U Prof STrib Op-ed: Time to Drop Hypocrisy that Sports has any Relation to U Mission

[BleedGopher]

Op-ed in STrib from P.T. Magee is an emeritus professor and former dean of the College of Biological Sciences at the University of Minnesota.

College sports, professionalized
Article by: P.T. MAGEE

It's time to drop the hypocrisy that college sports has any relation to the mission of a university.

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/188428811.html

It's time for the NCAA to pull its head out of the sand and admit that revenue-producing college sports are professional.

We know this from recent news stories telling us that Division I universities spend an average of 10 times as much per student athlete as per student nonathlete, and from the proposal to authorize, as Tubby Smith put it, a "free market" in transferring athletes.

We all know it is a fiction to argue that revenue-producing sports exist to contribute to the central function of the university -- to educate students and prepare them for the world after they graduate. These sports exist for the money they bring in.

The accompanying falsehood that most of the players in these sports want a college degree undermines academic standards and personal behavior. These players truly covet a professional sports contract, and who can blame them?

By the time they start at a university, they've worked for many years to hone their athletic, not their academic, skills. Many can't meet basic academic standards. They would find useful, not a degree, but a small fraction of the billions of dollars sports bring to the universities -- dollars that currently are not shared with athletes.

What's to be done? Universities will not give up revenue-producing sports, nor would a highly vocal fraction of the students and alumni let them. For most university presidents, abolishing football, basketball and/or hockey would be tantamount to resigning.

We need to preserve university-affiliated teams for the students and alumni, support college-level athletes with a salary appropriate to the money they bring in (while offering them an education if they want it), and provide a reasonable product for the TV networks to insert between their ads. All this while dropping the damaging hypocrisy that these sports have any relation to the mission of a university.

Here is a plan to achieve these goals while allowing the university proper to focus on its mission of education, not showbiz: Each university, for a substantial fee, would lease its franchise -- the rights to its name, logo and facilities -- to a professional sports company that would hire a team to represent the institution. The team would compete with similar teams representing other universities. All the expenses for the teams, including facility upkeep, would be the responsibility of the franchiseholder in return for the income from admissions, concessions and TV.

Rather than football, basketball and hockey teams composed of reluctant students enrolled only because of athletic ability, let's have unabashed professionals. Allow any athlete representing a university to attend free, but don't require it. Pay the athletes a sensible wage and let the arcane rules on recruiting and remaining in good academic standing go away.

Athlete misbehavior would be handled by the franchiseholder in a professional way -- stern penalties for the lesser players and effective amnesty for the stars. Freed from the administration of these teams, the university could go about its business of teaching, research and service without fear of athletic scandals. Periodic renegotiation would allow the university to change companies if it was dissatisfied. The franchiseholder could move to another university, players and all, if it were offered a better deal.

"College" sports would prosper under this plan. The cost of higher education for the nonathletes would probably decrease, or at least rise more slowly, since athletic departments would shrink noticeably with only nonrevenue sports to administer. Students and alumni would still have teams to root for, and newspapers would still have something to write about. Athletes would be compensated for the money they bring in, and a university with a losing team could fire not just the coaches but the whole organization, players included.

The only entity threatened by this arrangement would be the NCAA, which might be put out of business. Who would miss it?

Go Gophers!!

 

[Dr.Don]

I find it hard to disagree with a retired professor from the University of Minnesota, where lots and lots of kids were able to achieve a college education thanks to athletics.

 

[Breakin' The Plane]

Gee, look at Mr. Sunshine and Lollipops. This turd got more than his fair share of wedgies in high school and probably continues to get them today.

 

[GophersInIowa]

I think more athletes take their academics series than people think. Sure there are some that don't care about it, but there are non-athletes like that as well. Would his idea allow the athletes to still get their degree if they want to?

Also, how would the non revenue sports survive without the dollars coming in from football, basketball, and hockey?

 

[Gophers09]

Agree with both points. Posted this on the other board but I dont understand how the professor thinks removing the revenue teams increases the bottom line of the athletic department.

 

[Go4Broke]

I think more athletes take their academics series than people think. Sure there are some that don't care about it, but there are non-athletes like that as well. Would his idea allow the athletes to still get their degree if they want to?

Also, how would the non revenue sports survive without the dollars coming in from football, basketball, and hockey?

Why should anybody care whether or not athletes get their degrees? Every year millions of college students in America figure out how to pay for their educations without athletic scholarships.

Non-revenue sports would all survive without funding from football, basketball, and hockey. However, they wouldn't be flying all over the country and staying in expensive hotels before games. They would be taking buses, sleeping in Motel 6's, and not giving scholarships to foreign students to come to America to play tennis, golf, swimming, track, and all the women's sports.

College sports in America have gotten much too big, far too expensive, and way too out of control. It is time to start dialing it back.

 

[wait!what?]

3 months ago, he had a letter printed that supported removing the stall walls in on campus bathrooms.

 

[MNVCGUY]

Why should anybody care whether or not athletes get their degrees? Every year millions of college students in America figure out how to pay for their educations without athletic scholarships.

Non-revenue sports would all survive without funding from football, basketball, and hockey. However, they wouldn't be flying all over the country and staying in expensive hotels before games. They would be taking buses, sleeping in Motel 6's, and not giving scholarships to foreign students to come to America to play tennis, golf, swimming, and track, and all the women's sports.

College sports in America have gotten much too big, far too expensive, and way too out of control. It is time to start dialing it back.

In pricipal I agree with your last statement but I don't know that dialing it back is an option at this point. Especially in regards to football I think it will continue to get bigger and bigger every year as more and more money gets poured into the system. With these super conferences forming and the huge revenues coming from conference TV networks I would expect to see things continue to grow for the foreseable future.

 

[GophersInIowa]

Why should anybody care whether or not athletes get their degrees? Every year millions of college students in America figure out how to pay for their educations without athletic scholarships.

I never said anything about getting to go for free. If this turns into some kind of pro league, would they even be allowed to take 12-15 credits during the season?

Non-revenue sports would all survive without funding from football, basketball, and hockey. However, they wouldn't be flying all over the country and staying in expensive hotels before games. They would be taking buses, sleeping in Motel 6's, and not giving scholarships to foreign students to come to America to play tennis, golf, swimming, and track, and all the women's sports.

They would still be losing money for the university.

 

[Unregistered User]

I might be on board with something like this if the teaching staff didn't have ill-prepared TA's teaching half the classes I took. What's good for the goose, and all that.

 

[DrunkGopher]

3 months ago, he had a letter printed that supported removing the stall walls in on campus bathrooms.

Seriously? What was his reasoning for that?

 

[Ogee Ogilthorpe]

What an idiotic self-righteous rant.

Sports only exist to bring in money? Soooo, what about the first 40-60 plus years of college sports when they brought in virtually no money?

As far as athletes only wanting to becoming professionals, not caring about an education, that's incredibly stupid as well. A MICROSCOPIC percentage of college athletes become professional athletes. Most of them know this, and most of them value the education they're getting.

I remember this kind of professor. This is the same guy who actually discriminates against the college athletes, hates them being in his classroom. I knew of a few of them. This is the same guy who doesn't take travelling for games into consideration when accounting for a student-athlete's attendance record in his class. Most people have the perception that the student athletes are catered to and the rules are bent for them. There are just as many who think like this guy, if not more; they hate the student-athlete.

Sickening way of thinking....

 

[GopherinPhilly]

Blah, Blah, Blah...what a crock. Now if the guy actually had some facts to support his rant. What is the graduation rate of varsity sports athletes compared to the general population at the U? What is comparative gpa? What % of U athletes that go on to play pro sports graduated? What % of U athletes that didn't go on to play pro sports graduated? How do those graduation rates compare to the general U student population?

How much of the money spent on student athletes above what an average student receives comes from the University...or is funded by athletic revenue? How many scholarship students would have received aid that was freed up for another need based student making it possible for more need based aid to be distributed to non-athlete students? How much money is generated for the school from licensed clothing and other game day on campus revenue that wouldn't exist without sports?

If your BS op ed were written as a term paper you would have gotten an F for unfounded assertions and statements as fact that are not supported by evidence...putz!

 

[Go4Broke]

If your BS op ed were written as a term paper you would have gotten an F for unfounded assertions and statements as fact that are not supported by evidence...putz!

Philly, you forgot to address the other points the author made in his article:

(1) We all know it is a fiction to argue that revenue-producing sports exist to contribute to the central function of the university -- to educate students and prepare them for the world after they graduate. These sports exist for the money they bring in.

(2) The accompanying falsehood that most of the players in these sports want a college degree undermines academic standards and personal behavior. These players truly covet a professional sports contract, and who can blame them?

(3) By the time they start at a university, they've worked for many years to hone their athletic, not their academic, skills. Many can't meet basic academic standards.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How Big-Time Sports Ate College Life

A 2010 Knight Commission report that found the 10 highest-spending athletic departments spent a median of $98 million in 2009, compared with $69 million just four years earlier. Spending on high-profile sports grew at double to triple the pace of that on academics. For example, Big Ten colleges, including Penn State, spent a median of $111,620 per athlete on athletics and $18,406 per student on academics.

Division I football and basketball, of course, bring in millions of dollars a year in ticket sales, booster donations and cable deals. Penn State football is a money-maker: 2010 Department of Education figures show the team spending $19.5 million and bringing in almost $73 million, which helps support 29 varsity sports.

Only about half of big-time programs end up in the black; many others have to draw from student fees or the general fund to cover expenses. And the gap between top programs and wannabes is only growing with colleges locked into an arms race to attract the best coaches and build the most luxurious venues in hopes of luring top athletes, and donations from happy alumni.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/e...e-sports-ate-college-life.html?pagewanted=all

 

[Go4Broke]

Are Big-Time Sports a Threat to Student Achievement?

In a study published last month as part of the National Bureau of Education Research working paper series, Oregon researchers compared student grades with the performance of the Fighting Ducks, winner of this year’s Rose Bowl and a crowd pleaser in their Nike uniforms in crazy color combinations and mirrored helmets.

“Here is evidence that suggests that when your football team does well, grades suffer,” said Dr. Waddell, who compared transcripts of over 29,700 students from 1999 to 2007 against Oregon’s win-loss record. For every three games won, grade-point average for men dropped 0.02, widening the G.P.A. gender gap by 9 percent. Women’s grades didn’t suffer. In a separate survey of 183 students, the success of the Ducks also seemed to cause slacking off: students reported studying less (24 percent of men, 9 percent of women), consuming more alcohol (28 percent, 20 percent) and partying more (47 percent, 28 percent).

While acknowledging a need for more research, Dr. Waddell believes the results should give campus leaders pause: fandom can carry an academic price. “No longer can it be the case where we skip right over that inconvenience,” he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/e...e-sports-ate-college-life.html?pagewanted=all

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Clotfelter, too, wanted to examine study habits. He tracked articles downloaded from campus libraries during March Madness, the National Collegiate Athletic Association basketball tournament. Library patrons at universities with teams in the tournament viewed 6 percent fewer articles a day as long as their team was in contention. When a team won an upset or close game, article access fell 19 percent the day after the victory. Neither dip was made up later with increased downloads.

We find that the team's success significantly reduces male grades relative to female grades. This phenomenon is only present in fall quarters, which coincides with the football season. Using survey data, we find that males are more likely than females to increase alcohol consumption, decrease studying, and increase partying in response to the success of the team. Yet, females also report that their behavior is affected by athletic success, suggesting that their performance is likely impaired but that this effect is masked by the practice of grade curving.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w17677

 

[Ogee Ogilthorpe]

Awesome, relevant work, yet again, Broke. I don't know how you continue to do it.

So we basically have an analysis of Penn State football, Oregon, and another study that says the 10 highest spending Athletic Departments spend a lot of money. This is ground-breaking stuff.

I particularly like the part about grades being worse in the fall than the spring, with fall being when many students first find their way onto college campuses and are trying to adapt to college life. I think there might have also been something in there about women studying harder than men, which absolutely has to be the first time anybody on this board has ever heard such a thing.

 

[wait!what?]

% wise it is probably no different than in 1921. I think Sid wrote something like this 'This year, one George Herman Ruth is scheduled to make an unprecented $100,000. this while employement is down ........ and the cost for a new car has topped 100 dollars.'

 

[Catechol]

Agree with both points. Posted this on the other board but I dont understand how the professor thinks removing the revenue teams increases the bottom line of the athletic department.

To play devil's advocate, he wasn't suggesting eliminating the revenue sports, just making them paid positions. Pay them like minor league players in other sports, and if it's not under the guise of academics you can subtract the cost of scholarships and all those academic support jobs and facilities required to keep borderline student athletes eligible. If academic integrity was then out of the equation, schools would be free to let boosters and commercial sponsors pay the "stipends" of the players. Of course this is a horrendous idea, but I can see where the theory comes from.

 

[Ski U Master]

Blah, Blah, Blah...what a crock. Now if the guy actually had some facts to support his rant. What is the graduation rate of varsity sports athletes compared to the general population at the U? What is comparative gpa? How do those graduation rates compare to the general U student population?

Comparing athletes and the general student population might be a fair comparison if the general population received the tutoring and academic support benefits that athletes do (Not to mention the paid tuition). If anything, athlete grad rates should be higher given the advantages and resources provided to them.

 

[dpodoll68]

If anything, athlete grad rates should be higher given the advantages and resources provided to them.

Yes and no. Among the general student population, nearly all of them were admitted to the school based on their own academic merit. Among the athlete population, a much higher % consists of students who would've never been admitted to a school of this caliber if not for their athletic ability, and frankly have no business being in college period if not for their athletic ability. The resources given to them are often the difference between a straight F and straight C student. If it were average Joe Q or Jane Q student in the general population, that assistance would probably be the difference between a straight C and an A-/B+ student.

 

[husker70]

The Athletic Teams at The University of Minnesota are central to the brand marketing of the instituiton. Hockey, Basketball, Football, et al put the University in the living rooms, bars, and restaurants. Much is made about the design of TCF and facing it toward Minneaplois for the opening shot for TV. Where else can a business or institution get 3 hours of programing live from their campus?

Its quite another thing to maximize the effect. Winning spawns alumni and fan support, which in turn fuels more winning.

It would seem the Professor is an elitist at land grant Univeristy. And his outgrage is an echo from one Malcom Moose.

 

[harrys ghost]

The Athletic Teams at The University of Minnesota are central to the brand marketing of the instituiton. Hockey, Basketball, Football, et al put the University in the living rooms, bars, and restaurants. Much is made about the design of TCF and facing it toward Minneaplois for the opening shot for TV. Where else can a business or institution get 3 hours of programing live from their campus?

Its quite another thing to maximize the effect. Winning spawns alumni and fan support, which in turn fuels more winning.

It would seem the Professor is an elitist at land grant Univeristy. And his outgrage is an echo from one Malcom Moose.

Moos.

 

[GopherinPhilly]

Comparing athletes and the general student population might be a fair comparison if the general population received the tutoring and academic support benefits that athletes do (Not to mention the paid tuition). If anything, athlete grad rates should be higher given the advantages and resources provided to them.

I'm not sure how it is now...I graduated in 1994...but back then I worked in the math room (math study room) as a tutor and it was free to the students. I also was a T A for several math and economics courses and tutored students weekly for free as part of my office hours. I'm not saying that it compares to what a top athlete might receive, but if a student at the U (back then) needed help, they could find it. Maybe these programs have all been cut...IDK.

Also remember, that a student athlete works full time in addition to going to school. The extra tutoring and support is a trade off for the time they spend practicing.

 

[GopherinPhilly]

Philly, you forgot to address the other points the author made in his article:

(1) We all know it is a fiction to argue that revenue-producing sports exist to contribute to the central function of the university -- to educate students and prepare them for the world after they graduate. These sports exist for the money they bring in.

(2) The accompanying falsehood that most of the players in these sports want a college degree undermines academic standards and personal behavior. These players truly covet a professional sports contract, and who can blame them?

(3) By the time they start at a university, they've worked for many years to hone their athletic, not their academic, skills. Many can't meet basic academic standards.

(1) I would argue that sports have made a tremendous impact to access to higher education for poor and minority students, especially African American. What price do we put on the hundreds of thousands of African American men and woman who attended and graduate from colleges that would have had zero chance of doing so if not for athletics?

(2)Since a very small fraction of student athletes ever make a living at their sport beyond college, I would dispute this claim.

(3) That is a very broad statement on a large student pool and I would like to see the numbers to prove it. If you look at all scholarship athletes and their academic capacity compared to the general student population, I don't think for a minute that it will be statistically different based purely on the criteria of scholarship athlete versus not. Having done much statistical analysis while getting my degrees...the model just doesn't hold up. Too many variables.

In other words...I don't think this guy has a fruckin clue, just an opinion from his high horse.

 

[1983]

"College" sports would prosper under this plan. The cost of higher education for the nonathletes would probably decrease, or at least rise more slowly, since athletic departments would shrink noticeably with only nonrevenue sports to administer. Students and alumni would still have teams to root for, and newspapers would still have something to write about. Athletes would be compensated for the money they bring in, and a university with a losing team could fire not just the coaches but the whole organization, players included.

This guy is a scholar? People pay to listen to this guy?

 

[gopherMD]

This is an out of touch academic who lends credence to the saying "Those who cannot do teach."

 

[gopherdudepart2]

He is a professor Emeritus

This guy is a scholar? People pay to listen to this guy?[/QUOTE]

That means I don't think he is part of the teaching faculty, but your right people once paid to listen to this guy.
The sad thing is for all tenured faculty, Emertus professors with no teaching responsibility's, they still get an office and have a paid salary pretty much to waste time doing "research" while on vacation over seas or to write op ed pieces like this guy.

Whomever linked that Op Ed piece about eliminating stall walls in the bathrooms, that is as strange train of thought,
this makes this professor sound very goofy. I met a few that were out there but not like that.
People like there privacy when using the restroom, and I don't blame them.

 

[Ole]

This guy is so ill informed and offensive it's unbelievable.


We all know it is a fiction to argue that revenue-producing sports exist to contribute to the central function of the university -- to educate students and prepare them for the world after they graduate.

Obviously never been in athletics if he believes they add no value to an education in regards to time management, sacrifice, leadership, working as a team to accomplish tasks, and the athletics programs bring visibility and prestige to the university basically through marketing and branding which enhances the value of the degree earned by all students. Examples of non NCAA schools being prestigious is fine, but there is a value to having a name brand university on your resume'.

These sports exist for the money they bring in.
An added bonus. Which enhances the overall college experience and can build pride in one's school and offer opportunities to all athletes including the numerous ones in non-revenue sports.

The accompanying falsehood that most of the players in these sports want a college degree undermines academic standards and personal behavior.
So offensive to athletes everywhere. What a crock.

These players truly covet a professional sports contract, and who can blame them?
Most understand they will never get there, again ill informed and offensive.

By the time they start at a university, they've worked for many years to hone their athletic, not their academic, skills.

Often both.

Many can't meet basic academic standards.
Some. Most schools have a standard, the U obviously does. $EC maybe not.

They would find useful, not a degree, but a small fraction of the billions of dollars sports bring to the universities -- dollars that currently are not shared with athletes.
Dumb.

What's to be done? Universities will not give up revenue-producing sports, nor would a highly vocal fraction of the students and alumni let them. For most university presidents, abolishing football, basketball and/or hockey would be tantamount to resigning.
Dumb.

We need to preserve university-affiliated teams for the students and alumni, support college-level athletes with a salary appropriate to the money they bring in (while offering them an education if they want it), and provide a reasonable product for the TV networks to insert between their ads. All this while dropping the damaging hypocrisy that these sports have any relation to the mission of a university.
Dumb.

Here is a plan to achieve these goals while allowing the university proper to focus on its mission of education, not showbiz: Each university, for a substantial fee, would lease its franchise -- the rights to its name, logo and facilities -- to a professional sports company that would hire a team to represent the institution. The team would compete with similar teams representing other universities. All the expenses for the teams, including facility upkeep, would be the responsibility of the franchiseholder in return for the income from admissions, concessions and TV.
So Dumb.

Rather than football, basketball and hockey teams composed of reluctant students enrolled only because of athletic ability, let's have unabashed professionals. Allow any athlete representing a university to attend free, but don't require it. Pay the athletes a sensible wage and let the arcane rules on recruiting and remaining in good academic standing go away.
So misinformed, and obviously biased against athletes.

Athlete misbehavior would be handled by the franchiseholder in a professional way -- stern penalties for the lesser players and effective amnesty for the stars. Freed from the administration of these teams, the university could go about its business of teaching, research and service without fear of athletic scandals. Periodic renegotiation would allow the university to change companies if it was dissatisfied. The franchiseholder could move to another university, players and all, if it were offered a better deal.
Biased

"College" sports would prosper under this plan.
No they would die, which you would love.

The cost of higher education for the nonathletes would probably decrease, or at least rise more slowly, since athletic departments would shrink noticeably with only nonrevenue sports to administer.
Misinformed, as a D3 athlete I've seen how sports programs run with no money to run them but student fees.

Students and alumni would still have teams to root for, and newspapers would still have something to write about. Athletes would be compensated for the money they bring in, and a university with a losing team could fire not just the coaches but the whole organization, players included.
BLAH BLAH

The only entity threatened by this arrangement would be the NCAA, which might be put out of business. Who would miss it?
You are literally the dumbest emeritus professor in the history of the world

 

[JoeDirt]

Great analysis Ole. On personal note I really enjoy your posts. Also, Good luck on the upcoming season, it's not too far away now! As an ex captain I will be following closely.