, Whew!! Lots of stuff to look at
and wonder what we can do to stem the tide. Well—look no further than the first article, by TDG founder Jon Ericson
for the answers while he comments on the University of Michigan debacle.
Let me know if you have questions!!! Keep up the fight.
Dave
---------------
Professors need courage to deal with athletics/academics
Thursday, May 15, 2008, BY JON ERICSON
Was it a good day?
The Ann Arbor News wasted many trees and barrels of ink in its four-part series on academics and athletics at the
University of Michigan.
The picture above the lead told it all: Head football coach, Number 1 rated high school recruit in the country, and the
professor nestled in the stands at a University of Michigan basketball game. A coach with standards, talented
athletes, and a sensitive professor. Teamwork wins championships.
The lead captured the breadth of the sensitive, caring, and understanding professor:
[He] 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. Michigan officials said [he] taught additional independent studies in that period,
however, they refused to disclose the number of athletes who were part of that group.
The picture and the lead tell all. And faculty everywhere know it.
The speed at which coaches and boosters shift from standards in athletics to sensitivity in academics is equaled
only by the swiftness with which administrators shift from public acclaim about academic excellence to covering up or
excusing low academic standards in athletics. Sensitivity masks surrender.
For a relatively small newspaper located in the home of a major state university to produce such a series was a
remarkable showing of the colors. Columnist Jim Carty, reporter John Heuser, and the editors: color them brave.
Then it was University of Michigan President and former Knight Commission member Mary Sue Coleman's turn to
show her colors.
President Coleman, who had no time during seven months of preparing the series to talk with the Ann Arbor News
found plenty of time to use the Michigan Daily to attack the messenger. Then to those who love the University she
offered more than 15,000 words of evasion, rationalization, and denial all posted on the University's website for the
world to see.
15,000 words by University of Michigan scholars and administrators to explain away 294 directed independent
studies when only eight words were necessary: "This is excessive, and we will make changes."
How President Mary Sue Coleman chose to respond to the Ann Arbor News series brings to mind the opening lines
of Carl Sandburg's "The Hangman at Home:"
What does a hangman think about when he goes home at night from work?
When he sits down with his wife and children for a cup of coffee and a plate of ham and eggs, do they ask him if it
was a good day's work?
Did Mary Sue Coleman go home that night and consider it a good day's work? Did she think of Father Walter
Burghardt's homily to Father John Courtney Murray, in which he recalled fondly his friend's advice: "Courage,
Walter! It's far more important than intelligence."
On the Ann Arbor campus, ubiquitous are the Professors of Intelligence. Those who love the university might ask:
Where are the Professors of Courage?
About the writer: Jon Ericson is Ellis & Nelle Levitt Professor Emeritus and former provost at Drake University. He is a
co-author, with Matthew Salzwedel, of "Cleaning Up Buckley: How The Family Educational Rights And Privacy Act
Shields Academic Corruption In College Athletics,'' in the Wisconsin Law Review.
Who calls the shots, UW or UW athletics?
Todd Finkelmeyer, May 12, 2008
It's no secret that some on the UW-Madison campus believe the athletic department operates more like an
autonomous empire than a subset of the university.
That friction got a public airing May 5 when Walter Dickey, associate dean of the UW Law School and chairman of
the Athletic Board, which is charged with oversight of the athletic department, was challenged on the maverick ways
of the athletic department while delivering his annual report to the Faculty Senate.
As Barry Orton, a professor of telecommunications and a Faculty Senate member, sees it, "The question is who is in
charge? Is it the tail (athletic department) or the dog (university as a whole). When it's important and it involves
money, it's the tail. And that's the concern of the faculty -- that the dog should be in control of the tail, rather than
the other way around."
This week, the four finalists vying to be the next UW-Madison chancellor are on campus for a series of interviews
and meet-and-greets. And Orton and others are hoping the next leader of Wisconsin's flagship university will take a
look at the relationship between the athletic department and faculty leaders.
"Obviously a question is going to be, 'Is the new chancellor going to set the tone of oversight right away or is the
new chancellor going to be an athletic booster?'" says Orton. "I think you can be both, but it's tough.
"In a university this size there are three or four major issues that a new chancellor has to deal with that are political
and public, and this is certainly one of them."
As far as Dickey is concerned, however, things are operating as they should be, "at least if you care about results,"
he said. "When you look at the academic performance of our student-athletes we're doing really well. Competitively
we're doing really well .... On the financial side we're in the black. And on the compliance side (with the NCAA and
Big Ten), we don't have any problems. So from the point of view of results, we're doing well.
"Having said that, I think it's vital that the chancellor be aware of athletics and athletic issues."
Some of the friction between the UW athletic department and faculty leaders dates to July 2005, when athletic
Director Barry Alvarez anointed Bret Bielema his successor as football coach without following proper hiring
procedures.
And some faculty leaders are still miffed about the lack of input they had last year in regard to the UW's contract with
the Big Ten Network. Critics have claimed Chancellor John Wiley and Alvarez didn't follow proper procedures when
striking the deal and deciding how network revenues would be distributed within the university.
In addition, the Big Ten Network issue as a whole remains a lightning rod for criticism of the UW because the
network still doesn't have broadcast agreements with the largest cable providers in Wisconsin, Charter
Communications and Time Warner.
In the most recent twist to the Bielema hiring controversy, Bruce Jones admitted at the May 5 Faculty Senate
meeting that he didn't find out about Bielema being named Alvarez's successor until about two hours before a press
conference to announce the big news. This is significant because Jones, a UW-Madison professor of agricultural
economics, was chair of the Athletic Board at that time. Although Jones still serves on the Athletic Board, he was
removed as chair two weeks after Bielema was named head coach.
In Jones' view, most of the proper policies are in place for oversight of the athletic department; it's a matter of using
these tools when needed.
"It's the responsibility of the (athletic) board to continually and vigilantly look at these faculty policies and procedures
to make sure the faculty's Senate and faculty's expectations are executed in terms of the performance of
intercollegiate athletics," he said.
But Jones, whose second four-year term on the Athletic Board ends this summer, says there is nothing wrong with
evaluating and revising faculty policies and procedures.
"That is the decision that will be made by the Faculty Senate because they are the ones in control of the faculty
policies and procedures."
Prior to their arrival on campus this week, each of the finalists for the UW-Madison chancellor post were interviewed
by phone by The Capital Times. The candidates were asked how they viewed the role of college athletics on a major
college campus. Following is an edited transcript of each person's response.
REBECCA BLANK
Bio: From 1999-2007 Blank served as dean of the School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan, where she
remains a professor of public policy and of economics, and is co-director of the school's National Poverty Center.
Blank is currently on leave and is a visiting senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a nonprofit public policy think
tank in Washington. Before coming to Michigan, she was a faculty member at Northwestern University and served as
a member of President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisors from 1997-99.
Blank: "Obviously you have to have thought about these issues if you're going to be a chancellor at a place like
Wisconsin. Sports are a big issue. They bring in a lot of money. They bring a lot of alumni back to campus. They
create a spirit on campus that is often important. It has some positive and negative aspects about it, there is no
question. And there is going to continue to be a lot of lively debate about the role of college sports. My general
reaction is that if you're thinking of college sports there are three things you have to be serious about and you have
to hold them in balance.
"One is, for better or worse, college sports, because of the way they are run, because of past problems, are about a
set of rules and you have to make sure you have the people in place who follow those rules and do what needs to
be done so this is a clean program in every meaning of that word.
"Secondly, college sports is about sports -- it's about competition. And you know what? It's better to win than to lose
in competition. If you're going to be the UW and you're going to be running major sports teams like Wisconsin, you
want to have good coaches, good teams and attract good athletes. And that's something you have to pay attention
to.
"Thirdly, you are working with people who are students and not athletes. And you always have to be aware of the
fact that what really matters at the end of the day is the long-term human capital that these folks acquire and what
they do their entire life afterwards as alums -- which is not just about sports but about other things. And then making
sure that you maintain graduation rates and that you give people an education as well as the training that the coach
is going to provide.
"And doing all three of those and doing them well is an ongoing challenge and balancing act."
CAROLYN MARTIN
Bio: Martin became Cornell University's provost, the university's chief academic and chief operating officer, in July
2000. Prior to that, she spent four years as senior associate dean in Cornell's College of Arts and Sciences. A
professor of German studies and women's studies, she served as the chair of the Department of German Studies
from 1994-97. Martin was a UW-Madison lecturer in the early 1980s and earned her doctorate at the UW in 1985 in
German literature.
Martin: "The bottom line is athletics, whether intercollegiate or intramural or club, are an extremely important part in
higher education and the balance between the cultivation of the mind and body is critical. Athletics certainly have a
very important place, and Big Ten athletics are in a class by themselves.
"Of course there are always tensions in institutions about the relative significance of sports. But that's a healthy
tension, a healthy discussion. I grew up in a sports crazy family -- both of my brothers were high school football
coaches. So I myself turned out, inevitably, to be a sports fan."
TIM MULCAHY
Bio: Mulcahy has served as vice president for research at the University of Minnesota since February 2005. He is
responsible for oversight and administration of an externally funded research program of more than $600 million on
the university system's five campuses. Before taking the Minnesota post, Mulcahy was associate vice chancellor for
research policy at UW-Madison for three years. From 1996 to 2002, he served as associate dean for the biological
sciences at UW-Madison. He joined the faculty at UW-Madison in 1985.
Mulcahy: "First of all, athletics represent a very, very important part of campus life in general. For the students,
faculty, staff and alumni, it's an important contact point and connection with the university. For the alumni, it's a good
magnet, if you will, for people who want to support the university.
"Having said that, I think from an academic perspective a university has a responsibility to make sure athletic
programs are run with integrity, that they're held to the same standard of excellence as any other aspect of the
university, that we are sensitive to the risk of exploiting student-athletes, and that we're committed to providing them
with the same quality educational experiences as any other student on campus.
"If athletics are viewed as part of the academic mission and are held to the same standards of excellence and
accountability, then I think it's a very healthy part of campus life."
GARY SANDEFUR
Bio: Sandefur was named dean of the College of Letters and Science at UW-Madison in August of 2004. Prior to
that, he served as professor of sociology, associate vice chancellor for academic affairs, interim provost and vice
chancellor for academic affairs, and director of the American Indian Studies Program, all at UW-Madison. He has
been on the faculty since 1984 and currently leads a college that has 39 departments and five professional schools.
Sandefur: "Well, my view I think is indicated by the fact that I've been a football and men's basketball season ticket
holder for 23 years. So I really enjoy intercollegiate athletics and I think all in all and on balance it's a very positive
thing for the university to have a strong athletic program.
"There are challenges because the athletic department and coaches are under tremendous pressure to deliver,
especially in the high-profile sports. So, that sometimes leads to problems, and it's often alumni who cause problems
by wanting to do things that are inappropriate or incorrect. So everyone just has to work together to make sure the
people who want to help you don't end up hurting you more.
"Overall, I think Barry Alvarez does a great job as athletic director and if I were to become chancellor I would really
look forward to working with him."
For continued in-depth coverage of the process to find the next UW-Madison chancellor, visit www.captimes.com.
Some coaches would be right at home in Casablanca
Mark McCarter, Huntsville Times, 14 May 2008
In a memorable scene in "Casablanca," Captain Renault is being forced to shut down Rick's Cafe.
"I'm shocked, shocked to find gambling is going on in here," he explains.
At that instant, he is approached by a casino worker who hands him a stack of cash and says, "Your winnings, sir."
Kelvin Sampson, Tim Floyd, L.C. Cole - and Captain Renault. All of them shocked, shocked at what's happening.
Sampson, the former Indiana coach, claims he didn't knowingly break any rules. You'd think he knew them all,
considering the ones he broke at Oklahoma before coming to Indiana. He even claimed that Indiana's compliance
staff was faulty in monitoring him and the staff.
That's like wrecking your car because you were speeding and blaming the police for not giving you a ticket first.
The Hoosiers may wind up on probation, but Sampson got a $750,000 buyout from Indiana and is expected to wind
up an NBA assistant with the Milwaukee Bucks.
Your winnings, sir.
The whole unfolding O.J. Mayo case at Southern Cal is more fishy than the proclamations of innocence by the
Trojans' last high-profile O.J.
There was a match made in heaven. Tim Floyd, in his sixth head coaching job at age 53, and Mayo, who played at
three different high schools in three different states, and who essentially offered his services to USC through a
representative.
It was a given whoever signed him would (1) likely go under the NCAA microscope, (2) see him leave after one
season, (3) make the NCAA tournament and (4) earn a raise and job security for the coach.
Mayo illegally accepted thousands of dollars from an agent, according to a source. The NCAA sleuths are on the
case. If Mayo's guilty, the players left behind will likely suffer through probation. Meanwhile, he's headed to the NBA
and a lottery-pick contract of $1.5 million or so.
Your winnings, sir.
Closer to home, there is Alabama State's mind-boggling 688 alleged instances of rules violations. Among them, a
charge of "lack of institutional control." With an administration that would haphazardly go through two full-time
athletic directors and three interim ADs in five years, what do you expect?
Alabama State coach Reggie Barlow said in an interview with Montgomery's WSFA-TV that ASU is "heading in the
right direction."
He is preaching the message to recruits and parents is that these violations "happened five years ago" and that he
intends to run a clean program. But five years from now, Alabama State will still be paying for it.
L.C. Cole was the coach five years ago. He was fired in 2003, and said then, "it's a shock to me all this stuff has
taken place right under my nose and I didn't know."
Cole has just taken a job as defensive coordinator at Texas Southern, in the same conference as Alabama State.
Your winnings, sir.
The last couple of years, he was head coach at Sidney Lanier High. When he left there, Montgomery schools
athletic director Lewis Washington told The Montgomery Advertiser that Cole's tenure "brought a sense of pride
back to this school. This school is indebted to L.C. Cole."
Meanwhile, with all the things that left Cole shocked, shocked, Alabama State is merely in debt.
Students Fail - and Professor Loses Job
By Scott Jaschik, Inside Higher Ed.com, 5-14-08
Who is to blame when students fail? If many students fail - a majority even - does that demonstrate faculty
incompetence, or could it point to a problem with standards?
These are the questions at the center of a dispute that cost Steven D. Aird his job teaching biology at Norfolk State
University. Today is his last day of work, but on his way out, he has started to tell his story - one that he suggests
points to large educational problems at the university and in society. The university isn't talking publicly about his
case, but because Aird has released numerous documents prepared by the university about his performance -
including the key negative tenure decisions by administrators - it is clear that he was denied tenure for one reason:
failing too many students. The university documents portray Aird as unwilling to compromise to pass more students.
A subtext of the discussion is that Norfolk State is a historically black university with a mission that includes
educating many students from disadvantaged backgrounds. The university suggests that Aird - who is white - has
failed to embrace the mission of educating those who aren't well prepared. But Aird - who had backing from his
department and has some very loyal students as well - maintains that the university is hurting the very students it
says it wants to help. Aird believes most of his students could succeed, but have no incentive to work as hard as
they need to when the administration makes clear they can pass regardless.
"Show me how lowering the bar has ever helped anyone," Aird said in an interview. Continuing the metaphor, he
said that officials at Norfolk State have the attitude of "a track coach who tells the team 'I really want to win this
season but I really like you guys, so you can decide whether to come to practice and when.' " Such a team wouldn't
win, Aird said, and a university based on such a principle would not be helping its students.
Sharon R. Hoggard, a spokeswoman for Norfolk State, said that she could not comment at all on Aird's case. But
she did say this, generally, on the issues raised by Aird: "Something is wrong when you cannot impart your
knowledge onto students. We are a university of opportunity, so we take students who are underprepared, but we
have a history of whipping them into shape. That's our niche."
The question raised by Aird and his defenders is whether Norfolk State is succeeding and whether policies about
who passes and who fails have an impact. According to U.S. Education Department data, only 12 percent of Norfolk
State students graduate in four years, and only 30 percent graduate in six years.
Aird points to a Catch-22 that he said hinders professors' ability to help students. Because so many students come
from disadvantaged backgrounds and never received a good high school education, they are already behind, he
said, and attendance is essential. Norfolk State would appear to endorse this point of view, and official university
policy states that a student who doesn't attend at least 80 percent of class sessions may be failed.
The problem, Aird said, is that very few Norfolk State students meet even that standard. In the classes for which he
was criticized by the dean for his grading - classes in which he awarded D's or F's to about 90 percent of students -
Aird has attendance records indicating that the average student attended class only 66 percent of the time. Based
on such a figure, he said, "the expected mean grade would have been an F," and yet he was denied tenure for
giving such grades.
Other professors at Norfolk State, generally requesting anonymity, confirmed that following the 80 percent
attendance rule would result frequently in failing a substantial share - in many cases a majority - of their students.
Professors said attendance rates are considerably lower than at many institutions - although most institutions serve
students with better preparation.
One reason that this does not happen (outside Aird's classes) is that many professors at Norfolk State say that
there is a clear expectation from administrators - in particular from Dean Sandra J. DeLoatch, the dean whose
recommendation turned the tide against Aird's tenure bid - that 70 percent of students should pass.
Aird said that figure was repeatedly made clear to him and he resisted it. Others back his claim privately. For the
record, Joseph C. Hall, a chemistry professor at president of the Faculty Senate, said that DeLoatch "encouraged"
professors to pass at least 70 percent of students in each course, regardless of performance. Hall said that there is
never a direct order given, but that one isn't really needed.
"When you are in a meeting and an administrator says our goal is to try to get above 70 percent, then that indirectly
says that's what you are going to try to do," he said. (Hoggard, the university spokeswoman, said that it was untrue
that there was any quota for passing students.)
Hall agreed that both attendance and preparation are problems for many students at Norfolk State. He said that he
generally fails between 20 and 35 percent of students, and has not been criticized by his dean. But Hall has tenure
and the highest failure rate he can remember in one of his classes was 45 percent.
Dean DeLoatch's report on Aird's tenure bid may be the best source of information on how the administration views
the pass rate issue. The report from the dean said that Aird met the standards for tenure in service and research,
and noted that he took teaching seriously, using his own student evaluations on top of the university's. The detailed
evaluations Aird does for his courses, turned over in summary form for this article, suggest a professor who is seen
as a tough grader (too tough by some), but who wins fairly universal praise for his excitement about science, for
being willing to meet students after class to help them, and providing extra help.
DeLoatch's review finds similarly. Of Aird, she wrote, based on student reviews: "He is respectful and fair to
students, adhered to the syllabus, demonstrated that he found the material interesting, was available to students
outside of class, etc."
What she faulted him for, entirely, was failing students. The review listed various courses, with remarks such as: "At
the end of Spring 2004, 22 students remained in Dr. Aird's CHM 100 class. One student earned a grade of 'B' and
all others, approximately 95 percent, earned grades between 'D' and 'F.'" Or: "At the end of Fall 2005, 38 students
remained in Dr. Aird's BIO 100 class. Four students earned a grade of 'C-' or better and 34, approximately 89
percent, received D's and F's."
These class records resulted in the reason cited for tenure denial: "the core problem of the overwhelming failure of
the vast majority of the students he teaches, especially since the students who enroll in the classes of Dr. Aird's
supporters achieve a greater level of success than Dr. Aird's students."
DeLoatch also rejected the relevance of 16 letters in Aird's portfolio from students who praised him as a teacher.
The students, some of whom are now in medical or graduate school or who have gone on to win research awards,
talked about his extra efforts on their behalf, how he had been a mentor, and so forth. DeLoatch named each
student in the review, and noted their high grade point averages and various successes. Some of the students
writing on his behalf received grades as low as C, although others received higher grades.
But although DeLoatch held Aird responsible for his failures, she wrote that he did not deserve any credit for his
success stories and these students, by virtue of their strong academic performance, shouldn't influence the tenure
decision. "With the exception of one of these students, it appears that all have either excelled or are presently
performing well at NSU. Given their records, it is likely that that would be the case no matter who their advisors or
teachers were."
Aird stressed that he does not believe Norfolk State should try to become an elite college. He said he believes that
only about 20 percent of the students who enroll truly can't do the work. He believes another 20 percent are ready
from the start. Of the middle 60 percent, he said that when the university tells them that substandard work and
frequent class skipping are OK, these students are doomed to fail his courses (and not to learn what they need from
other professors).
"I think most of the students have the intellectual capacity to succeed, but they have been so poorly trained, and
given all the wrong messages by the university," he said.
The problem at Norfolk State, he said, isn't his low grades, but the way the university lowers expectations. He noted
that in the dean's negative review of his tenure bid, nowhere did she cite specific students who should have
received higher grades, or subject matter that shouldn't have been in his courses or on his tests. The emphasis is
simply on passing students, he said.
"If everyone here would tell students that 'you are either going to work or get out,' they would work, and they would
blossom," he said. "We've got to present a united front - high academic standards in all classes across the
institution. Some students will bail, and we can't help those, but the ones who stay will realize that they aren't going
to be given a diploma for nothing, and that their diploma means something."
Reaction in Norfolk has been mixed. After The Virginian-Pilot wrote about the case last week, it received numerous
online comments - some calling Aird a hero, others saying he was denigrating the university.
Faculty leaders have a range of views about Aird's case. Cassandra L. Newby-Alexander, an associate professor of
history and secretary of the Faculty Senate, led a grievance committee that found Aird's first tenure review was
flawed and that ordered a second review. Newby-Alexander said that the problems Aird has raised about
preparedness are real. She said that she fails about 20 percent of her students on average, some for just not
showing up and others for not doing the work at appropriate levels.
"He's not the first to raise the issue of preparedness. This is a national problem that a lot of faculty have been
raising throughout the country," she said.
In addition, while she has not experienced being told that she must pass a greater percentage of students, she said
she was troubled by the implication that someone could be denied tenure for making sincere analyses of the grades
he thought students deserved. Even if presidents or vice presidents would prefer different grades, she said that it
"smacks of an issue of academic freedom" to punish a professor for giving low grades.
Hall, the head of the Faculty Senate, asked if Aird has been treated fairly or unfairly, said: "My father used to say
that no matter how long you cook a pancake it still has two sides."
Along those lines, he said that it was important to see the responsibility for getting students to acceptable levels of
knowledge as a team process, not something that falls only on students or only on professors. "Every faculty
member has to decide how they are going to take a group of students and bring them up to a particular standard.
Some faculty members feel that ultimately the responsibility of having students come up to that standard is the
university's, and the university should bring students up. It's a very complicated issue."
For his part, Hall said that "one of the things I have been objecting to is administrators trying to constantly tell you
the responsibility for student success is only the faculty member's responsibility. It really isn't. Success is four-
pronged - the student, the university administration, parents, and the faculty."
Added Hall: "A faculty member can't make a student come to class. A faculty member can't spend all of his or her
time teaching students how to study. A faculty member teaching chemistry can't deal with some of the social
problems these students have, and that the students are working 30-40 hours a week. There are a lot of things that
are not in the control of the faculty member."
But at the same time, he added that "whenever you have 80-90 percent of your students failing, politically that's
going to cause some administrators to begin to question what's going on."
Jonathan Knight, who handles academic freedom issues for the American Association of University Professors, said
that he has no problem per se with administrators asking questions about such a high failure rate. "It is not improper
for an administration to be concerned about it," he said.
But he cautioned against automatic assumptions. He said the questions to be asked are why so many students are
failing, what is being done to help students succeed, what is taking place in the classroom, and so forth.
While Knight did not see academic freedom issues related to asking such questions, he said he would be concerned
about orders to pass certain percentages of students. "Professors obviously should have the right to determine
what grades the students should have," he said.
Aird - who is applying for teaching jobs - acted on such a belief and stuck to it. While administrators have noted that
they urged him to change his ways, his defenders note that he was always clear with his students about his belief in
high standards. In a letter he sent to students at the beginning of last January's semester, he wrote: "You can only
develop skills and self-confidence when your professors maintain appropriately rigorous standards in the classroom
and insist that you attain appropriate competencies. You cannot genuinely succeed if your professors pander to
you. You will simply fail at the next stage in life, where the cost of failure is much greater."
A (Money) Losing Proposition
The patterns have been clear for some time, to anyone spending even a modicum of time examining the numbers.
But a recently released financial survey from the National Collegiate Athletic Association — modified from earlier
versions of the report that sometimes obscured the reality — makes abundantly plain that playing big-time college
sports is, on balance, a money-losing enterprise. And it is growing increasingly so with each passing year, as
expenses accelerate faster than revenues.
The report, “2004-06 NCAA Revenues and Expenses of Division I Intercollegiate Athletics Programs Report,”
represents a long-planned major upgrade in the NCAA’s reporting of financial information about its member
colleges, designed to provide a more realistic and clear picture of the financial status of athletics programs and to
“significantly improve the transparency of college sports finances,” as Myles Brand, the NCAA’s president, described
it in 2006.
The most significant change, apart from the fact that the association now requires each institution’s figures to be
reviewed by an independent third party using common procedures, is that the report separates out those revenues
that athletics departments themselves have earned ("generated revenues"), such as ticket sales and television
proceeds, from those provided by the institution ("allocated revenues"), such as direct institutional aid, student fees,
and other subsidies. The report then computes a program’s net revenue or deficit based on the “generated
revenue” figure, providing a more accurate look at whether the programs support themselves or not and how much
institutions spend to subsidize them.
College leaders and sports officials often argue that it is a mistake to require sports programs to be self-supporting,
as that can only increase the pressure on them to cut corners to win if they believe winning teams will be more
profitable. But it is also true that in tougher economic times, as higher education is surely entering, questions of
what colleges spend on sports — particularly out of funds that could conceivably go to other institutional purposes
— are likely only to grow louder.
The new report suggests that sports program budgets are growing quickly, as are institutional subsidies. For the
119 universities that compete in the NCAA’s top competitive level, the Football Bowl Subdivision (formerly known as
Division I-A), total revenues grew by 25.5 percent from 2004 to 2006, slightly faster than the 23 percent growth in
expenses. But in the more important category — generated revenues, those actually earned by athletics
departments, excluding other institutional support — rose by only 16 percent over the two-year period.
In the 2006 fiscal year, the latest of three examined in the study, only 19 of the 119 Football Bowl Subdivision
institutions had positive net revenue, while for the rest, expenses exceeded generated revenues. (For the entire
three-year period, only 16 athletics department turned a net profit.)
The median net loss for all 119 I-A programs in 2006 was $7.265 million. But for the 16 programs that generated
more than they spent, the average new revenue was $4.3 million, while the average loss of those with negative net
revenue was $8.9 million. That $13 million difference suggests a widening gap between the “haves” and “have-nots”
in big-time college football, as the equivalent gap in 2004 was about $11.3 million.
One particular outlier, which goes unidentified as all institutions are in the report, generated revenues of $236
million in 2006, more than 10 times the media average of $26 million. It is almost certainly Oklahoma State
University, which received a $165 million donation from the oilman T. Boone Pickens that year, dedicated to
athletics. The NCAA report also reveals what is almost certainly the first sports program to spend $100 million in a
year; the institution, again unidentified, spent $101,804,000 in fiscal 2006.
While football and men’s basketball programs are generally seen as supporting other sports teams in Division, fewer
than 60 percent of those programs reported net “generated” revenues for all three years in the 2004-6 period, the
NCAA report finds.
In the Football Championship Subdivision (the competitive level previously known as Division I-AA), there was a less
visible gap between haves and have-nots, because not a single athletics program had positive net revenues in
2006. The median net loss for the 118 programs at that level was $7.1 million, although programs generated as
much as $15.2 million in revenues and spent as much as $34.9 million, far above the medians of $2.3 million and
$11.4 million, respectively.
Among the remaining programs in Division I — those that don’t play football at all — all 94 had expenses that
exceeded their generated revenues, and the median net loss was about $5.8 million.
While the NCAA’s new financial reporting mechanism is generally seen as a major improvement, sports finance
experts say it still has significant limitations. Andrew Zimbalist, Robert A. Woods Professor of Economics at Smith
College, who writes frequently about sports finances, argued that the new system overstates the amount of
generated revenues by including all donations that sports programs receive from alumni. At least some contributions
that alumni make to athletics displace gifts that they might have made to academic or other programs, Zimbalist said,
so “to count all this as net income to athletics ... ignores the fact that some cannibalization is going on here.” (Note:
This article has been updated to correct an error from a previous version.)
“In terms of accounting and reporting, [the new system] is better than it’s been,” he said. “It does come closer to
portraying the actual situation, which is that these programs on balance generate a huge deficit, and it’s getting
worse.”
— Doug Lederman
Commentary: The time is ripe for serious reform in college sports
One-year basketball internships are another sad tale of colleges losing their way.
Bob Smizik, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 14 May 2008
An atmosphere of anger and shame has settled upon West Virginia University, where high-ranking officials
conspired to bestow a master of business administration degree on a politically connected woman who did not do
the necessary work to earn that degree. Alumni are enraged at the cheapening of their diplomas.
So why is there no anger at hundreds of colleges and universities around the country where high-ranking officials
conspire to grant admission to men and women who did not do the necessary work to earn that admission?
Why aren't the millions of college graduates, who rightfully gained admission to their universities, up in arms over
the open-door admission policy that exists for superior athletes? Men and women whose college board scores
and/or high school grades otherwise would not get a sniff of college life are welcomed enthusiastically because of
their athletic ability.
Two answers come to mind:
1. This preferential treatment is such an old story that people don't even know that athletes once faced pretty much
the same admission standards as other students, and that they actually were regular students and not mostly
sequestered from the mainstream activities of the university.
2. People don't care because they perceive winning as more important than academic integrity.
Choice number two is probably more correct.
We received a fresh glimpse of the "student-athlete" side of college life recently with yet another scandal at the
University of Southern California, a fine academic institution. Two of USC's most-celebrated athletes, Reggie Bush
and O.J. Mayo, have been implicated by third parties in accepting payments that are illegal under NCAA rules. Bush,
now in the NFL, could lose his Heisman Trophy. USC also faces the possibility of having to vacate its 2004 national
championship. As for Mayo, who has opted for the NBA draft after one season at USC, the school had to be aware
of his history and his baggage when he enrolled.
These one-year basketball internships are another sad tale of the colleges losing their way. Once, colleges were
embarrassed to employ this rent-a-player philosophy. Now they embrace it. Now they make no pretense of accepting
athletes to educate them. They accept them to win games.
As for USC, despite its embarrassing circumstances, it will do nothing substantial in the way of changing its recruiting
and admission tactics. In other words, as is the case at almost every Division I university, if an athlete is eligible
under the bare standards of the NCAA, he's in. If Johnny Average tried to apply with similar credentials, he'd be
laughed out of the admission office.
Not that the NCAA and its member institutions aren't somewhat embarrassed by the onslaught of scandals. They
have long pushed hard for higher graduation rates as a mean of saving face. Most recently, the NCAA has issued
an Academic Progress Report, which surveys the landscape of educating athletes.
We'd like to add a few suggestions to even further the process.
Allow athletes to be students. To begin this process, eliminate the nonsensical term "student-athlete." It's an insult to
everyone's intelligence. Are band members "student-musicians?"
That's just a small step. The larger step would be to give these athletes their freedom. Allow them to know what it is
to be a student, a real student who is not tied down with the full-time job of being an athlete. When collegiate
athletics were conceived, they were a minor adjunct to college life, not an all-consuming obsession.
The NCAA gave lip service to this by limiting the number of hours a team can practice a week. But that's virtually
meaningless.
Here's a short list of freedom issues for athletes, and we're just talking about the major men's sports of football and
basketball where the greatest problems rest:
• Eliminate spring practice in football. Sure, coaches will be able to get less done. But, so what? It will be the same
for every team. It allows the athletes to be students. If they're not quite as good as football players, what difference
does it make?
• Practice for the upcoming season begins four weeks before the first game. No football games can begin until
September, no basketball games until after Thanksgiving.
• Coaches are allowed no athletic interaction with their players in the offseason.
What's hard about that? Will these changes result in a diminished product? Probably, but, again, so what? It's the
same for everybody.
Will these changes result in a better college life for the athletes? Absolutely, and that -- not winning games -- should
be the primary concern of these institutions of higher learning.
Even before Mayo scandal, one-and-done rule was bad
By Ian O'Connor, FOXSports.com, 5-14-08
At his draft lottery next week, David Stern is sure to be the proudest ping-pong player in the world. His circle of loser
NBA teams will be working the odds in the hope of landing a winner from the commissioner's class of one-and-done
stars.
Derrick Rose, Michael Beasley and O.J. Mayo are expected to go 1-2-3 in the first round, according to NBAdraft.net,
which predicts that seven of the top eight picks will be prospects who left the college game after their freshman
seasons. Some of these prospects only attended college because a man they'd never met told them they had to.
Stern didn't care that some of his greatest NBA assets were kids who entered his draft out of high school, jumping
straight from the prom to the pros. He figured the installment of an age requirement of 19 and a mandate that
players remain ineligible for the draft until one year after their high school classes graduate were good for business.
And what's good for NBA business was going to be good for NBA hopefuls, whether they liked it or not.
Yet no matter how giddy Stern appears when reaching for those ping-pong balls that might lift the Heat and Grizzlies
from the muck of their own incompetence, his minimum-age rule still stinks as much as the Knicks.
Mayo is only the latest reason why. If the shooting guard was, in effect, a paid performer during his 15-minute stay
at USC, as an Outside the Lines report alleges, Mayo and his benefactors made a mockery of Stern's education
initiative.
The result? USC faces another NCAA investigation to pair up with its Reggie Bush mess, Mayo potentially loses a
considerable piece of his good name, and big-time college athletics again looks and smells like a place without any
redeeming social value.
But guess what? Stern isn't losing any sleep over it. USC's loss is the NBA's gain. For all the noble causes he
claimed to be honoring by cutting the high school prom kings off at their knees, Stern's age minimum was only
meant to serve Stern's bottom line.
The commissioner said he wanted to protect kids from themselves when he really only wanted to protect general
managers from themselves. Stern said he wanted high school players to have at least another year to develop
before entering his league when he really only wanted his farm system - also known as college basketball - to
develop and market those players for the NBA fan base, free of charge.
The players' union never should've caved on this one. It never should've traded a high school graduate's right to
apply for employment - not a right to employment, but a right to apply for employment - in exchange for another
season of guaranteed wages and benefits for veterans holding fast to the final hours of their careers.
The most responsible and mature NBA stars of the older and younger generations, Kevin Garnett and LeBron
James, entered the league straight out of high school. Stern can't get either player on TV enough because Garnett
and James are driven and likable athletes who clearly get it.
Ditto for Tracy McGrady and Dwight Howard, who never stepped foot on campus. There are many examples of
players who became model NBA citizens without attending college, and many examples of players who made the
jump from high school and crashed and burned.
The same holds true for prospects who played one, two, three or four seasons of college ball. Stern's suggestion
that a few years of higher education ultimately makes for a better employee doesn't hold up when measured against
this fact: Ron Artest and Latrell Sprewell were responsible for the two ugliest incidents of Stern's reign, and they
spent a combined six years in college.
It's the person, not the person's transcript (or lack thereof). So when the collective bargaining agreement expires in
three years, the union needs to erase the age requirement from the contract the way a coach erases an inbounds
play from his grease board.
High school graduates can play professional baseball, hockey, tennis and golf. They can apply for jobs in any and
all Fortune 500 companies.
But until they're a year removed from caps and gowns, guards and forwards can't apply for jobs in the NBA. How,
exactly, is this fair? And who appointed Stern the moral compass for America's youth?
Sure, Michael Beasley could've taken a big-money deal in Europe rather than play his one-and-done season at
Kansas State. But most American kids want to play American ball. And why should the Beasleys of the world be
forced leave the country in pursuit of a free marketplace that's supposed to define this one?
A lot of things can go wrong in a kid's life in one year, the one year of pre-draft purgatory Stern requires. A serious
knee injury in the ACC or Big East can cost a prospect millions in the draft. Worse yet, his family can be victimized
by some grave misfortune.
Basketball finds more than its fair share of talent from places like the Coney Island projects I visited for a book on
the Brooklyn prodigy, Sebastian Telfair. As Telfair's senior season at Lincoln High was winding down, two of his
acquaintances were murdered right outside his apartment door.
Telfair skipped college, made his millions through adidas and several NBA franchises, and remains gainfully
employed in the league despite a disappointing early career and an alarming series of incidents involving guns.
Stern might use him as a perfect example of why college is a necessary step in the molding of a productive NBA
employee.
But what would the commissioner tell a kid whose family suffered a traumatic experience during his one year of post-
high school exile when the financial rewards of turning pro right away might've prevented or eased that experience?
Stern hopes he never has to answer that question. Meanwhile, he believes his age requirement has allowed for a
more mature league, and one that has helped repair the disconnect between his product and his customers.
In fact, Stern would love to raise the age minimum to 20. Never mind that some players don't belong in college, or
that some players simply don't want or need college.
Stern is sending them there, anyway, so all those O.J. Mayos out there can get their free exposure at the heaviest
possible price.
Ian O'Connor is the author of the New York Times bestseller "Arnie & Jack: Palmer, Nicklaus, and Golf's Greatest
Rivalry," which Kirkus Reviews calls an "exemplary sports history." His Web site is www.ian-oconnor.com.
'One-and-done' needs an NBA do-over
Caulton Tudor, Raleigh News & Observer, 16 May 2008
Whether Ovinton J'Anthony "O.J." Mayo knowingly violated numerous NCAA rules or didn't break the first one during
his single season at Southern California, the more important issue at hand is the NBA policy that prohibits most high
school seniors from immediately entering the league draft.
After two years, it's clearer now than ever that the doctrine is working only to the benefit of the NBA while placing
college programs in harm's way.
Innocent or guilty of allegations that he accepted thousands of dollars and expensive gifts from agents, Mayo has
become the most recent poster child of the so-called "one-and-done" college basketball movement.
Again, Mayo may have done nothing wrong. That's certainly the stance he is taking. More pertinent, however, is the
environment that's been created for the sort of mayhem he's accused of having inflicted on the school.
With Mayo rated among the most talented high schoolers from the day he entered the ninth grade, there's a decent
chance he didn't want to attend college at all. Like a handful of similar players each season, he was virtually
sentenced to one year of college servitude by the NBA Draft-entrance age threshold. That's not just bad legislation.
It's also the most fertile soil imaginable for breeding college players with no regard for what now passes as
amateurism.
By some accounts, Mayo was marginally corrupt -- more likely corrupted by gift-bearing vulture agents -- long before
he enrolled at Southern California, meaning there's an argument to be made that Trojans coach Tim Floyd sped
through countless yellow flags before Mayo was offered a scholarship.
But by the same token, Floyd was hired to win games and successfully compete against monolithic city rival UCLA.
With Mayo averaging 20.7 points, the Trojans finished 21-12 and received an NCAA Tournament bid in 2007-08.
Floyd may have dabbled with fire. If so, he and his school now may have to suffer the consequences. The Los
Angeles Times has reported that Floyd's top recruit for 2008-09, guard DeMar DeRozan, could ask for a scholarship
release should the Mayo quagmire result in NCAA penalties. DeRozan's high school coach has been quoted as
saying North Carolina, national champ Kansas and Memphis, among other schools, already have inquired about
DeRozan's potential status.
While that ramification could wind up being good for the Tar Heels, it's awful for college basketball. That's the sour
fruit of the one-and-done culture.
The real culprit isn't Mayo. Even at age 20, he's still just another kid praying to trace the Michael Jordan path. No,
the bad guy here is NBA commissioner David Stern, who hammered out the agreement with the players association
that instituted the ban on high school seniors entering the draft.
At the very worst, Mayo was guilty of accepting money and gifts. Among the most pious of us, who makes a habit of
saying "no thanks" to money and expensive gifts? And as for Floyd, need we even guess about his fate should he
make a habit of going 12-21 rather than 21-12?
But the NBA and Stern have no excuse for peddling poison. The age rule was adopted to keep talented young
players off NBA benches but in the public spotlight as collegiate stars for a year or two. It's that simple. On a good
NBA team's roster in 2007-08, Mayo would have been on television no more than a handful of minutes each game.
At Southern California, he became a media fixture for a few months.
So who wins from such a twisted exposure strategy? Well, heck, the NBA obviously. Mayo has become a sports
celebrity, possibly by his own design. Lots of people may even watch the league draft just to see which team
welcomes him and his baggage aboard.
Southern California, on the other hand, is left to climb out of a snakepit.
The right thing to do here is the right thing to do for the sport, and not merely what's best for the almighty NBA.
Stern and the players association owe it to the game to either clone the baseball rules or go back to the days when
all high school seniors were allowed to enter the draft.
By far, the baseball blueprint works best. There, all high school seniors either can sign pro contracts immediately or
are forced to duck the draft for three years. It's not as though the undrafted baseball players are exiled for that time,
either. Most just have to go to college and deal with the required academic eligibility demands.
This is not molecular relocation research. It's no more complicated than product quality control. You would think the
NBA's billionaire owners could grasp that concept without having to turn some of the country's most prestigious
colleges into lab rat experiments.
Dodds and Ends
Dennis Dodd, CBS Sports, 15 May 2008
USC you later?
USC's situation is not as bad as it is made out to be. Don't be a lemming -- or an Obama supporter. Think for
yourself on this issue.
USC has a problem with agents -- mostly the two major sports seem to attract those with hygiene problems. In other
words they're greasy. The NCAA is looking into the, ahem, pasts of O.J. Mayo and Reggie Bush. But death penalty?
Whoa, there. Let's operate from the premise that USC didn't know about either case of extra benefits. A source with
broad knowledge of the NCAA investigative process, says the NCAA is actually slightly more forgiving when it comes
to agents giving extra benefits than it is with boosters. The language in the NCAA Manual deals specifically with
boosters, the thinking being that schools have an ability and a duty to control them.
Not so much with agents. This isn't to absolve USC. Bush-Mayo looks bad. Real bad. But unless the NCAA can
prove that USC knew or should have known about each situation, the school is likely to skate. Is it fair? Probably not,
but as Gary Parrish pointed earlier this week there are Mayo situations going on all over the country. USC being
USC, it got caught in the headlights. Do you think "Outside the Lines" does a piece with a jilted agent runner outing,
say, Seton Hall?
We'll find out soon enough about Bush. Depositions will be taken next month in the lawsuit against him. The trial is
scheduled for March. If it gets that far, I'll be shocked. Bush should have settled with Lloyd Lake by now. I don't know
why he hasn't. The negative publicity from the case already has cost him dearly in endorsements.
"Hummer, lost them all, except for adidas," one source told me.
Since both these guys are out of school it will come down to the NCAA deciding if the school knew about the agents.
At worst USC is guilty of negligence, not complicity. Did USC want to know? Of course not. It was in the school's best
interest to get Bush and Mayo on campus win games. Should USC have known? That's the NCAA's (and the Pac-
10's) task.
NCAA starving small schools with APR
Spencer Hall, Sporting News, 08 May 2008
The NCAA has its own No Child Left Behind Act, and it is called the Academic Progress Rate. It's the NCAA's own
road to hell, paved with good intentions. It is on the way to thinning the ranks of Division I college football, and little
but common sense seems to stand in the way of it happening.
(And if we're waiting on common sense to reign in college football, we'll be here awhile. Hello, two-loss national
champion LSU!)
To review: The Academic Progress Rate (APR) is the NCAA's attempt to measure academic progress for every sport
at every university. Like most huge policies designed to find a simple answer to a complex issue, the APR is a
weeping mess of half-truths, pretzel logic and unintended policy consequences.
The idea behind the APR is to establish a metric for academic progress. Above a certain number, your university is
doing a fine to excellent job helping student-athletes balance athletics with academic achievement. Below a certain
number, your school risks sanction from the NCAA -- lost practice time, lost scholarships, being banned from
postseason play.
In theory, it's all backslaps and champagne for the NCAA and its member schools. The APR punishes those who do
not graduate players and rewards those who do. Incentives for good program behavior plus penalties for bad
behavior equals good cooperation between member schools and the NCAA.
In practice, the APR's effects are less "pinpoint bombing run" accurate in terms of hitting intended targets than they
are "cluster-bomb random."
Schools might escape punishment via a wide and colorful variety of dodges. First, if a team's academic score is
weak it might selectively put walk-ons on scholarship to boost its score. Second, a team can, seemingly by random
fiat, get "forgiveness" for its score. In short: The bigger your overall budget as a program, the more likely
"forgiveness" will come your way.
Worse still, the punishment of football programs seems to follow Bobby Knight's old dictum that went something like
this: "The NCAA got so mad at Indiana, it punished Ball State." Of the 37 programs docked scholarships or practice
time, only two (Washington State, Kansas) affected in the 2008 season come from BCS conferences.
The rest come from the exurbs of the college football map: San Jose State, New Mexico State, Florida Atlantic and
Florida International.
The NCAA surely did not set out to create a policy making the midget class of college football even less competitive
than before by forcing small schools to divert even more of their limited resources to academic support for athletes.
There was no meeting of the Ohio States and Floridas in a secret island lair beneath a volcano where, after toasts
and evil laughing, they devised a plan to eliminate the threat of smaller schools looking to field competitive football
teams.
Rather than some sort of conspiracy, the APR and its sanctioned, slow strangulation of smaller schools unable to
pay for massive academic support centers is the result of something even more unstoppable and faceless: bad
policy.
The NCAA and its members, faced with the legitimate issue of measuring how well schools balance athletics and
academics, created a well-intentioned system. Like many well-intentioned systems -- such as President Bush's No
Child Left Behind Act -- its actual effects are disastrous.
APR penalties slowly will erode a smaller school's ability to recruit athletes who likely will need academic support to
make it through four years of balancing school work and athletics.
In short, the APR is all sticks and no carrots, a penalty-laden system with few outs for small schools struggling to get
programs off the ground. (See: Florida Atlantic and Florida International.)
Like No Child Left Behind, it hits the worst of the worst, penalizing them from the starting line and all but encouraging
a new variety of fraud by attaching the school's progress to a single number -- a number that could, in crafty
administrative hands, become a fiction the NCAA would rubber-stamp happily ... especially in the cases of larger
schools that seem to escape punishment year in and year out.
It is college football on the starvation plan, the intentional creation of a famine of scholarships at the lowest ranks to
thin the herd. Just as in No Child Left Behind, schools eventually will have to shutter programs altogether or cheat in
new, creative ways to come up with an increasingly fabricated and meaningless APR score.
Does anyone benefit from the system, you ask?
The real beneficiaries of the APR era will be academic support personnel. Not only will this save many recent grads
with English degrees from struggling in a terrible job market -- or, god forbid, becoming bloggers -- it will enable
them to buy shiny new flat-screen televisions while they tutor athletes in facilities like Oregon's new three-story $20
million academic support center.
Everyone else actually affected by the APR might look forward to further tweaks and policy improvisations by the
NCAA. No matter how it's spun, the APR remains an inexact and random tool. In short: The cluster-bombing will
continue until morale improves.
Spencer Hall, a.k.a. Orson Swindle, writes and edits the college football blog Every Day Should Be Saturday and is a
frequent contributor to Sporting News.
APR creating class warfare over academics within NCAA
Ray Melick, Birmingham News, 8 May 2008
You want to get to the bottom of the APR?
Follow the money.
Of the 37 football teams penalized by the NCAA when it released its Academic Performance Rate on Tuesday, only
two were from among that group of schools generally referred to as BCS conferences: Washington State (Pac-10)
and Kansas (Big 12).
Of 53 basketball programs that were penalized, only seven are BCS members: Tennessee and South Carolina
(SEC); Purdue (Big Ten); Southern Cal (Pac-10), Kansas State and Colorado (Big 12); and Seton Hall (Big East).
There is no conspiracy here, however. Faced with a suddenly real threat of a loss of scholarships, of practice time,
and maybe even post-season participation, the rich did what they always do: spend more money.
While the rest tried to make do.
Not all APR numbers are equal. There are huge discrepancies in the effort it takes to maintain eligibility from one
school to another, just as there are differences in academic requirements from one major to another within the same
school. All the NCAA can do is create minimum standards; it can't control the effort required to maintain those
standards.
So how did so many big schools manage to make the APR grade while so many small schools fell short?
By taking a fraction of the millions that had been being spent on fancier stadiums, state-of-the-art weight rooms and
high-salaried coaching staffs and investing a little in academics.
APR accounting is four years old. Within the last five years, the University of Alabama completed a $10.3 million
Bryant Academic Center, while Auburn built the $6.4 million Lowder Academic Center.
Meanwhile, financially struggling athletic programs like UAB fought for approval to spend $2.6 million on long-
overdue athletic upgrades that included a $500,000 renovation of its existing academic center.
That's basic capitalism, which most of us consider a good thing. Given the penalty phase of APR, you'd have to say
Alabama and Auburn got what they paid for.
And maybe so did UAB.
Give NCAA President Myles Brand credit for figuring out a way to get intercollegiate athletics into the business of
higher education. Unable to stop the "arms race" of unbridled athletic department spending, Brand's staff found a
way to "encourage" those departments to divert some of that money into academics - that is, if they wanted to
maintain their athletic programs.
"It makes more sense to put the resources in the development of academic enhancement than it does into new
(stadium) suites," Brand said.
But academic enhancement is not just bigger and better academic centers. To stay on the good side of the APR
line, schools are being encouraged to pay for athletes to attend summer school - another expense that strains the
budget of low-revenue D-I schools.
"When APR was first introduced, I think all of our schools took it to heart and put in plans to face it and fight it," said
Karl Benson, commissioner of the Western Athletic Conference. "But I know that we may not have had the same
resources that others have had. ... I do think we have to recognize the difference and disparity that exists."
It is creating a new kind of class warfare within the NCAA, fought this time over who actually goes to class.
Progress and More Potent Penalties
Doug Lederman, InsideHigherEd.com, 7 May 2008
As recently as two years ago, the only way a college could get in trouble with the National Collegiate Athletic
Association was to break one of its rules, be it a serious one like engaging in academic fraud or a comparatively
minor one like giving a recruit a few extra t-shirts. But no amount of academic failure by players could lose a team a
scholarship, require it to give up practice time, or bar it from a bowl game or the NCAA tournament. That reality
made it easy ¡ª as many critics of the NCAA did, and in some cases still do ¡ª to question how seriously the overseer
of big-time college sports and the college presidents who run it take the academic nature of the enterprise.
The NCAA¡¯s announcement Tuesday of the latest step in its multiyear campaign to assess the academic progress
of Division I teams may not persuade the stingiest skeptics of college sports that the NCAA and its leaders care as
much about academics as they assert; association officials continue to play down the likelihood that athletes are
meeting its eligibility standards through watered down courseloads or the sort of academic shenanigans that have
been revealed in recent controversies at Auburn and Florida State Universities and the University of Michigan.
But the association¡¯s report Tuesday on the performance of more than 6,000 Division I teams on the NCAA¡¯s
Academic Progress Rate measure also revealed undeniably that the group is willing, as never before, to punish
colleges when their athletes fail to perform in the classroom. A total of 218 teams at 123 colleges ¡ª there are 329
members of Division I, and a college-by-college database of their outcomes appears here ¡ª will be penalized in
some form this year because they fell short of the NCAA¡¯s minimum standards in the 2006-7 academic year.
One hundred thirteen of those teams will lose scholarships because their 2006-7 APR score fell below the NCAA¡¯s
threshold of 925 (out of 1,000) and because at least one athlete left college in poor academic standing; 35 of those
teams, and 44 additional squads, will receive a public warning because they scored below 900 in multiple years and
are on track for ¡°historical¡± penalties. And a total of 26 teams face scholarship losses and restrictions in practice
time because they qualified for historical penalties for the second straight year.
If some of those teams fall short again next year, they could be barred from postseason competition, which is about
the most serious penalty the NCAA imposes on rule breakers. ¡°Those are serious penalties, and a number of
teams face them,¡± said Myles Brand, the association¡¯s president.
During Tuesday¡¯s announcement, Brand and other association leaders spent far more time emphasizing how much
progress Division I teams have made than they did discussing the toughness and significance of the penalties being
imposed. But in their eyes, the two are intimately connected.
¡°We are taking action when it¡¯s needed to make sure our member institutions, and especially [athletics directors]
and coaches, recognize that we¡¯re serious¡± about academic performance, said Walt Harrison, president of the
University of Hartford and chairman of the NCAA¡¯s Committee on Academic Performance. ¡°But the real goal is to
enhance the academic success of our student-athletes.¡±
On that front, Harrison and Brand argued, the signs are positive. The four-year average Academic Progress Rate
rose by one point across Division I from 2005-6 to 2006-7, to 961, and the score rose or stayed level in 17 of 19
men¡¯s sports and 15 of 19 women¡¯s sports. Some of the lowest-performing sports have seen the most significant
increases, with the APR in baseball climbing by 12 points and the average rate in football by 11 points since 2003-4.
(To calculate the APR, each scholarship athlete can receive a maximum of two points per term: one for finishing in
good academic standing and another for remaining enrolled at the institution. A team¡¯s APR is calculated by
dividing the total number of points earned by the players on its roster for the year by the total number of points
possible, then multiplying by 1,000.)
Brand cited as another sign of progress the fact that far fewer teams than predicted faced scholarship reductions
when the second phase of the so-called historical penalties kicked in this year. At this time last year, the association
projected that many hundreds of teams could be affected this year when the association generally lifted the ¡°squad
size reductions¡± that blunted the impact of the rules on teams with relatively few players. That only about 150
teams faced ¡°immediate¡± scholarship reductions is one of numerous ¡°genuine signs of measurable improvement,
¡± Brand said.
And last month, 712 teams earned recognition for placing in the top 10 percent of their peers in terms of the APR
scores.
Troubling signs remain, though, Brand acknowledged.
Fifty three men¡¯s basketball teams ¡ª about one of every six Division I teams ¡ª were among the 218 to be
penalized, and 39 of them lost scholarships. Twenty-six teams faced what the NCAA calls ¡°occasion 2¡å penalties,
meaning that they continued to fall below the 900 academic progress rate threshold for the second straight year
even though the NCAA had worked one on one with them to try to improve their performance. And some number of
colleges, Brand said, ¡°have seen a steady decline in their APR scores in last four years.... For them, the situation is
dire.¡± (Brand declined to identify which colleges are in that situation, and it is impossible to identify them from the
information on the NCAA¡¯s Web site because the association has removed the college-by-college data for previous
years.
But it is not hard to identify colleges that are clearly struggling with meeting the NCAA¡¯s new academic regime.
Institutions such as California State University at Sacramento (seven), Delaware State University four), Florida
International University (five), New Mexico State University (six), San Jose State University, and the University of
Alabama at Birmingham are among those that have multiple teams facing penalties for falling short of the NCAA¡¯s
academic guidelines. Four of Sacramento¡¯s troubled teams qualify for historical penalties, meaning that they have
been chronic problems, as are all four of Delaware State¡¯s low-performing teams, two of Florida International¡¯s,
one of New Mexico State¡¯s, and all six of San Jose State¡¯s and Alabama-Birmingham¡¯s.
Brand and Hartford¡¯s Harrison said that having multiple teams fall below the mark should be a warning sign to a
college¡¯s president and other leaders that something may be wrong in how the institution is allocating its funds. ¡°
The president shoud be alerted to the problem and review the approach taken by the athletic department,¡± Brand
said, posing the question: ¡°Are we spending the dollars we¡¯re investing in athletics in the right way?¡± The goal of
an athletics department should be to make academic opportunities available to athletes, he said, and repeated
failure to improve academically raises the question of ¡°are those academic opportunities being made available?¡±
¡°It [may make] more sense to put money into the development of academic resources than into the development of
new suites¡± in a football stadium, Brand said.
Having ¡°multisport problems,¡± Harrison added, ¡°should be a real red flag¡± for a president. ¡°I hope presidents
are taking historical penalties more seriously,¡± he said, because it ¡°suggests that you¡¯ve had a problem for
several years and haven¡¯t been addressing it.¡±
Officials at the institutions singled out by the NCAA for having multiple teams with poor historical performance had a
range of responses to the attention. All of them said that they were significantly upgrading their academic support
services and had seen meaningful improvements in the academic performance of their athletes; the main
differences in their reactions depended on how much they believed the NCAA had recognized their progress.
¡°That we face penalties for the academic performance of our student-athletes is unacceptable,¡± Brian Mackin,
athletics director at Alabama-Birmingham, said in an e-mail message. ¡°We are firmly committed to devoting the
resources and attention necessary for improvement. We have taken a series of steps over the past two years to
underscore this priority and our enhancements will continue this year when we hire two more academic support staff.
We have expanded and enhanced our academic center and tripled the number of computers available. And, we
have established group math and writing labs so that student athletes can get help in these key subjects. Clearly,
our efforts are having an impact: 12 teams (out of 16) have current year APRs that now are above the 925 mark;
with continued annual improvements our goal is for all teams to meet or exceed that mark in their four-year rolling
average.¡±
Pete Garcia, athletics director at Florida International, praised the NCAA for recognizing that the university had
made major changes to rebound from some miserable years in the early part of this decade ¡ª hiring seven new
coaches, pouring additional funds into hiring additional tutors and buying laptops for athletes, among other things.
From 2005-6 to 2006-7, the Academic Progress Rate of its baseball team rose by 200 points (from 725 to 925) and
of its football team by 59 points, to 881 (still well below the NCAA¡¯s threshold). The university still has its problems
¡ª its basketball team¡¯s four-year APR still sits at 854 (down from the previous year), for instance.
But the NCAA granted Florida International¡¯s request for a waiver of some penalties in football and baseball,
awarding its full allotment of baseball scholarships and obviating the prospect of historical penalties in football.
¡°We can¡¯t go back and fix¡± the older years, Garcia said, but the NCAA seems willing to focus on the question of ¡°
how much did you improve this year?... As soon as they see progress there, they¡¯re willing to give schools relief.¡±
Not in every case, to the dismay of officials at San Jose State. In a prepared statement, they said they had ¡°worked
tirelessly¡± to appeal the NCAA¡¯s decision to impose historical penalties on the university¡¯s teams, which they
said fails to credit San Jose State for the widespread changes it has put in place since 2005, when since a new
president, athletics director and football coach came into their jobs. The four-year rolling average punishes the
university for the fact that 58 football players left the university after the previous coach did. Over the last two years,
the university has raised its overall Academic Progress Rate for athletes to 936 from 903, and the football team has
raised its fall 2007 APR to 913 ¡°and projections show a minimum of a 900 APR for the 2007©\08 academic year ¡ª
on track and ahead of NCAA mandates.¡±
¡°We cannot undo what has been done, but we can shape the future,¡± the statement said. ¡°We remain steadfastly
committed to marching down the path to academic success that has been laid since January 2005.¡±
Bob Hunter commentary: Despite Gee's concerns, college football was sold for profit long ago
Bob Hunter, Columbus Dispatch, 7 May 2008
E. Gordon Gee's concerns about how a plus-one playoff proposal by Southeastern Conference commissioner Mike
Slive could lead to the "professionalization of college football" have been weighing on me.
Ever since I read the Ohio State president's quotes in Monday's Dispatch about a plan to have the participants of
the BCS championship game decided in two of the preceding bowl games, I have been able to think of nothing else.
"We will not cross that line and get onto the slippery slope -- the professionalization of college football and a
furthering of the arms race," Gee said. "We simply have to say no. If we don't say no to this, the horse has left the
barn totally."
Oh, man. I had no idea. The more I thought about the professionalization of college football, the more my body
began to shake. Here we are living in the shadow of a school that has tried hard to slow down the "arms race" -- it
seems like only yesterday that OSU's faculty council decided against sending the 1961 Big Ten champion Buckeyes
to the Rose Bowl, doesn't it? -- and other schools are out there running amok. I'm telling you, it's enough to make
you rethink the purchase of that $150,000 scarlet and gray Winnebago for tailgate parties.
Monday night, I couldn't sleep. I saw colleges getting into the habit of expanding their football schedules, starting
earlier and finishing later in the fall, and even, in some cases, tacking on money-making conference championship
games.
I saw football games being played at night for the benefit of the TV networks, and even in some cases being played
on days other than Saturday. I saw university and conference administrators letting the networks set game times of
their choosing because TV types offered piles of money. I could even see conferences that were set up to make
sure their schools kept the games in perspective getting into the TV business themselves.
The professionalization of college football? Egad, what a thought. Can you imagine what it would be like to have a
college football coach make 10 times more money than a talented university professor whose only concern is
academics? Can you picture a university spending more to have its coaches crisscross the country looking for the
best high school football players than it does on some academic programs?
My mind entered a chamber of horrors. I began to see colleges charging exorbitant sums for football tickets, and
even for parking. I saw them having their own radio and TV networks and Web sites, and telling some poor guy with
his own T-shirt business that he can't print "Go Bucks" without paying royalties to the university.
Talk about a slippery slope. Next thing you know, colleges might be building opulent, bazillion-dollar indoor practice
facilities for the football players and having their venerable old stadiums equipped with private luxury suites, just like
a professional team. And if that happened, it probably wouldn't be long before we were seeing college teams making
all-expenses paid trips to exotic locales for the holidays, under the premise of being "rewarded" for their good play.
It's hard to believe that adding one game to the postseason schedule would cause the ruination of a pristine college
sport, but if Gee and some of his smarter-than-us presidential cohorts believe plus-one will lead to college football
Armageddon, it must be true.
So I've developed a plan I'm sure that we can all agree on: eight-game schedules. One o'clock games on Saturday
afternoons. Free admission. No more TV. No luxury suites. No athletic scholarships. No recruiting. No title games,
BCS or otherwise. No bowl games. No merchandise sales. Full-time students. Part-time coaches.
If you really want to say no to the professionalization of college football, Mr. President, there are plenty of legitimate
ways you can do that.
Go ahead. Put the horse back in the barn.
Indiana basketball: IU, Sampson issue statements to NCAA
IU: We've punished ourselves enough for former coach's wrongdoing
Mark Alesia, Indianapolis Star, 13 May 2008
NOTE: See also,
IU's response to NCAA findings, Part I: (http://www.indystar.com/assets/pdf/BG108260512.PDF)
Sampson's letter to NCAA: (http://www.indystar.com/assets/pdf/BG108255512.DOC)
Sampson's responses to NCAA findings: (http://www.indystar.com/assets/pdf/BG108256512.DOC)
IU's response to NCAA findings, Part II: (http://www.indystar.com/assets/pdf/BG108261512.PDF)
Indiana University says it acted properly by promptly reporting recruiting violations in its men's basketball program,
investigating thoroughly and self-imposing "significant" sanctions.
The school on Monday released its formal response to allegations of five potentially major NCAA infractions, saying
it has been punished enough.
"Since the University now has a new coaching staff that was not involved in any way with these phone calls (or the
other allegations) and since this staff already has to serve the remainder of the self-imposed penalties, the
University continues to believe additional penalties are unnecessary," the school's response said.
IU officials are scheduled to appear at a hearing of the NCAA's Committee on Infractions on June 13 in Seattle. A
panel of professors, administrators and outside legal professionals will consider the allegations and whether to add
to the school's self-imposed punishments. The infractions committee is expected to announce its decision in July or
August.
"Indiana University remains deeply disappointed by these violations and by the fact that they occurred during a time
when the men's basketball program should have had a heightened awareness of the need for absolute and total
compliance with the spirit and the letter of NCAA rules," the school's response says.
The danger for IU is that the committee will find the school negligent and not a victim of rogue coaches.
The committee could then add to the charges, with the school being given time to respond. So far, though, IU has
not been charged with "failure to monitor" or the more serious charge of "lack of institutional control."
Last October, IU announced that it had self-reported recruiting violations and gave itself penalties, including the loss
of a scholarship for the 2008-09 season and further recruiting limitations.
On Feb. 8, the NCAA enforcement staff made allegations of five potential major rules violations. That led to
resignation of former coach Kelvin Sampson, who accepted a $750,000 buyout Feb. 22.
In its response to the NCAA charges, IU is at odds with Sampson, who disputes the charges against him. IU says
Sampson's lack of credibility is "demonstrated by the numerous inconsistencies . . . in his five interviews in which the
University participated and conducted, as well as his direct contradiction of credible statements by individuals who
had no motivation to provide inaccurate information."
IU could have chosen to self-impose more penalties in an attempt to gain favor from the infractions committee. The
NCAA, as a membership organization without powers such as subpoena, depends on self-policing and self-
sanctioning.
IU did change some self-imposed sanctions, and added two others, but the net result was a loosening of the
restrictions.
Sampson and the other two coaches named in the allegations, former IU assistants Rob Senderoff and Jeff Meyer,
filed responses as individuals. Unlike IU, the coaches have no obligation to make their responses public under open
records laws. Sampson's publicist released the coach's response Monday night, about two hours after IU's.
Senderoff, who resigned from IU last October and is now an assistant coach at Kent State, is accused of knowingly
violating recruiting rules and giving IU false or misleading reports of his recruiting phone calls.
IU's response to the NCAA said it's "reasonable to conclude" that those charges are true.
The school said Meyer should not be named in any major violations because of his "limited number of impermissible
phone calls and the mitigating circumstances." By that, IU meant that some of his calls might not have been against
the rules. IU deemed the other charges against Meyer as "secondary" in nature.
Throughout its response to the NCAA, IU stresses what it did right in terms of compliance in this case, and also that
it had proper monitoring mechanisms in place.
The NCAA has requested that IU's contingent at the hearing include president Michael McRobbie, athletic director
Rick Greenspan, associate athletic director Grace Calhoun and faculty athletic representative Bruce Jaffee. New
coach Tom Crean has said he will attend.
IU has had an excellent record in NCAA compliance, without a major violation since 1960 and none in basketball.
Crowe sells his soul for quarterback
Paul Finebaum, Mobile Register, 17 May 2008
You want to know what's wrong with sports? Let me quickly point you in the direction of Jacksonville State and its
unconscionable decision to allow Ryan Perrilloux to play football this season for the Gamecocks.
One can easily understand why coach Jack Crowe wanted the ex-LSU quarterback on board. Perrilloux's prowess is
palpable. And Crowe's coaching career - which includes a stop at Auburn as Pat Dye's offensive coordinator during
the Bo Jackson years and his unceremonious firing at Arkansas after losing the season opener to The Citadel - is
possibly on life support after three consecutive 6-5 seasons.
But the idea of William Meehan, the Jax State president, having a meeting with Perrilloux is unimaginable. Why would
he do that? What kind of message does that send? Was President Meehan wearing his cheerleader costume at the
confab? Did he get down on his knees and beg and grovel? Did he yell "Go Cocks!" and jump up and dance when
Perrilloux signed on the dotted line?
How embarrassing that the leader of an academic institution would do something so dirty and sleazy, particularly in
light of the recent body blow the school took from the NCAA in relation to its APR scores, leading to the loss of six
scholarships in football and two in basketball.
Perrilloux, who was kicked off the team at LSU for repeated off-field problems (despite being coddled by Les Miles),
said he wants to do the right thing at Jax State. "I'm thankful for another opportunity," he said with a straight face.
Yeah, right.
You have to say one thing about Perrilloux. In addition to being a stud quarterback, he's already earned a spot in
the Con Men Hall of Fame. Front row in the group picture.
Often in this space, we get into conversations about discipline and what's wrong with society. If you're a star football
player, there's no such thing as a last chance. You mess up at LSU, and Jax State is waiting in the wings. You flame
out in Jacksonville and someone else is just around the corner, waiting and hoping.
Some argue you really can't blame Jax State. It's business.
Alabama State was also doing some heavy breathing on the trail of Perrilloux. And it's really too bad Perrilloux
rejected those overtures. Oh, how he would fit in perfectly at the Montgomery school, which just got nailed with 668
accusations of rules violations by the NCAA. This is a school that changes head coaches about as often as most
people get an oil change.
So why did Crowe, a respected football coach, sell his soul to sign a player like Perrilloux? Is it all about
rehabilitating a lost soul and helping a young man get his life back on track? Or is it much more simple?
Crowe is in the autumn of his career. He is losing about as often as he's winning. The wolves are nipping at his
heels and Perrilloux might be the magic potion to break out of his malaise and return Jacksonville State to the
Promised Land.
So in the end, did Perrilloux need Jacksonville State? Or did Jacksonville State, a school off the beaten path and
desperately fighting for attention and entertainment dollars in the overcrowded Birmingham television market, need
Perrilloux?
Crowe sold his school's soul and his principles to sign the outcast quarterback. Some say Perrilloux may stay on the
straight and narrow. Would you bet on that?
In the end, Perrilloux figures to continue to get in trouble, and his story at Jax State will have the same ending as it
did at LSU. And then, where will Jack Crowe and Jacksonville State go to get back their good name and integrity?
Boycott might open economic discussion for NCAA athletes
Mark Nagel & Richard Southall, Sports Business Journal, 12 May 2008
The Boston Red Sox earlier this year completed a trip to Japan to play two regular-season games against the
Oakland Athletics.
Most fans are aware that shortly before the Red Sox were to leave, the players voted to boycott the trip unless
coaches and traveling staff were paid $40,000 as additional compensation. The players contended they had agreed
to the Japan trip only if all members of the traveling party were paid a $40,000 stipend.
Despite its apparent earlier agreement, MLB subsequently announced it would provide $20,000 from the trip’s
proceeds to each traveling staff member. However, the players’ actions resulted in the Red Sox, A’s, MLB, and the
MLB Players Association quickly resolving the dispute. The Red Sox made their scheduled flight to Japan and their
games with the A’s attracted huge crowds.
It is likely that this incident, though nearly a public relations disaster, is quickly being forgotten as the season
progresses. However, this incident has potential implications for every other American sport as it illustrates how
players can, if they demonstrate solidarity, exert a great deal of control over their working conditions and potential
compensation. While professional athletes have long understood the need for collective action, this potential boycott
is relevant to the other great American sporting event that occurs in early April — the NCAA men’s basketball
tournament and Final Four.
Regardless of one’s opinion of the NCAA and big-time college sports, there is certainly no denying that the most
important stakeholders — the athletes — retain a miniscule voice regarding any potential working-condition reforms
in the areas of scholarship allotments, practice times, game scheduling and potential financial compensation.
Though players in the NCAA basketball tournament are the product that attracts thousands of ticket buyers and
millions of television viewers, the coaches, school administrators and NCAA officers control nearly all aspects of
these athletes’ amateur experience.
In today’s “rent-a-star,” “one-and-done,” “free-market for coaches only” college basketball environment, these
players (who all think they will take their game to the next level) quietly complete their forced underpaid athletic
“internship” and diligently pursue their future professional basketball career, while often ignoring or neglecting their
educational opportunities.
Unfortunately, the odds against even a majority of the Final Four participants ever playing in an NBA game are
immense. While college athletes may intellectually understand the risks associated with their sport and know that
380,000 thousand of them “go pro in something other than sports,” most do not emotionally accept this, since to do
so is to admit failure and have to face the dreaded fall-back plan of life after sports.
The Final Four affords a perfect opportunity for players to force changes to the system. As the recently completed
championship game demonstrated, the basketball players, rather than the coaches, athletic directors, or NCAA
employees are the real story. Imagine if six hours before tip-off of the Monday championship game, participating
players announced that they would refuse to take the court unless they received long-term scholarship commitments
(scholarships are currently only one year in length and renewed at the school’s discretion) or a percentage of the
millions of dollars generated from their labor. Players could pursue a less drastic action if they delayed the
broadcast by simply joining hands, bowing their heads, and remaining motionless at center court for a minute
immediately before tip-off. These types of protests could result in a meaningful dialogue among media, on-site
attendees and viewers regarding the nature of big-time college sports and the appropriate man agement of this
commercial enterprise.
Certainly the NCAA, much like MLB during the Red Sox boycott, would be forced to negotiate from a different
position if the championship were in jeopardy a few hours before tip-off. Though many would scoff at the likelihood
of such an organized protest by college players, there are currently forces attempting to organize and potentially
unionize college athletes. Though such protest scenarios are currently discussed primarily in small groups of
players or in sport sociology courses on college campuses, the increased revenue generated by the NCAA and its
corporate partners, coupled with the limited compensation levels available for players, mirrors the experience of
many professional athletes in the first half of the 1900s.
As MLB, the NBA and the NFL began to achieve greater financial success, the owners attempted to artificially
restrict player salaries while bombarding the general public with messages that they should be happy to be paid for
playing a game. It was not until strong players unions were formed and collective bargaining was implemented that
salaries significantly increased, which coincided with an overall increase in revenue and franchise values.
Though the NCAA has successfully argued and promoted the notion that college athletes are not employees, there
is certainly no law that says they cannot be compensated. A Final Four protest would quickly alter such an economic
discussion. There is certainly precedence for such a protest before a basketball game. NBA players, unable to
reach a settlement with the owners over the pension fund, refused to participate in the 1964 All-Star Game. With a
national television audience and a packed arena waiting for the game, NBA President Walter Kennedy quickly
negotiated a settlement with protesting players only minutes before tip-off.
Within today’s hyper-commercialized and tightly regulated college sports environment, college athletes may
someday use a similar boycott strategy to achieve long overdue substantive reform.
Mark Nagel is an associate professor in sport and entertainment management at the University of South Carolina,
and Richard Southall is an assistant professor in sport and leisure commerce at the University of Memphis.
Borenstein: College coaching salaries getting ridiculous
Daniel Borenstein, San Jose Mercury News, 12 May 2008
[NOTE: See also,
Copy of Jeff Tedford's contract:(http://www.bayareanewsgroup.com/multimedia/cct/multimedia/pdf/tedford_contract.
pdf)
List of UC executive salaries: (http://www.bayareanewsgroup.com/multimedia/cct/multimedia/pdf/uc_list.pdf)
Detailed breakdown of UC executive salaries: (http://www.bayareanewsgroup.
com/multimedia/cct/multimedia/pdf/uc_detail.pdf)
Explanation of UC executive salaries: (http://www.bayareanewsgroup.com/multimedia/cct/multimedia/pdf/uc_explain.
pdf)
UC Berkeley football coach Jeff Tedford had a good year in 2007 — a very good year.
Sure, the Bears finished the regular season with a dismal 6-6 record and an invitation to the insignificant Armed
Forces Bowl, where they barely beat Air Force, 42-36. But Tedford collected as much money in that one year as
many of us will earn in a lifetime — $2.8 million. It was the first installment of his seven-year, $17.5 million contract
renewal.
As UC struggles to maintain academic programs, as proposed state cutbacks portend increased student fees and
smaller classes, it's time to rein in wild spending by athletic programs at the state's public universities.
UC officials will tell you that Tedford's success before last year brought in more money and that Tedford's
compensation comes from athletic department revenues and private fundraising — that no state or general campus
funds are used. Indeed, season ticket sales have more than doubled during Tedford's reign.
But, as last season showed, a coach, no matter how well-paid, cannot guarantee victory. Success on the field and at
the box office can be ephemeral. Moreover, that should not be the mission of the university. Turning out well-
educated adults who will be the future leaders of our state and nation should be the real game plan.
Yet, the university continues to subsidize intercollegiate sports at Cal, last year by $6.4 million. If athletic
departments can afford such rich salaries, perhaps it's time to eliminate the subsidy, or even reverse the flow and
use some of the sports profits to offset the cost of badly needed programs elsewhere on campus. The subsidy, for
example, could pay for roughly 45 full-time Cal instructors.
With UCLA negotiating a contract with its new football coach, Rick Neuheisel, and Cal bargaining with its new
basketball coach, Mike Montgomery, UC regents should step back and question soaring coach salaries. On the 10-
campus system's "Annual Report on Executive Compensation," four top earners stick out:
Karl Dorrell, former UCLA football coach, $961,687.
Ben Braun, former Cal men's basketball coach, $1,077,500.
Ben Howland, UCLA men's basketball coach, $1,411,054.
Tedford, the Cal football coach, $2,831,654.
Those salaries — which do not include pensions, health insurance and other standard benefits — each surpass the
annual salary and benefits of Mark Yudof, the incoming president of the entire UC system. As reported here last
month, Yudof's total compensation of $924,642 will make him the highest-paid leader of a public university in the
nation. That's appropriate for a world-class education system.
But the university should avoid the boundless financial race that's professionalizing the country's college sports.
According to a USA Today survey, the average earnings of the 120 major-college football coaches reached $1
million last year. At least a dozen made $2 million or more. Tedford's contract makes Cal a top-tier payer.
Under his seven-year renewal, his annual salary is $225,000. But he also is guaranteed $1.575 million each year as
a "talent fee" — what the university describes as a payout "based on standard participation in outside events
representing UCB." Last year, he also received a $1 million "signing bonus." Adding in a $25,000 bonus for the
team's bowl game appearance and a discretionary bonus of $6,654 from the athletic director brings the total to the
$2,831,654.
That doesn't include his membership in the Blackhawk Country Club ($7,080 annually), two "courtesy vehicles"
($14,750), the cost of his pension contribution (about $36,000 annually), his life and health insurance, 30 free
tickets and five parking passes for every home game, and travel expenses for his wife.
Sure, the signing bonus was a one-time deal. But to keep Tedford around — as if that money wasn't enough — the
university will pay him a "retention bonus" that works out to $500,000 a year.
Cal also laced Tedford's contract with bonuses: For each year the team reaches the Rose, Orange, Sugar or Fiesta
bowl, or the National Championship game, Tedford will receive an additional $50,000 that year and $100,000 every
subsequent year of his contract. Winning the national championship would boost Tedford's income by $150,000 that
year; being named coach of the year, $100,000; winning the Pac-10 championship, $75,000; and winning nine
games in a season, $25,000. On top of that, if his players keep their grades up, Tedford would be eligible for an
additional $25,000.
The most interesting provisions in his contract would boost his income by $250,000 if he's still coach when the
university opens its controversial new training facility at Memorial Stadium and another $250,000 if he's there when
the team plays its first home game after completion of planned stadium renovations. That's right, he'll get a bonus
when his team gets new quarters — the sports equivalent of getting a raise when your company gives you a new
office.
Little wonder that Americans think that spending on college sports is out of control. A 2006 survey by the Knight
Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics found that most Americans believe college sports have become too
commercialized, that coaches are overpaid and, most significantly, that money earned by athletic departments
should be redistributed to benefit the whole school. The commission's 2007 survey of university faculty nationwide
found that they feel that football and basketball coaches' salaries are excessive and that the financial needs of
athletics get higher priority than academic needs.
Nationwide, university officials are outbidding each other to win what Cornell University economist Robert Frank calls
a costly "positional arms race." At a time when universities are struggling for financial survival, they are spending
hundreds of millions of dollars each year in an attempt to better each other on the football field and the basketball
court.
But, as Frank notes, no matter how much they spend, no matter how high they bid up coaches' salaries, only 25
teams will make the top football ranking and only four teams will reach college basketball's Final Four. The rest will
just be left with fatter payrolls.
It's a costly competition that's draining money that could be better spent on education. But it won't end until schools
have the courage to say no.
Academic Reform to Be Closely Examined
NCAA Will Release APR Scores Today
Eric Prisbell, Washington Post, 6 May 2008
After few Division I college sports programs were punished last spring for failing to meet academic standards, NCAA
officials vowed that significantly more teams could face sanctions this year, a warning that hangs over today's
unveiling of the latest penalties. But some prominent faculty members are saying today's announcement will say as
much about the NCAA's academic reform package and its president, Myles Brand, as it will about academic progress
among the nation's athletes.
"I don't know that I would say it's as dramatic as the showdown at the OK Corral," said Richard Southall, the director
of the College Sport Research Institute at the University of Memphis. "But this is a very important thing because this
is not only about who he works for but it's also about what he stands for."
The NCAA will reveal today the latest batch of Academic Progress Rate (APR) scores, which measure how well a
team returns academically eligible athletes semester to semester, as well as the sanctions imposed on
underachievers. Brand, who earlier this decade introduced the reform package as a "sea change" in college sports,
said last month that 17 percent of Division I men's basketball programs will receive penalties. Some programs,
including the University of Maryland's men's basketball team, could lose up to two scholarships next season if they
did not demonstrate improvement.
Last year, 44 percent of men's basketball programs and 40 percent of football programs fell below the 925 cutoff
score, which equates roughly to a 60 percent graduation rate. But most of the programs, and almost all football and
men's basketball programs from power conferences, were spared penalties because teams with smaller rosters were
granted exemptions because the limited available data resulted in greater margins of error.
With a fourth year of data now available, the margin for error exemption, also known as the squad-size adjustment,
has been eliminated, putting all teams that fall below the 925 threshold at risk. Teams that score below 925 and
have a player fail academically and leave school can lose up to 10 percent of their scholarships. What's more,
teams that are chronic underachievers could face further penalties that include the loss of practice time and even a
postseason ban.
"There is likely to be a really big impact with those [margins for error] being removed," said David Clough, a
University of Colorado engineering professor who gave an APR presentation at this year's NCAA convention. "I think
we can project that there will be a dramatic change in this."
William E. Kirwan, chancellor of the University System of Maryland, said: "When the reality of this system becomes
apparent, there will obviously be an outcry from coaches, athletic directors and boosters. The current Division I
board will be under some pressure, and it's important for presidents and others to speak up and make it clear we
are not budging on this reform agenda."
But programs with poor scores still can avoid penalties if they submit an academic improvement plan that is
approved by the NCAA. Nathan Tublitz, a University of Oregon biology professor who co-chairs the reform-minded
Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics, cautioned that it is important for the NCAA to impose penalties on poor
performers consistently and grant waivers sparingly.
"What Myles is trying to do is turn a very large steamship," Tublitz said of changing the academic culture in college
athletics. "It has so much inertia it can't turn quickly on its own, so he has to do it in steps. This is a large step, and
he has to make sure he keeps the rudder turned in the right direction."
Which programs receive punishments could be equally noteworthy today. Last year, only one football program from
any of the six Bowl Championship Series conferences (Arizona) was punished, and just two men's basketball
programs from power conferences (Cincinnati and Iowa State) lost scholarships, creating an imbalance in the eyes
of some.
"If you are making effort and supposedly doing the right thing, why do they keep coming after guys like us?" said
Western Michigan football coach Bill Cubit, whose programs lost scholarships largely because of players leaving the
program when he took over four years ago. "I find it hard to believe that there's not a whole lot of other schools
besides Arizona. When you see the graduation rates of some of these other guys, how are they doing it?"
This year, the Ohio State men's basketball team represents one high-profile program that is expected to avoid
punishment despite a poor APR score. The Buckeyes are expected to have a score below the 925 cutoff and have a
player (Greg Oden) who left school midway through the spring semester to prepare for the NBA draft, in which he
was the No. 1 pick.
But John Bruno, the school's faculty athletic representative, said the program expects to avoid penalty because the
NCAA approved its academic improvement plan, which includes increasing the number of tutors and assigning an
academic support person to travel with the men's basketball team.
David Ridpath, the executive director of reform-minded Drake Group, said it would "look pretty bad" from a public
relations standpoint if no high-profile programs lose scholarships, but if that occurs, "I wouldn't necessarily think
anything else other than the big programs have the resources to make sure they meet the score, quite frankly, by
any means they can. There are certain things that can be done -- if you have the academic improvement plan -- to
tweak the process. I'm not saying that is necessarily unfair, but it does lend the question of how credible is this."
Speaking to the disparity in academic resources, Cubit said if Western Michigan had "15 academic people running
around, chasing kids to class, I would be far more successful than if I have two people on campus dealing with about
400 student-athletes. We're not going to hire the same amount of people as Texas or Tennessee."
Sanctions can also have significant ramifications at mid-level basketball programs. Consider Wyoming Coach Heath
Schroyer, who in the spring of last year took over a Cowboys program that, he said, had the lowest APR of any
men's or women's team in the Mountain West Conference. He said APR has become one of the top issues a coach
should consider when taking over a program because his program has been punished because of the actions of
players he never met.
"It is a balancing act," said Schroyer, who played high school basketball at DeMatha. "The years of giving everyone
to your academic adviser and trying to keep them eligible is gone. Coaches are doing a lot of due diligence because
the APR affects you on the basketball floor."
Brand has said the APR is not intended to punish programs as much as it is designed to change a culture. But
Ridpath and others maintain concerns about programs funneling athletes to easier majors and athletic departments
managing APR scores rather than offering athletes the best available education.
"It will be hard for me to look at that [announcement] and say they [schools] are really on the right track," Ridpath
said. "There are too many loopholes. The model itself has not changed. We have not changed what the goal is:
They have to win games. Period. Typically, savvy people find ways to get around all of these things."
Business Or Education? An outside view
Terry Smith, Seymour Herald, 23 April 2008
Check it out! The University of Tennessee has finally taken that final step to admitting that it is running a sports
business rather than a student activity with its football program. Oh, we knew it already and snickered when we
heard UT brass talk about student athletes and how football games are an event for all students. Remember when
they talked about student pride? Now, they’re talking about student bucks.
Last week, UT Athletic Director Mike Hamilton announced that UT students will have to start paying for football
tickets. Students will now have to pay $15 per game. That may not sound like much unless you’re a struggling
student trying to work part-time and being forced to borrow money just to pay their tuition. Believe it or not, not every
student on Rocky Top is a spoiled rich kid with Momma and Daddy sending them big buckets of money so they can
maintain the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed.
In explaining the decision, we heard nothing about what is best for the students.
We heard the athletic department needed the revenue. We heard they needed to pay the coaches more money. We
heard everyone else is doing it. Does it make it right just because everyone else is doing it? Don’t you remember
your Mom saying, “If everyone else jumps off the bridge, are you going to jump off the bridge?” I guess Mike’s Mom
never had that talk with him. Was the University of Florida right and UT wrong? Is the University of Georgia a better
institution of learning because their students pay for football tickets?
Hamilton’s biggest mistake was linking the new policy to pay increases for the coaches. Let me translate for you.
“We know you students aren’t all that crazy about Phil Fulmer. We know you wish we’d go out and hire a new coach
with some new ideas. We know you’d like to win an SEC title sometime this millennium. That’s all fine and good