In a presentation earlier this week, the president of the NCAA, Mark Emmert, used the word "student" rather than "student-athlete." When asked about that sea change, he was quoted as follows: "To me, they are students who happen to be athletes. And I think there's just been way too much made of that descriptor. It's like the word 'amateur.' It ignites more than it resolves."
I wholeheartedly agree with him. In fact, I suggested that change when I had the honor to make a presentation last May 19 to the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, which was founded by the then-presidents of Notre Dame and UNC and which is composed of distinguished high-level college and university administrators. In fact, two other suggestions I made during that presentation were also mentioned by President Emmert earlier this week: ending so-called "one-and-done" for men's basketball players and simplifying the NCAA's mind-numbingly complex rules on eligibility and amateurism.
Because of the parallels between what President Emmert said this week and what I said last May, below is a condensed version of my remarks to the Knight Commission:
Responding to Change: Alternative Regulatory Schemes for College Sports (why the student-athlete concept is flawed)
- Introduction
The invented noun “student-athlete” should be abandoned. It suggests an equivalence between academics and athletics that should not exist because it has led in many cases to what, in effect, are professional college sports.
This Statement makes five suggestions to end this flawed equivalence. They revolve around the core duty of a college or university – education – and the hallmark of that education: graduation.
These suggestions are straightforward and simple. Complexity simply has not worked to regulate college sports, e.g., see the NCAA Bylaws. As this Commission stated in its 2001 publication, “The evidence strongly suggests that it is not enough simply to add new rules to the NCAA’s copious rule book.”
Five Suggestions to Change the College Sports Focus From “Student-Athletes” to Students
(i) Change the designation "student-athlete" to "student."
This simple change, which has no downside, clarifies that institutions of higher education have as their core mission the provision of education rather than athletics or entertainment. Indeed, although it has been suggested that the term “student-athlete” was coined in order to make sure the student-athletes would not be eligible for Workers’ Compensation, the term "student" is much more likely to achieve that aim.
No college sports regulatory scheme will work if the focus is incorrect. In my opinion, the current focus on the student-athlete is incorrect.
Even the 2010 report of this Commission—Restoring the Balance—illustrates the problem. With all due respect, balancing is not called for: if academics do not have primacy at all times, then anti-educational phenomena like “one-and-done” will occur, giving college sports a black eye. Indeed, “balance” is a misleading word in this context because of the gross imbalance at the FBS schools: according to the 2010 report of this Commission, median spending per athlete at FBS schools exceeded median spending per student by a factor of six.
Student-athletes are the only group that has a hyphenated designation. Members of the student band are not called student-musicians, chemistry majors are not called student-chemists, and so on. In and of itself, this hyphenation implies that student-athletes will be treated differently. This different treatment is precisely the problem that needs to be addressed.
(ii) Require that all students be on track for graduation in order to play a sport. Playing a sport is a privilege, not a right. If a student is not progressing toward the primary goal of an institution of higher education – graduation – then that student should not be able to partake of this privilege. This rule would make it clear that education is the top priority of institutions of higher education. The rule would also be easy to apply because standards of progressing toward a four-year graduation would, under this proposal, be the same for all students.
This proposal would solve problems like scheduling for the sake of television rather than for the sake of academics. Obviously, such scheduling, which includes week-night football games, does not help athletes to progress towards graduation because it lessens study and class time. Universities, under this proposal, would have to lessen or eliminate such scheduling because it would lessen an athlete’s chance of graduating on a normal track. Practice time would also have to be lessened to permit more time for study, which the shortening of schedules would also help.
(iii) Require recipients of athletic scholarships to sign a contract committing to four years of study. An athletic scholarship should be awarded to someone who, in exchange for the scholarship, is willing to commit to the hallmark of an institution of higher education – graduation. If the athlete is not willing to make that commitment, he or she should not receive a scholarship. If the athlete voluntarily leaves college before four years have passed in order to play professional sports, he or she should have an obligation to return the scholarship money.
(iv) Disallow redshirting. Redshirting is not consistent with the educational mission, which has a norm of four years to graduation. Redshirting benefits only athletics. It permits greater commitment to athletics and less commitment to academics. By transforming student-athletes back to students, the educational mission of the university, which culminates with the granting of a degree, will be returned to its rightfully core position.
(v) Simplify the NCAA Bylaws.
Many of the NCAA Bylaws relate to academics. For example, virtually all of Article 14 of the Bylaws (“Eligibility: Academic and General Requirements”) could be eliminated if these suggestions were accepted. Academic requirements would simply be the same as they are for all students on a normal track to graduation, athletes and non-athletes alike. Entrance requirements could be set by individual institutions, but these institutions would be constrained by the knowledge that an athlete could not play if he or she were not progressing normally toward graduation.
- Conclusion
An intense focus on graduation in four years is a simple solution to the current difficulties of college sports, one that could be implemented unilaterally today by any college or university. I would urge this Commission to re-emphasize a key principle enunciated in its initial report in 1991: “ ‘No pass, no play’ will be the byword of college sports in admissions, academic progress and graduation rates.”
