Search

In the hyper-competitive world of intercollegiate athletics, where programs vie to win national titles, attract talent, and build the best facilities, keeping a close eye on trends and emerging practices is a necessity. With that in mind, "The Chronicle of Higher Education" asked more than three dozen experts to describe the changes they expect to see in athletics departments in the next five to 10 years. In academic issues, experts discussed changes in accountability, jock majors, faculty involvement, integrated sports programs, and the NCAA's Academic Progress Rate. In athletics culture, experts examined changes in international students, off-court behavior, summer duty, co-ed teams, and emerging sports. In administration, experts described changes in specialization, smarter office designs, impact of technology, faculty improvements, and minority hiring. Finally, in finances, experts explored changes in shrinking programs, personalized marketing, female donors, television ratings and revenue, ticket revenue, and internet exposure.

Scholarship athletes in the US graduated at historic levels for the second consecutive year in 2005, according to a report released January 2006 by the National Collegiate Athletic Association. However, even as African-American football players and Caucasian basketball players made significant gains, the numbers fell in other categories for a variety of reasons.

Amid a national debate about paying college athletes, the NCAA likes to tout its often-overlooked Student Assistance Fund, whose goal is to provide direct financial support to players. The fund--which draws from the association's multibillion-dollar media-rights deals--will distribute some $75-million this year to Division I athletes. The money has helped colleges reimburse players for such things as clothing, health insurance, summer school, and many other costs that their scholarships do not cover. But not all of the dollars directly help students. According to a Big Ten Conference document obtained by "The Chronicle," the University of Iowa used part of its money last year to pay shredding fees, cover administrator-travel costs, and purchase displays for an arena. Other Big Ten universities have used their distribution in part to pay for lightning-detection software, "team-building" activities, and hundreds of thousands of dollars in parking permits--money that, in the end, often goes right into the universities' pockets. Other institutions spent a share of their allocation on team massages and yoga, chair rental, "welcome back events," and a battery of reading and learning tests. When distributing the money, many institutions give priority to recipients of Pell Grants, the federal assistance program for needy students that in recent years has helped at least 16 percent of Division I athletes. But the possible use of some of those NCAA dollars to meet staff or team objectives, rather than to directly benefit low-income students, concerns people who study policies and practices affecting college success. Officials in the Big Ten defend their use of the dollars, saying the NCAA allows institutions wide latitude in how they spend the money. They emphasize that the document, which was obtained through a public-records request, shows only a small fraction of the fund's usage. The report describes many payments flowing more directly to students. For example, the University of Nebraska dedicated $24,876 toward players' utility bills. The University of Minnesota spent $23,418 in part to send members of its football team to a funeral for a former teammate. And Penn State contributed $14,956 toward parents' travel costs when 14 of its students had surgery. Other institutions paid child-care costs, housing and travel expenses for study abroad, and hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical expenses and dental work. The Big Ten is one of the biggest beneficiaries of the NCAA money. Last year its universities received more than $5-million from the program, and used about $4.7-million of the money, according to the league document.

Western Oklahoma State College's name comes up whenever athletes get themselves in a jam: They've failed a class. They've dropped another. Maybe they're just short on credits. But they still want to play. Western Oklahoma gives them a chance, offering three credits in two weeks--and for less than $400. Almost as appealing: The community college mails out transcripts the day after classes end, allowing players to get back on the field with minimal disruption. Last year those 10-day classes attracted 5,668 students. Many are adult learners and others looking to finish their degrees faster. But the market for athletes has proven particularly lucrative. Nearly half of the students in those classes play college sports, the college estimates. The courses are especially popular with junior-college players looking to transfer to the big time. But elite research universities have also accepted their credits. It's not just the speedy credit that appeals to many players. According to dozens of academic advisers, athletes, and coaches, Western Oklahoma offers some of the easiest classes around. Western Oklahoma State's leaders say that they are committed to ensuring academic quality, and that they have taken steps to safeguard the classes' integrity, including timing tests and locking down browsers during exams so students can't search the Web for answers. The college doesn't offer mathematics, science, or composition in the two-week format; academic leaders say such courses would be too difficult to complete in that time. And faculty members, who must approve all courses, say the 10-day content is the same as is taught during a regular semester.

College sports is a billion-dollar enterprise whose leaders pride themselves on taking care of athletes. But lately many institutions have lost that focus. Broad proposals to change the game have historically fallen short. But what if the focus is narrowed, reorganizing around the needs of students? This article presents five ideas for doing that: (1) Hire educator-coaches; (2) Expand opportunities; (3) Give players more voice; (4) Consider due process; and (5) Help with hiring.

A series of unprecedented scandals has eroded confidence in big-time sports, increasing the appetite for change. Some critics have a tough time seeing the NCAA as a savior; they say the real problem is the NCAA structure itself, which allows athletes to generate billions of dollars for colleges while earning no compensation themselves. Mark A. Emmert, who recently completed his first year on the job at the NCAA, says the NCAA has students' interests in mind with every decision, and has moved quickly to clean up the mess. Months before he officially started at the NCAA, in October 2010, Mr. Emmert showed signs of raising the metabolism of the place, eliminating several senior-management positions, and forcing other top executives to fight for their jobs. He quickly established himself as a different kind of leader than his predecessor, Myles Brand, a philosopher and a more cerebral decision-maker whom aides say took time to consider an issue from all sides. Mr. Emmert is decisive, efficient, and inclined to be brutally honest, sometimes stating his opinion even before the typical internal discussions have taken place, say those close to the NCAA's senior leadership. Mark Emmert is moving quickly to bring change to college sports. In October 2010, the board approved tougher initial-eligibility and transfer standards for athletes, and passed legislation preventing men's basketball teams with low academic-progress rates from playing in the NCAA tournament. The board also approved controversial measures allowing athletic departments to offer four-year scholarships and provide an additional $2,000 for full-scholarships athletes toward their full cost of attendance. Some colleges, especially those with smaller, poorer programs, are feeling left behind.