The Closed-Mindedness of Academics?

Higher education is incredibly important part to innovation that will make the U.S. competitive in a global economy.. Professors are offered tenure because it allegedly protects free thinking, the creation of new ideas, and innovation.

The country’s higher education is assumed to be the country’s the hotbed of open-mindedness.

The leadership of our colleges and universities have demonstrated their “free-thinking” and open-mindedness in the management of college athletics. And it is very telling.

The Daily Camera published an article on September 26, 2011 entitled, “Oregon State President Opens up about PAC-12 Decision”. The league was considering a second expansion in less than a year to include 16 teams. The article stated…

“Oregon State President Edward Ray said he would personally take a look at anything that made sense, even though there was a strong sentiment among the PAC-12 schools that expansion wasn’t in the league’s immediate best interests.”

Ray is the chair of the PAC-12 CEO Executive Group, which includes leaders from each of the league’s schools, and is responsible for governance of the conference.  In the above statement he appears to be willing to consider various viewpoints.

Later in the article Ray was quoted, “But I know that some of my colleagues said, ‘You know what? I don’t care what any of the facts are, I don’t want anything to change.’ ”

What kind of statement does this make about the open-mindedness, priorities, and leadership of the country’s top ACADEMIC institutions. If this is the thought process for athletics, what is their thought process for for making big-league academic decisions?

 

Football Players Cluster to the Same Majors

Several weeks ago AP sports writer Paul Newberry penned an article published in the Daily Camera entitled, “College Athletes Cluster to Same Majors.” The AP research looked at the majors declared by football players at 68 universities which had received  automatic bids to the Bowl Championship Series. In short, Newberry indicated that football players favored majors in general studies and management.

It is common for groups of select students with similar interests to declare similar majors. For example members of the marching band are more likely to be music majors and members of certain sororities are likely to have a high concentration of students in business or communications.

In this case, clustering, as it is called occurs because football players seek majors that complement their practice and travel schedules. In many cases these majors may be less rigorous and require less time in the library. (Note: all research studies are careful not to refer to these as Mickey Mouse majors).

The AP study looked at sophomores, juniors, and seniors and did not include players who had not declared a major. Information was tallied from university media guides or websites, and information provided by the schools. The study found that clustering was prevalent at 39 of the 68 schools. The leaders in clustering are:

  • Georgia Tech            Management                                              43 players
  • Cincinnati                 Criminal Justice                                         40 players
  • Vanderbilt                 Human/Organizational Development  35 players
  • Wake Forest             Communications                                        34 players
  • Mississippi State     Kinesiology                                                  30 players
  • LSU                            Sports Administration                              28 players
  • UCLA                         History                                                         27 players
  • Baylor                        General Studies                                          27 players
  • Kansas                       Business                                                       25 players
  • Iowa                           Interdepartmental Studies                       21 players
  • Boston College         Communications                                        21 players
  • Clemson                    Sociology                                                      20 players

A review of other commentary on the topic shows the following:

  • Clustering is a common trend, more prevalent since the NCAA instituted the Academic Progress Rate. The APR was a mandate intended to force schools to have their athletes take classes that led to a degree that would lead to employment upon graduation.
  • Clustering varies between sports and schools.
  • Because school scan lose scholarships if APR numbers are not met, it is believed that counselors push athletes into less rigorous degrees.
  • It seems logical for athletic programs to recruit players to majors where players have had success in the past and it seems logical for athletic programs to promote those academic disciplines.
  • The NCAA claims that the APR program has increased graduation. While it is important for students and athletes to graduate, it is more important for them to receive an education that increases their chances of being hired.
  • The NCAA has conducted research that shows that about 80% of athletes are content with their majors.

Newberry’s research and the research of others illustrates how closely college athletic programs are being monitored in all aspects of their business.

Is clustering a problem? Probably not. Does clustering benefit the athletes? Possibly.

 

Golly Gee Whiz

Ohio State University president (and former CU president), Gordon Gee was criticized for comments he made about the teams from the Big Ten and SEC. Gee stated that these schools deserve to play in the BCS bowl games more than schools such as TCU because they play a ‘murderer’s row’ of opponents and we do not play the Little Sisters of the Poor.

The December 3, 2010 issue of the Daily Camera quoted Gee as reporting to the criticism by saying, “What do I know about college football? I look like Orville Redenbacher. I have no business talking about college football.”

At least Gee has a sense of humor.

Has Gee, forgotten that over the past 15 years college and university presidents have taken greater control over the NCAA?

At least he didn’t belittle the academic programs of the schools that play the Little Sisters of the Poor (as was done by University of Colorado President Bruce Benson).

Golly Gee whiz.

The Arrogance of Academics?

College athletics is big business – and that is okay. In 2010, the University of Colorado made a business decision to accept an invitation to join the PAC-12, an invitation they had rescinded years earlier. Most fan and critics believe Buff leaders made a judicious choice when it decided to switch conferences.

CU officials justified their decision, in part, by claiming that their academic mission aligned more closely with the schools in the PAC-12 than the Big 12. This discussion makes a nice sound bite that may appease Boulder residents who do not fully appreciate the contribution of the university and CU athletics to their community.

In fact, CU’s claim of academic prowess can be challenged. Boulder’s engineering school and Denver’s medical school are world class. Unfortunately, CU does not distinguish itself in most other areas.

The bottom line is the Buffs had to jump ship if they wanted to retain a “respectable” athletic program. The times they are a changing.

College football appears to be heading towards fewer, but stronger super conferences, i.e. a different structure intended to generate more revenue for the country’s elite programs. CU has a wonderful football tradition, but CU is not one of the country’s top funded programs. Unfortunately, the lack of adequate support makes it unclear whether CU can be is one of the country’s elite programs moving forward.

The switch to the PAC 12 will provide Buff leaders with an opportunity to generate more revenue for their athletic department. There are more CU alumni and major corporations on the West Coast than in Stillwater, Waco, and Lubbock.

On September 6, 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.

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.”

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.”

Wouldn’t it have been more appropriate for Benson to make some of these comments in private, rather than to the Denver media?

As a newcomer to the conference, does Benson really think he can influence decisions by making public statements about getting shorted out of the West Coast?

What entitles Bruce Benson to use ATHLETICS, specifically the PAC-12 Conference, as a bully pulpit for belittling the quality of learning in the schools of the Big 12? Shouldn’t he be more focused on making sure the CU campuses are the best they can be?

Arrogant or not?

Contenders or Pretenders – What is University’s Actual Goal?

The Boulder Daily Camera has always had top-notch sports writers. On Friday August 21, 2009 Neill Woelk wrote a timeless article entitled “CU must decide if ‘competitive’ is actual goal.”

Woelk’s focus was on the University of Colorado Athletic Department; however, his commentary applies to the academic side of the university as well. In fact, Woelk’s editorial makes the case that higher education is a tough business. Although he doesn’t say it, many colleges and universities have encountered challenges similar to those facing CU.

A lot has changed since Woelk penned his column in 2009 – CU has new coaches in its marquee sports and a new practice facility for basketball and volleyball. As well, the Buffs are now part of the PAC-12, and Commissioner Larry Scott has aggressive plans for the conference – and CU.

Despite these and other changes, the basic question is still pertinent – CU must decide if it really wants to be competitive (in athletics and academics). If competitiveness is their choice, they must find a way to finance that decision.

Woelk’s comments from 2009 follow:

It seems that every few years, the question arises concerning the University of Colorado and its athletic department.  What exactly, are the expectations that should be associated with CU’s programs?

It’s pertinent again today because the upcoming year might just be one of the most important in years for CU’s athletic department.

Important because CU’s fortunes in the “marquee” sports-football and men’s and women’s basketball-have been less than productive in the win-loss column in recent years. Important because a positive step forward by each of those programs is vital to the long-term viability of not only each individual program, but vital to the overall success of the entire department.

And, important because it’s time for the school-not just the athletic department, but the entire administration – to decide whether the Buffs should actually compete in the Big 12 or simply be merely a member of the conference with no expectations attached.

By no means is this the first time such a question has been asked. Fact is, it’s been an issue at CU for decades, and the answer has ebbed and flowed as administrations have come and gone.

It’s no secret that the zenith of Colorado’s athletic successes coincided with the presidency of Gordon Gee (now the president at Ohio State). Gee and then-athletic director Bill Marolt built a foundation for success at CU that set the stage for Bill McCartney’s 1990 national championship team, the opening of the Dal Ward Center in 1991 and what turned out to be maybe the most successful overall stretch ever for CU athletics in the ensuing half-dozen years.

That stretch also set the stage for CU to earn a seat on the national stage across the board. While some members of academia – not all, but some-are loath to admit it, successful athletic programs benefit a school in myriad ways. The marketing potential of successful athletics can’t be over-stated, and CU reaped the benefits in the ’90s.

(If you need to see the correlation between athletics and top-ranked public institutions, check any of the annual lists compiled by a variety of magazines. The top 20 always includes such schools as Virginia, Cal, North Carolina, Washington, Illinois, Utah, Texas, and Florida. Those same schools, of course, all boast successful athletic programs.)

It’s also no secret that when Gee left in 1990, CU’s ability to excel on the field began to slowly erode. McCartney had recruited well enough to keep CU nationally competitive for the ensuing six seasons, but support from the administration was never the same. The result was that maintaining competitive facilities became more difficult, as did the ability to attract the athletes necessary to compete in one of the nation’s most competitive conferences. By the end of the decade, CU had slipped significantly.

Gee’s departure is one of the reasons McCartney finally left in 1994, when support from the administration waned. It’s also one of the reasons Marolt followed suit just a couple of years later, and that lack of support is at least in part behind Rick Neuheisel’s departure after the 1998 football season.

And, it’s one of the reasons CU’s fortunes have since see-sawed, with the successes of the 1900s becoming more and more a memory rather than a constant.

How do administrations play a role in athletic success?

In the case of schools such as Colorado, it means making the playing field relatively level, wherever possible.

Clearly, CU will never compete on a financial basis with schools such as Texas, Nebraska, Michigan, etc. Those schools are economic heavyweights, with the booster dollars to provide whatever is necessary to facilitate success.

But CU can make sure its athletic programs are not hamstrung in other areas, such as academic admissions, necessary facilities, and the day-to-day process of doing business.

Check out CSU’s latest football press guide. In glossy color, it boasts of a $13 million indoor practice facility and a $7 million academic and training center. It’s by no means a Taj Mahal, but it keeps CSU competitive in its conference.

CU can make no such claims in the Big 12.

It terms of admission, I’ve never, ever advocated that CU accept the NCAA’s bare minimum standards. CU should be proud of its academic excellence. No shortcuts allowed.

But there are also cases in which some student athletes are on the cusp and are turned away. That’s not wise. Exceptions can and should be made. It was standard practice under Gee, and the university certainly seemed no worse for the wear.

By no means should Colorado compromise or taint the quality of its reputation.

But if CU officials – and fans and donors and students – do indeed want Colorado to actually compete in the Big 12, the administration should make that clear. Colorado should never hide behind the facade of claiming to be a productive member of one of the nation’s premier conferences if that isn’t actually the case.

Instead, CU administrators should consider another conference, because in the Big 12, the majority of schools see being competitive as a positive experience rather than a burden.

 

Alumni Role in Higher Education – Athletics and Academics

Right or wrong, alumni play a role in who coaches the football team at their alma mater. College athletics is big business and athletic directors are constantly challenged to increase donations and fill the seats in their football stadiums and basketball arenas. The easiest way to do that is with a winning team.

The December 29, 2009 issue of the Daily Camera provided a humorous quote about this topic. It stated…

Urban Meyer will be taking a leave as Florida football coach, some 34 years after Jim Sweeny resigned at Washington State.

Both cited health reasons, but the underlying causes were as dissimilar as their records of 56-10 and 26-59-1.

Meyer suffers from persistent headaches, triggered by stress, rage, and excitement.

Sweeney’s health issue, “The alumni were sick of me.”

Sweeney’s quip raises a number of more serious questions:

• How should the big business of college athletics be funded? State tax dollars? Tuition? Higher ticket prices? Professional sports leagues who use college sports as a farm system? Increased student fees? Increased donations from alumni and corporations?

• Are players adequately paid for their contribution to the big business of college athletics? How much will the cost of programs increase if college athletes are compensated for playing?

• How much say should major donors have in the management and operation of athletic programs? (As funding for colleges and universities dries up this is an even greater issue on the academic side – Athletics has led the way in this regard.)