Kicking the Can Down the Field (Court)
What are the challenges facing intercollegiate athletics in America?
It’s that season again. Not Christmas, not Hanukkah, no, it’s “Bowl” season.
There are 43 college football bowl games being played between December 16 (Bahamas Bowl) and January 9 (National Championship). There are so many bowl games that finding teams with standout records has become difficult. Of the 41 teams participating this season, 18 had 6-6 won-loss records during the season. One team even had a losing 5-7 record.
Attendance at the bowl games thus far has not been stellar. Of course, that is not the chief goal of participation. Television revenue is the main promoter of bowl mania---ESPN alone pays to operate 17. Most Division I coaches have contracts that provide a tidy bonus if his team makes it to a bowl, and most teams consider a bowl appearances a big plus in keeping their fans happy, even when they don’t attend the games.
Bowl season also distracts college football fans from the many pending problems facing intercollegiate athletics. To borrow a phrase from America’s political lexicon---college coaches and administrators are kicking the ball down the field (or the court) in hopes that somehow all the danger signs will fade away.
What are these pending challenges?
Many of them relate to money. But some impact the basic mission of America’s colleges and universities---preparing future generations for healthy and prosperous lives and responsible citizenship.
Let me begin this discussion with a significant caveat. I believe wholeheartedly in the idea that intercollegiate athletics can be a positive element in the college experience. The concept of the student-athlete as an example of the benefits of discipline, teamwork and commitment sits well with me. My views on the issue are influenced by my experiences as college student and as university administrator
My undergraduate years (1955-59) were spent at a small liberal arts institution with a long tradition of intercollegiate athletic competition, especially in the three most popular sports, football, baseball and basketball. The college was a member of the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA), which includes generally smaller institutions. Contests in all sports usually were against teams from other schools of approximately the same size and located within about a 200-mile radius of the campus.
Although I was not a student-athlete, I interacted on a daily basis with those who were and roomed part of the time with a student who was also a baseball player. Student-athletes were well-distributed among the various fraternities, and several were officers in campus organizations. In three of my four years enrolled, a student-athlete was president of the student body.
Some twenty years later as a university chancellor, it was my privilege to oversee the transition of a two-year campus to baccalaureate status which involved creating a comprehensive extracurricular program including intercollegiate athletics. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) had recently been restructured in order to accommodate campuses of different size and scope. Our campus became a founding member of a Division II conference and I was elected to serve on the NCAA’s Presidents Commission.
However, the milieu of intercollegiate athletics has changed in the past three decades. There are more colleges and universities, many of them much larger. And television has become a big factor in the world of college sports, injecting huge sums of money into the system. This money flows primarily to the larger programs, but it also lures “wannabe” institutions into pursuing unwise program expansions.
The marriage between television and intercollegiate athletics is understandable. Television needs viewers to draw advertisers and colleges and universities like the exposure to help attract students and donors. Athletic events are also appealing to television since producing them is relatively inexpensive. The venue is provided, and funded, by the teams as are the players (the performers?).
The extraordinary growth in intercollegiate athletic budgets has occurred almost entirely in the so-called “revenue-generating sports,” football and men’s basketball. These two sports are viewed by television broadcasters as the biggest potential draws. Because of Title IX there has been an expansion in women’s sports, but, generally, schools still spend twice as much on sports for men.
Since the federal government continues to allow intercollegiate athletics programs to be treated as part of the institution’s education mission, financial reporting is not always consistent with regular business standards. With the assistance of favorable tax provisions a number of major programs report revenue approaching $200 million annually. This growth in athletic budgets has occurred while state appropriations for public colleges and universities have declined.
Defenders of the expanded expenditures argue that “successful” programs pay for themselves, but even the NCAA admits that only a handful of major programs cover their stated costs. Rarely, are intercollegiate athletic programs required to pay for all costs associated with their operations. Sometimes institutions even directly assume responsibility for any debt incurred for athletic facilities or have given loans to the athletic department that are to be paid back in the future.
Most programs receive support from specific student athletic fees. In some cases, programs enjoy general institutional subsidies, or both. This is especially true at public regional colleges and universities which have trouble competing for donors and corporate sponsorships. It is also likely to be the case at private institution where the “comprehensive fee” used to describe the campus budget is seldom broken down in a detailed manner.
The size of athletic budgets and the sources of funding are not the only things that have provoked critics of colleges and universities in recent years. Outsized salaries for coaches also have drawn bitter complaints from faculty, students, politicians and taxpayers. Top college football coaches collect as much as $12 million a year. Basketball coaches are not far behind. Many institutions pay far more in salaries for coaches than they do in scholarships for student-athletes. Frequently, a coach in either football or basketball at a major university is the highest paid employee, not only in the institution, but also in the public or nonprofit sector of the state.
Chasing the television dollar has led institutions to place greater burdens on student-athletes and to reduce the time they can devote to the student side of their status. Practice times have been expanded and the number of contests increased. Also, the expansion of conferences to increase television market reach means more travel and more time away from normal student activities. Consider that the Southeastern Conference now includes Texas A&M as well as South Carolina, while the Big Ten has admitted Rutgers in addition to Southern California.
Concerned with the need to win in order to justify greater budgets and higher coaching salaries, a number of institutions have adjusted their requirements for recruiting student-athletes. In the not too distant past, coaches in all sports sought to recruit players who could maintain academic eligibility for four years. Today, it’s not unheard of for even prestigious universities to allow coaches to recruit players who have no intention of becoming sophomores, much less graduates.
For a long time student-athletes have felt abused by the NCAA which exercises significant control over their lives. The organization’s near monopoly status has allowed it to enforce rules limiting the ability of players to receive benefits beyond basic tuition, fees, room and board and books. The recent change that allows student athletes to profit from their name, image and likeness (NIL) was the result of legislation passed in 26 different states. Experience thus far indicates that some high profile student-athletes will easily be able to earn money through endorsements, autograph signings, guest appearances, etc. Some have already received more than six figures.
The average player will likely require significant professional help to take advantage of NIL, and donors to most major programs have organized collectives to develop opportunities for student-athletes to market their NIL. In some cases the opportunities smack of little more than a disguised gift. What “star” players can earn through NIL and what the average player can earn, will continue to be substantial. This is bound to have a negative effect on team cohesiveness.
Judging from the experience of professional sports, this persistent gap is going to increase pressure for unionization. An attempt at unionization by Northwestern University football players in 2015 was stymied by officials of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Under new leadership, the NLRB’s current general counsel has publicly expressed sympathy for student-athletes who wish to organize.
Another effort by the NCAA to avoid being declared in violation of anti-trust laws is the creation of the “transfer portal.” Student-athletes desiring to transfer to another college or university in the past were at the mercy of their current coach whose permission was required (A coach’s denial could be overturned by senior college administrators). Players could not contact other coaches and the latter were not allowed to contact them.
Under the new transfer portal rules, student-athletes are free to announce their desire to move to another institution and to have the school compliance officer enter their names in the transfer portal. Coaches can then contact them or a student-athlete can contact a particular institution. Essentially, student-athletes now have “free agency,” much like professional athletes, but without the lucrative financial benefits available to the latter.
The transfer portal has been accepted reluctantly by coaches at all levels of intercollegiate athletics. Some have even gain significantly by using the portal to acquire players for key positions. Coaches of lower level programs, however, are likely to view the transfer portal as a system by which elite teams can poach their most talented players. The long term impact on the quality of teams is uncertain. On the other hand, any notion of loyalty to institutions on the part of itinerant student-athletes will surely be undermined.
Finally, colleges and universities are facing a growing threat from efforts to expand legalized sports betting. Already some politicians are touting sports betting as a means of financing significant societal needs despite the obvious dangers both to intercollegiate athletic programs and to vulnerable individuals who do not understand the odds against success. At least eight universities, including Michigan State, Louisiana State and the University of Colorado have apparently already entered into arrangements with online sports betting companies.
Professional gambling entities do not operate as charities. They are designed to make money for those running the programs. Before buying into expanded sports betting, colleges and universities as well as the general public need to reflect on the gambling scandals of the 1950s when players on several major intercollegiate basketball teams became involved in “shaving” points to beat the gambling odds in nearly 100 games. The University of Kentucky basketball program was even suspended for a year. Student-athletes who feel under rewarded will always be possible prey for unscrupulous professional gamblers.
Where does the buck stop when it comes to addressing these challenges? The NCAA is perceived by the public, and presented in the media, as bearing primary responsibility for the course of intercollegiate athletics in America. But the fact is the NCAA is the agent of the colleges and universities that field the teams. Boards of trustees and campus chief call the shots, if they are willing to do so. They have the power to restore the balance between sports activities and educational requirements. They can resist the lure of television dollars and exposure. The alternative is to prepare for a future in which they will be dealing with player unions and with supersized salaried coaches, neither too concerned for the educational mission of the institutions.
https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Daily/Issues/2022/12/30/Colleges/college-bowl-attendance.aspx
https://www.sportico.com/leagues/college-sports/2022/college-athletic-debt-soars-1234651231/
https://www.nbcsports.com/chicago/college-football-head-coach-salaries-kirby-smart-2022-new-contract
https://www.theassemblync.com/culture/sports/duke-university-and-the-troubles-of-college-sports/
https://www.ncpanow.org
https://sports.betmgm.com/en/blog/history-ncaa-transfer-portal/
https://www.espn.com/classic/s/basketball_scandals_explosion.html
https://www.knightcommission.org/2022/12/december-5-release/
https://sports.betmgm.com/en/blog/history-ncaa-transfer-portal/
https://www.espn.com/classic/s/basketball_scandals_explosion.html
https://www.knightcommission.org/2022/12/december-5-release/