Not All Athletes are Dumb Jocks

There is a stereotype that college athletes are dumb jocks. As a result the NCAA set up the Academic Performance Program in 2003 to “incent” colleges to help their students be better athletes, thus eliminating this label.

In late May the University of Colorado released the results of the Academic Progress Rate (APR) report prepared by the NCAA for its 17 programs. Highlights of the report are:
• 13 of 17 team averages exceeded the national average for their sport.
• The men’s cross country team had a perfect four-year APR score of 1000 (top 10 percent in its sport), along with an NCAA Championship and 4 consecutive Pac-12 championships.
• The women’s lacrosse team, completed its second year with a perfect 1000 APR score;
• Five sport programs achieved a perfect 1000 score for the 2013-14 academic year, men’s cross country, men’s skiing, women’s basketball, women’s golf, and women’s lacrosse. (not shown in the table below)
• Football increased its APR performance to a 957 score. In 2008-09 the program had a 919 score that led to a six-scholarship penalty.

This year CU had a composite APR score of 977, well above the penalty level of 930. In other words, not all athletes are dumb jocks.

This score projects graduation rates that will be above those of the general student population. It is common for special groups (music, theatre, clubs, and other organizations, etc.) to have GPAs or academic achievement rates above the school average. In the case of athletics that is also a result of the special academic and tutoring programs established for athletes to help them meet the demands of sports and school.

Go Buffs!

Team 2013-24 APR Four-Year APR 2010-11 to 2013-14 2013-14 Team GPA
Men’s Cross Country 1000 1000 3.015
Women's Lacrosse 1000 1000 3.040
Women's Basketball 1000 995 3.028
Women's Golf 1000 991 3.285
Men's Skiing 1000 980 3.282
Men's Outdoor Track 989 986 2.856
Men's Indoor Track 989 985
Women's Soccer 988 994 3.304
Women's Cross Country 985 996 3.362
Women's Volleyball 979 989 2.874
Women's Indoor Track 979 986
Women's Outdoor Track 979 986 3.152
Men's Golf 976 967 2.845
Women's Tennis 969 983 3.340
Football 966 957 2.703
Men's Basketball 959 975 2.538
Women's Skiing 944 965 3.595
Penalty Level 930 930

The Ignorance and Arrogance of Academics

The American higher education system is one of the country’s greatest assets. Over the years the arrogance of academics has allowed unexplainable problems and problem characters such as Jerry Sandusky and Ward Churchill to take center stage. For example,  the University of Colorado has drawn attention for the actions of its philosophy department and the University of North Carolina has come up with a show stopper, nearly two decades of academic cheating.

On October 24th, the Boulder Daily Camera published an article, “Massive cheating scandal at UNC involved athletes.” Oddly enough, the article was posted on page 5 of the World View section under the heading, “Academics.”arrogance of academics - cheaters

The opening paragraphs of the article, by Aaron Beard and Emery P. Dalessio, stated,

“Bogus classes and automatic A’s and B’s are at the heart of a cheating scandal at the University of North Carolina that lasted nearly two decades, encompassing about 3,1000 students – nearly half of them athletes.

At least nine university employees were fired or they are under disciplinary reviews, and the question now becomes what, if anything the NCAA will do next? Penalties could range from fewer scholarships to vacated wins.

Most of the athletes were football players or members of the school’s cherished basketball program, which won three of its five national titles during the scandal (1993, 2005, 2009).”

Later in the article the authors stated,

“The scandal reached back to the final years of legendary men’s basketball coach Dean Smith’s tenure, as well as John Swofford’s stint as athletic director before becoming Atlantic Coast Conference commissioner.”

The UNC scandal raises a series of questions:

  • Why did the Boulder newspaper report this in the World View section and not on the sports page?
  • Both the UNC cheating scandal and the Jerry Sandusky child abuse scandal have scarred the credibility of higher education and college sports. Why isn’t there as much outrage for the UNC scandal as there was the Sandusky scandal?
  • Which is worse, scandals in the financial world by characters such as Ivan Boesky and Bernie Maddow or the Penn State and UNC scandals?
  • Would hearing about this scandal impact your decision to send your children to UNC? Does a twenty-year academic scandal really matter?
  • How will UNC regain its credibility as an institution of higher learning after an incident such as this?
  • Is it possible for the NCAA to levy a penalty on UNC that will adequately punish the university for its indiscretions?
  • The reports indicate that almost half of the offenders where athletes (mostly football and basketball players). Why were student-athletes the major offenders? Would the scandal have occurred if athletics was not an important part of the UNC culture?
  • After hearing about this scandal, what comes to mind when you hear the term “student athlete?”
  • Are colleges and universities more or less susceptible to scandals than the private sector?
  • Which university will shoot itself in the foot next? Locally, what will the University of Colorado do to top its latest fiasco in the Philosophy Department?

Sadly, the list of questions could go on ad infinitum. And unfortunately, scandals and the arrogance of academics are a part of life.

 

High School vs Club Sports, the Battles Rages On

The high school vs club sports battle rages on, with the most recent flare-up touching the baseball diamonds of Colorado.

The following comments are excerpted from an article by Paul Willis in the June 28th Boulder Daily Camera. The article “Baseball: Area high school programs fighting club-team takeover – Increasing club presence could de-emphasize varsity season, coaches fear”.

The excerpt follows:

 “The more Scott Weiss considers the club baseball scene, the more his blood boils.

The Monarch coach isn’t alone. Several other prominent coaches in the area share his concerns, with some believing the club scene soon could invade the varsity season, much like it already has in soccer and hockey.

The value assigned to Colorado high school baseball is in peril, many coaches recognize, and in need of some reconstruction to combat the encroaching club presence.

It’s a slippery slope. Clearly, not all club baseball teams are disreputable. But in the shady underbelly of the circuit, deplorable tactics are abundant. False promises of prime exposure, low-brow recruiting measures and several additional dangled carrots designed to lure an athlete away from his team’s summer program.

“We’ve been talking about it the past few years that these club teams, they’re getting into these kids’ heads, and they’re buying into it,” Longmont coach Tom Fobes said. “Some of them are good, but the majority, I don’t see the benefit.”

Monarch is fielding only a Legion B squad this summer, because most of the Coyotes’ marquee athletes have fled to the purported greener pastures of the club scene.

“I’m all for our kids getting varied coaching, different points of view and becoming better baseball players,” Weiss said. “But what happens with some of these club teams is, they go about their business in a way that they’re trying to discredit the high school coaches.

“They tell kids that they need to play with them in order to get better or get a college scholarship. It’s a big sales pitch that’s put on, and it creates a lot of tension between the high schools and the club teams — and the parents and the kids.”

Make no mistake, high school programs are fighting back, with Fairview coach Rick Harig spearheading an effort to overhaul the current high school landscape, which clearly is a decade or two behind states such as Texas and Florida.”

The coaches quoted in the article appear to be knowledgeable, highly regarded, and passionate about their sports. Hats off to them for having a positive impact on the youth of Colorado.

These coaches correctly spotted the trend that high school sports are not as relevant as they were 25 years ago and that club sports have become more relevant. Right or wrong, times have changed. It is GAME OVER for the good old days.

These changes have occurred for a variety of reasons such as funding cuts for education, a poor economy, weak school programs, policies that are unfavorable to athletic programs, and overzealous parents and club directors.

Along the way there are plenty of horror stories, as suggested by the article. Both club and high programs are guilty.

For example, some private coaches for individual sports don’t want “their” athletes “wasting their time” high school programs. In some cases, high school coaches have banned their athletes from cross training or playing club sports during “their” season. Unfortunately, the list goes on and on.

These disagreements are unnecessary, as most high school and clubs claim to be looking out for “their” athletes. The bottom line is that some of the coaches and programs have chosen to make themselves the focal point, rather than focusing on the athletes.

That is the real problem!

 

 

 

 

If You Were the Buffs AD, Would You Spend $143 Million?

CU Athletics recently announced plans to spend $143 million to update its facilities. In an email sent under Rick George’s name, this expenditure was explained in the following way:

“Our Sustainable Excellence Initiative (SEI), which includes a $143 million wide-ranging facilities improvement plan, was approved unanimously by the Board of Regents on December 4. This is the vital component to our strategic plan, one that reaches out past the year 2025, which will be finalized by the end of January. We have determined what our vision and mission are:

“To be nationally recognized as a premier athletics department, by providing a world-class and holistic student-athlete experience, operating in a fiscally responsible manner, while consistently competing for and winning championships.”

The comprehensive student-athlete experience includes enhancing our academic, health and wellness, and personal development programs, in concert with raising the level of competitive excellence for all teams to compete for and win championships on the conference and national levels. Developing and renovating facilities is the key factor in achieving the above objectives.

We are working diligently to make this a reality, not a pipe dream. We intend to start construction this Spring with a completion date in time for the start of the 2015-16 academic and athletic year; yes, an aggressive remake of our athletic department in what basically is a 16-month window.”$143 milliom

CU Athletics submitted their proposal directly to the Board of Regents instead of initially having it approved by the campus planning committee. Technically this is not a problem, but George’s actions may not sit well with some members of a community that does not fully support the Buffs.

It is presumed that George’s rush for approval is driven by clauses in Coach McIntyre’s contract that require CU to initiate plans for facility improvements by the end of the year and to complete those upgrades by a certain date. Said differently, the cost of hiring coach Mac contractually extends well beyond his monthly wages and incentives.

CU is faced with a self-induced conundrum. They are in an athletic arms race they cannot afford to be in. The expenditure of $143 million is necessary for them to continue to participate. On a comparative basis, many of their facilities are subpar. Unfortunately, spending $143 million is a band-aid that will not provide the program with a long-term competitive advantage. At best, it will temporarily reduce the gap between the Buffs and the top schools.

This issue could be addressed by re-focusing the purpose of athletics at CU. That won’t happen.

Like most universities, CU has chosen to expand their athletic empire. Good arguments can be made for de-emphasis or expansion; however, most college presidents endorse the rationale for having a strong presence in athletics.

What does $143 million mean to other organizations?

  • The website of Johnson and Wales University indicated that JWU increased student aid to $143 million for 2012-13.
  • The Bleacher Report stated that Alabama reported $143 million in athletic revenue during 2012-2013. This is an increase of about $20 million from the prior year when they were ranked 4th in the country for revenue. Alabama listed a surplus of $21.1 million. (Note: By comparison, a November 6th article in the Daily Camera stated that CU Athletics is more than $21 million in debt to the university and facing a shortfall of $5.6 million to budget this fiscal year).
  • In December, the sale of Frontier Airlines to Indigo Partners was finalized for $145 million.
  • Senior Housing News reported that American Realty Capital has agreed to purchase a nine-property portfolio of assisted living communities and development land for a total of $143 million. The eight communities and one development parcel are all based in the southeast and include 453 assisted living units and 187 memory care units.
  • In late September the Alabama State Port Authority approved a $143.8 million budget Tuesday for the upcoming fiscal year.
  • In the Q2 2013 Digital Startup Report published by Builtinchicago.com it was announced that 37 startups raised $146 million dollars in the second quarter of 2013.
  • In August, the New York Times announced the opening of North Atlanta High School, the most expensive high school ever built in Georgia.  The 11-story high school, with a 900 car parking garage cost $147 million.
  • In November of 2013, a Francis Bacon painting sold for $142 million.
  • The Illinois extension office released data indicating that in 2008 the major pumpkin producing states (Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and California) produced 1.1 billion pounds of pumpkins values at $141 million.
  • In April 2012, President Obama ended a six-month funding freeze to Palestine. He released $147 million to pay for infrastructure, education, humanitarian aid and health projects.

What does $143 million mean to you? Is CU’s decision to spend $143 million a necessary and responsible expenditure? How would you respond to CU’s athletic arms conundrum if you were the Buff’s AD?

 

Can Colorado Afford to be in the Athletic Arms Race?

Two and a half years ago, the University of Colorado announced they would join the PAC 12 in 2011. The move was justified by university officials for the following reasons:

  • More than 35,000 alumni reside in the Pac-12 footprint, whereas about 11,000 are located within the Big 12 regions.
  • This level of alumni support in key markets should help with recruiting.
  • CU should get more support on the road, because there is easier access to PAC 12 cities.
  • Many CU fans feel the PAC 12 cities are more desirable to visit.
  • PAC 12 teams will receive significant revenue from the new Pac 12 television contract.
  • The PAC 12 was a closer fit academically.

These are all legitimate reasons to make the switch; however, it was obvious that CU could not bankroll teams that could consistently compete against Oklahoma and the wealthier Texas schools. Most Coloradans hate to lose to Texas (at anything).

CU is not the only university that is having trouble dealing with the accelerated level of spending for athletic programs. In August 2011 Michael Smith, writer for Street and Smith’s Online Sports Business Journal was the author of an article entitled “Athletic Budgets Continue to Climb“, that focused on the rapid growth of budgets for the major athletic conferences. Though the data is slightly dated, it illustrates the amount of money spent on college athletic programs and their rates of growth.

Smith secured budgets for most of the schools in the Big 10, Big 12, SEC, ACC, and PAC 12. Texas tops the list in spending. The median rate of annualized growth is 5.4%.

Six SEC, four Big 10, and two Big 12 teams round out the top twelve schools in spending. Oregon is the top PAC 12 team at number 13 and North Carolina is the top ACC team at number 21. Four of the bottom eight schools are from the PAC 12, including newcomers Colorado and Utah.

In the PAC 12 Colorado and Arizona State have similar budgets and both are well above Washington State and Utah. The four schools stack up at the bottom of the conference.

If Colorado was still in the Big 12 it would be at the bottom with a budget similar to Iowa State and Baylor. The size of the Texas athletic budget is about the same as the combined budgets of Colorado, Iowa State and Baylor.

Of the 49th teams, CU was 42nd overall and 39th in the rate of growth. Six of the PAC 12 teams had budgets that grew at an annualized rate of 3.1% or less from 2010 to 2012.

The PAC 12 is a great conference for the University of Colorado for the reasons stated above. Time will tell whether schools such as Colorado, Oregon State, Washington State, and Utah can afford to participate in the PAC 12 or any other major athletic conference.

The table below expressed the athletic budgets for the schools in millions, from Smith’s article. In three instances estimates were made or to account for data that was not available in Smith’s report.

ACC Budgets were not available for Boston College, Duke, Miami and Wake Forest. The Big 10 budget for Northwestern was not available. The PAC 12 budgets for Stanford and USC were not available. The Big 12 budgets were not available for Baylor. The SEC budget for Vanderbilt was not available.  The 49 universities are color coded by Conference (Big 12 = grey, Big 10 = pink, SEC = green, Pac 12 = purple, ACC = light orange).

Do Athletic Programs Lift the Boats of All Programs at Top Universities? – NIH Funding

College presidents, athletic directors, and other higher education leaders have been quick to defend their athletic programs in the light of recruiting scandals, seven-figure salaries for coaches, the Penn State atrocity, player abuse by coaches, and unsustainable budget and facility increases. Their claims focus on the value athletic programs bring to the university, how sports are the heart and soul of universities, how athletic departments lift all boats, increase the fundraising abilities, and make the universities world class institutions. Athletic programs are an integral part of the athletic experience, but their value to higher education is often overstated.

For the sake of discussion, consider the question, “What do the football teams look like at the schools that top the list for National Institute of Health (NIH) funding?”

In 2010 about $21.2 billion of NIH funding was distributed to universities. Two-thirds of that funding, about $14 billion) was distributed in 10 states (CA, MA, NY, PA, TX, MD, NC, WA, IL, OH). Colorado was ranked 19th at $283 million, or 1.33% of total funding.

The top 100 universities received $19.5 billion, or 92% of total NIH funding in 2010. The top 10 schools received 24.5% of the NIH funding, or $5.2 billion. They are listed below, along with their NCAA level of competition:

  1. Johns Hopkins University, $686.5 million, Division 3.
  2. University of Pennsylvania $577.0 million, Division 3.
  3. University of Washington $570.7 million, Division 1.
  4. University of Michigan, $565.1 million, Division 1.
  5. University of California at San Francisco, $537.7 million, no athletic program.
  6. University of Pittsburgh, $493.0 million, Division 1.
  7. Washington University, $449.5 million, Division 3.
  8. Yale University, $442.4 million, Division 3.
  9. University of California at San Diego $441.0 million, no football program.
  10. Duke University, $438.9, Division 1 football.

Four schools were from Division 1, four schools played in Division 3, UCSD did not have a football team, and the UCSF did not have an athletic program. In other words, academics take precedence at a majority of the top 10 schools on the list of NIH funding.

The 2010 athletic budgets for the schools in major athletics conferences follow:

  • University of Washington, $60.6 million projected revenue.
  • University of Michigan, $94.4 million projected revenue.
  • University of Pittsburgh, not available.
  • Duke University, $68.8 million projected revenue.

The funding from NIH is 6-9 times greater than the athletic budgets for these schools.

Pac 12 fans will be pleased to see that the current PAC-12 schools were well represented in the top 100 schools for NIH funding.

  • 3.   University of Washington $570.7 million, 2.7%.
  • 11. UCLA, $436.6 million 2.1%.
  • 12. Stanford University, $413.5 million 1.9%.
  • 24. USC, 242.2 million 1.1%.
  • 44. University of Utah, $166.5 million, 0.8%.
  • 55. University of California Berkeley $137.3 million, 0.6%.
  • 66. University of Arizona, $109.2 million, 0.5%.
  • 94. University of Colorado at Boulder $67.0 million 0.3% – does not include UCD.

These eight PAC-12 schools received 10.1% of total NIH funding for 2010.

The 2010 athletic budgets for these schools follow:

  • University of Washington, $63.2 million.
  • UCLA, $61.9 million.
  • Stanford, not available
  • USC, not available
  • University of Utah, $27.8 million.
  • University of California Berkeley, $69.4 million
  • University of Arizona, $45.0 million.
  • University of Colorado at Boulder, $46.6 million.

The data makes the case that both academics and athletics make different, but significant fiscal contribution to universities. College leaders are only kidding themselves when they overstate the value of athletic programs.

 

Control of Intercollegiate Athletics

It is easy to criticize the NCAA and at times they make themselves an easy target. It is clear that management of college sports has been a challenge since their inception.

The following is taken from the North American Society for Sports History 1981 Proceedings. The two-page document, was authored by Ronald A. Smith, professor at Pennsylvania State University. His comments are particularly interesting given the recent Jerry Sandusky scandal at PSU.

Preludes to the NCAA: Early Failures of Faculty Control of Intercollegiate Athletics

Neither the creation of the National Collegiate Athletic Association in 1905-06 nor the origin of The Intercollegiate Conference of Faculty Representatives (Big Ten) in 1895 was the beginning of inter-institutional faculty control over intercollegiate athletics. The movement for inter-institutional faculty control began in the early 1880s. In 1882 Princeton’s faculty created the first college faculty committee to control athletics which, from the first, had been student controlled. A year later Harvard’s faculty formed an athletic committee. Faculties had been reluctant to take control of athletics from students, but  as the number of contests and the time spent away from campus increased, faculties increasingly moved away from laissez faire positions to paternalistic ones. By 1900 nearly all colleges had created some type of athletic committee under full or partial faculty control. It was a relatively short step for the faculty of individual colleges to move toward inter-institutional control of athletics.

President Charles W. Eliot and his Harvard faculty took the first step toward interinstitutional control when Eliot wrote to other New England presidents on behalf of his faculty asking them to consider joint action concerning professionalism in college sport. There was no positive response, but a year later, in 1883, the Harvard Athletic Committee called a meeting to discuss the professionalism issue. This first gathering of faculty from eight institutions in New York City on December 28, 1883, predated the first conference of the Big Ten by eleven years and was twenty-two years to the day before the original meeting of the NCAA. Resolutions were drawn up and sent to twenty-one eastern institutions with the condition that when five colleges adopted them, they would be binding. Only Harvard and Princeton faculties adopted them, and the first attempt at inter-institutional control was unsuccessful.

Following the football season of 1886 President James McCosh of Princeton sent a circular to other eastern college presidents once again urging intercollegiate cooperation to eliminate athletic abuses. Yale, the dominant athletic school in America, was least interested in joint athletic control. When Yale refused to become involved in the McCosh attempt, the proposal died stillborn. More than a decade and the birth of the midwestern Big Ten Conference passed before another major effort to consider eastern inter-institutional faculty control would surface.

With charges of questionable ethics in athletics, increased professionalism in colleges, and the need for standardized rules, the idea of a permanent organization of colleges working cooperatively appeared again in the mid-1890s. Problems, especially in football and baseball, continued to plague student-controlled athletics. The concerns were numerous. Tramp athletes transferring with impunity from one college to another to participate in athletics, baseball players participating in summer resort leagues for pay, students participating in athletics without making normal progress toward a degree, the hiring of professional coaches, pre-season and summer practices, and the commercialization of athletics through large gate receipts were all prominent concerns. On February 18, 1898, a major conference at Brown University convened to discuss these concerns. All of the colleges of the present-day Ivy League, with the exception of Yale, sent a faculty member, an alumnus, and an undergraduate, but the work of the conference was accomplished by an all-faculty committee. The 1898 faculty committee Report on Intercollegiate Sports was a potent call for cooperative action to cure the evils of intercollegiate athletics.

The Brown Conference Committee Report asserted that colleges “are not engaged in making athletes. . . .” The faculty report indicated that colleges “should not seek perfection in our games, but, rather, good sport.” To bring about what the committee believed was a saner system of athletics, it proposed twenty rules for adoption by the various eastern colleges. Among the rules were insurances for faculty control, ensuring bona fide students, limiting eligibility to four years, restricting contests to home fields of the colleges, eliminating athletic scholarships and summer baseball for pay, and demanding faculty approval of all coaches, captains, and team managers. The proposed rules were never adopted en masse by eastern institutions. The Brown Conference suggestion that yearly conferences be held “to consider regulations and the proper development of the athletic sports” did not bear fruit at this time. The 1898 conference was unable to foist a British-like amateur sport ideal on a fiercely competitive, win-oriented system which had developed in American colleges.

From the 1880s when Princeton and Harvard formed athletic committees and the first attempts at inter-institutional control of athletics were made to the failure of the 1898 Brown Conference, university officials without great success were endeavoring to come to grips with the most visible extracurricular activity in colleges. Not until 1905 when a crisis in football occurred did colleges on a national level join together as they searched for order in athletic affairs.

 

Football as Social Entertainment

History is powerful! We can see the errors of our ways in past dealings. As well, it is possible to see that some of our current challenges were a thorn in the side to  leaders 100 years ago.

The following is taken from the North American Society for Sports History 1981 Proceedings. The one-page document, entitled “Football as Social Entertainment Comes to Oregon State University” was penned by Dr. Arnold W. Flath, professor at Oregon State University. Flath was nationally recognized for this thought- provoking study of sports and society.

With the 2012 college football season around the corner, Flath’s comments provide an interesting perspective on the sport, 30 years after it was written.

Football as Social Entertainment Comes to Oregon State University

Football on the campuses of American colleges and universities evolved from the British game of rugby and the playful American college student’s ball kicking games during the 1800’s. The game became popular over the objections and resistance of most college faculty members and college presidents. Intercollegiate football came to Oregon State University campus in 1893 with the enthusiastic support of Corvallis citizens, Oregon State University students and faculty, and University President J.M. Bloss. The newly installed President Bloss brought his administrative talent and the game of football to the Corvallis campus from Purdue University where he had previously served on the faculty.

Not only were the Corvallis fans introduced to intercollegiate football, they were treated with parades, social gatherings, and entertainment apart from the field. While other campuses may have seen football and intercollegiate athletics as “educational experiences”, the response of the Oregon State University students and the Corvallis townspeople to the events attending the games was all that was necessary for the establishment of football as social entertainment.

The football entertainment included parades through Corvallis to attract people to the game site on the campus, dinners for the competing teams in the homes of local social and political leaders, and “football entertainment and socials” held at the college chapel in the evening following the afternoon games. The entertainment opened with remarks by the competing college presidents, followed by musical solos, and magic lantern shows by popular faculty members with slides consisting of views of departmental work, college buildings, sketches of the football captain, and a portrait of the Oregon State University mascot, a well-known coyote. After the lantern exhibition, a general social time occurred, allowing many new friendships to be formed and old ones cultivated.

Although earlier Oregon State University presidents had balked at the introduction of intercollegiate athletics, the success of the 1893 football team and the success of the social entertainment attending the games set the tone for the role of intercollegiate athletics to the present. It was recognized “that athletic events have, and are, fulfilling some social need, or they would not be supported to the extent they have been and are being supported. We conclude that the principle benefit of intercollegiate athletics to the university community is a means of communicating with the general public. Accordingly, it is logical to evaluate the program primarily in terms of its contribution to university relations rather than in terms of the accomplishment of educational objectives. The administration of the program should reflect this fact” (Report to the President of Oregon State University from the Commission on University Goals. Corvallis, Oregon, August, 1970, pp. 150-151.)

Academic Arrogance – Take II

In 2010, the University of Colorado made a business decision to leave the Big 12 Athletic Conference and accept an invitation to join the PAC-12, a move that became official in July 2011. At the time, even the sharpest critics of CU Athletics expressed limited opposition to the move.

In their inaugural PAC-12 season the Buff athletes held their own on and off the field. In light of comments made by CU’s top brass last fall, it is fair to raise the question, “Have the CU administrators delivered the goods on the academic side?”

When CU and Nebraska jumped ship in 2010, other schools entered discussions about joining or starting new conferences. Those discussions included bringing other Big 12 schools into the PAC-12 and making it the PAC-16.

The Denver Post published an article, “CU President Leery of PAC-12 Adding More Teams”. The article stated…

University of Colorado president Bruce Benson said this morning he is wary of further Pac-12 expansion, particularly if Colorado is placed in an “East” division with former rivals from the Big 12 such as Oklahoma and Texas.

The real issue is money. Many Buff fans (and administrators) were tired of losing to the Sooners and Longhorns. The Buffs were in the same athletic conference as these schools, but they are in a much different league when it comes to funding athletics.

The same holds true on the academic side. What has CU done to improve the financial status of the university other than demand double digit tuition increases and beg for greater funding from the state legislature? Have they reduced academic programs that are not financially viable? Have they forced schools and colleges to become financially responsible? What is CU doing to produce better academic programs in a more efficient manner?

Later in the article Benson added…
One of the reasons – and there are a lot of reasons – we got in the Pac 12 is to play regularly on the West Coast,” Benson said. “When I hear things like East-West divisions, we’re going back to the Big 12 again. I don’t know who’s possibly going, but I sure don’t want to get shorted out of the West Coast.”

Benson is a sharp businessman and knows that CU has many wealthy alumni on the West Coast. Hopefully, they will feel a closer tie to CU because of the PAC-12 football and basketball games played in their backyard. Benson in counting on that presence to increase support and donations for the university.

How much additional funding from donors can be attributed to the Buffs being in the PAC-12? How many new partnerships with the private sector have been developed? How many new patents have resulted from the Buffs being in the PAC-12?

The Post article went on to say..
Benson and DiStefano always maintained a major reason for CU joining the Pac-12 was that the schools matched Colorado’s academic mission. While Oklahoma and Texas are on a par with CU academically, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State may not be. “I believe that we should have a robust academic atmosphere among all schools in the league,” Benson said. “What schools have cinch courses or gut courses? We don’t have any and never will. The Pac-12 doesn’t. Some Big 12 schools do.”

At best, Benson’s comments were arrogant.

His comments were made at a time when CU was ranked as the #1 party school in the U.S. by Playboy Magazine. In December 2011 CU received further “honors” by being named the druggiest college in the U.S. In 2012, rankings for Businessweek showed that the Leeds School of Business was ranked 92 out of 124 schools. The Leeds School was ranked in the bottom quadrant for its core business classes. The rankings showed that CU finished ahead of former Big 12 schools Kansas State, Kansas, and Nebraska and ahead of PAC-12 schools Oregon and Utah. (Note: 16 schools from the two conferences received ratings and 7 did not. The group of 7 schools without rankings included colleges that would be ranked above and below CU). In other words, the Leeds School is an academic bottom feeder.

In some areas it is debatable whether CU is worthy of being in the PAC-12 from an academic perspective.

It is time for the CU administration to put their money where their mouth is. It seems appropriate for Benson and DiStefano to revisit their comments of a year ago about “robust academic environments”, “cinch courses”, and “joining a conference that matches CU’s academic mission”.

What has CU done during the past year to benefit from being in the PAC 12? A fact-filled evaluation, sans the spin, would help increase the credibility of the CU system.

From an athletic perspective, the move to the PAC-12 has been a positive move for the Buffs… It is easy to measure their performance on the field, in the classroom, and in fund raising. Have facilities been improved? Have current teams received better support? Have new programs been added? Have existing initiatives been support (Read with the Buffs, Green Stampede-Zero Waste, etc.)

A similar evaluation should be made for academics. Over the past year have Benson and DiStefano taken steps to deliver the goods? How many cinch courses have they eliminated? What have they done to provide CU with a more robust academic environment? What have they done to ensure that CU meets the academic standards of the conference? The list goes on.

From an athletic perspective, has Mike Bohn’s department delivered the goods?

From an academic perspective, have Benson and DiStefano provided leadership to support the arrogance demonstrated a year ago?

 

Academic and Athletic Rankings – We’re #1

About 40 years ago, college and university administrators increased the level of their discussion about the relationship between academics and athletic programs. It became necessary to tie the two together because of the anti-establishment mindset and the general unrest associated with the Viet Nam war era. As well, a backlash developed towards athletes that was initiated in part by Dave Meggyesy’s book, Out of Their League.

Athletics were pitted against academics. Were athletics important to the mission of the school? Did they divert funds that could be spent in academic areas? Did they distract students from their book learning? “Enlightened” professors and anti-jock community members gravitated towards each other and spoke out in unison against college athletic programs.

The phrase “student-athlete” was coined out of these discussions. The expression drew attention to the fact that college athletes were also students.

Over the years, athletic program leaders have strengthened their message about the relationship between athletics and academics in an effort to appease naysayers. In addition, they have included the concept into their strategic planning.

This was particularly evident when the University of Colorado and the University of Utah were added to the PAC-10 to form the PAC-12. Commissioner Larry Scott and local CU officials touted the PAC-12 as a premier academic and athletic conference.

In the 2011 Academic Ranking of World Universities, there are 53 U.S. schools in the top 100, including a total of 26 schools are from the Ivy League, Big 10, and PAC-12. The only schools excluded from the top 100 rankings were: Dartmouth, Iowa, Nebraska, Oregon, Oregon State, and Washington State. (Is it any wonder Scott recently struck an alliance with the Big 10 to expand competition between the two leagues?)

The top 10 global academic universities are:

  • Harvard
  • Stanford
  • MIT
  • Cal – Berkeley
  • Cambridge
  • California Institute of Technology
  • Princeton
  • Columbia
  • Chicago
  • Oxford

The ranking system placed a strong emphasis on science and publications. The top 10 schools were separated by about 44 points; Harvard had 100 points compared to 56.4 for Oxford. The schools ranked between the 11th and 100th positions were assigned point values between 54.8 and 24.2.

The ranking of global MBA programs, by Financial Times, produced similar results. Of the 53 U.S. schools in the top 100, 20 were from the Ivy League, Big 10, and PAC-12. The following schools from these conferences were not included in the top 100: Brown, Princeton, Nebraska, Minnesota, Michigan State, Iowa, Arizona, Colorado, Utah, Oregon, Oregon State, and Washington State.

The top 10 global MBA programs are:

  • London Business School
  • University of Pennsylvania: Wharton
  • Harvard Business School
  • Stanford University GSB
  • INSEAD
  • Hong Kong UST Business School
  • Columbia Business School
  • IE Business School
  • IESE Business School
  • MIT Sloan School of Management

Global academic and MBA rankings don’t receive the same level of attention, scrutiny, and debate as the BCS rankings. The people most concerned with the ratings are prospective students and administrators who have to explain subpar ratings.

So, what is the significance of these rankings?

Realistically, academic and athletic rankings highlight the distinctive competencies of colleges and their conferences. In the above example, these rankings provide evidence that supports the Ivy League’s claims of academic prowess. Similarly, they confirm that the PAC-12 and BIG-10 are elite academic and athletic conferences.

Prospective students make decisions about which school to attend based on rankings. The alumni and university communities use them to establish bragging rights. Rankings are a tool used by school administrators to market their institutions, programs, and competitive advantages. Finally, rankings are used for fundraising, recruiting, and to justify the existence of academic and athletic programs.