View in portable document format.
Jump to Executive Summary
Jump to A Framework for Comprehensive Athletics Reform

2753


DOCUMENTS OF THE GENERAL FACULTY

THE COALITION ON INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS
(COIA)

October 30, 2003

Dear Big-12 Colleagues:

The AAUP Governance Conference in Indianapolis earlier this month was devoted to intercollegiate athletics reform. The Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics (COIA) took part in the conference, where representatives of more than fifty schools participated in our work-sessions. This letter is in response to those discussions.

The COIA was formed last year through the cooperative efforts of over fifty faculty senate leaders from NCAA Division I-A schools; we hope that faculty leadership at all Division I-A schools will become participants. The Coalition is one of several groups working together for long-range, comprehensive reforms in intercollegiate athletics. In particular, it seeks to represent the faculty voice in the national debate over the future of college sports. Its goals are set forth in its “Framework for Comprehensive Athletics Reform.” This document and further information about the Coalition are available on our website (note the new URL):

http://www.math.umd.edu/~jmc/COIA/

The Coalition works with the leadership of other stakeholder groups interested in athletics reform, including the NCAA, the AGB (Association of Governing Boards, representing trustees and regents), and the AAUP. All these groups took part in the Indianapolis conference. One result of our discussions is an improved Framework document, attached to this letter. Note that in response to Coalition feedback, a provision calling for the restriction of sports seasons to a single academic term has been removed. The Framework is a working document, open to such revisions by the Coalition membership.

It is our hope that each faculty/university senate/council in Division I-A will pass a resolution endorsing the Framework during the current academic year. As the Framework itself indicates, senate endorsement does not imply acceptance of the Framework in all its details. Local circumstances vary, and a senate may need to modify it in certain respects. We appreciate feedback about any such adaptations. A number of faculty senates have endorsed the Framework this term; their support has strengthened our ability to engage other stakeholder groups.

Senate leadership typically changes every year. In addition to endorsement of the Framework, therefore, we ask you to designate a faculty member as an ongoing liaison to the Coalition, and advise us of his or her e-mail address.

Member institutions will be consulted about and kept informed of Coalition reform initiatives, including “best-practices” recommendations. Two best-practices documents were forged in our work-sessions in Indianapolis, both dealing with governance structures for faculty oversight of athletics. They will be circulated soon, and senates are urged to consider their adaptability to the local situation.


Thank you very much,


The COIA Steering Committee:
Bob Eno, past Senate President, Indiana Univ., Bloomington (co-chair)
Jim Earl, past Senate President, Univ. of Oregon (co-chair)
Joel Cohen, Senate Chair, Univ. of Maryland
Phil DiStefano, Faculty Athletics Rep., Univ. of Colorado, Boulder
Gary Engstrand, Secretary to the Faculty, Univ. of Minnesota


2754


Michael Granof, past Faculty Council Chair, Univ. of Texas
Ed Lawry, Faculty Council Chair, Oklahoma St. Univ.
John Nicols, past Senate Chair, Penn. State Univ.
Curt Rom, Senate Chair, Univ. of Arkansas
Ginny Shepherd, past Senate Chair, Vanderbilt Univ.
Kathleen Smith, Faculty Athletics Rep., Duke Univ.
Mike Wasylenko, Faculty Athletics Rep., Syracuse Univ.





2755
Return

DOCUMENTS OF THE GENERAL FACULTY

Coalition On Intercollegiate Athletics (COIA), August 2003

Executive Summary

Reform of intercollegiate athletics is an urgent priority. Successful reform will require a broad consensus and a comprehensive approach. Some issues may be resolved quickly, others may require much more time, but national agreement on a comprehensive plan in the near future is essential to accomplish meaningful reform; the piecemeal approach has not succeeded. The COIA Framework, aimed at Division I-A, outlines essential features such a plan should include, and calls for the NCAA and national academic constituencies to develop detailed, appropriately flexible strategies for implementation. The goal of reform is not negative; it is to bring out the positive aspects of intercollegiate athletics, which contribute to the personal development of athletes and enhance college life on campus and off.

Academic Integrity. Colleges should admit only students with realistic prospects of graduation. Admissions practices should confirm that high schools must prepare athletes to meet such standards. Continuing eligibility standards should ensure that only academically engaged students compete in athletics. Faculty must take responsibility to ensure academic integrity in all programs. Athletics advisors must be closely integrated with academic advising to ensure prioritization of academic goals and integrity.

Athlete Welfare. The design and enforcement of limits on athlete participation in non-academic activities must be improved; assessment of coaches must reflect commitment to athletes’ academic opportunities. Optimal season schedules for each sport should be designed and adopted, limiting competition in each sport to a single term. The terms and bases of scholarships should be reexamined so as to support student academics, and athletes should be fully integrated into campus life.

Governance. Shared oversight of athletics between governing boards, administrations, and faculty should involve clear communication and complementary responsibilities. Best-practice designs for the interaction of faculty athletics representatives, campus athletics committees, and faculty governance should be designed nationally, and adapted locally. Uniform reporting standards for athletics budgets should be established, to provide more financial transparency. Stable athletics conferences should support the linkage of athletics and academics, and become the basis for intercollegiate relationships beyond athletics competitions and finances.

Finances. The link between winning and financial solvency undermines the values of college sports and contributes to the athletics arms race. Broadened revenue sharing, and limits on budgets and capital expenditures should be implemented. Amateur goals appropriate to each sport should determine standards of expectations. Cost cutting in the areas of scholarships, squad size, season length, and recruitment should be explored.

Over-commercialization. Excesses in marketing college sports impair institutional control and contribute to public misperception of the nature and purpose of higher education. Schools must step back from over-commercialization by cutting costs and setting clear standards of institutional control and public presentation of college sports.


2756
Return

DOCUMENTS OF THE GENERAL FACULTY

A Framework for Comprehensive Athletics Reform

Full Text

Recommended by the COIA Steering Committee, October 2003

The need for reform of intercollegiate athletics is serious an?d requires immediate action. The problems are not new, but they are worsening. During the 1990s, universities and the NCAA responded to the 1989 Knight Commission report, yet in 2000 the Commission concluded that intercollegiate athletics was more troubled than ever. The Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics (COIA), a national network of Division I-A faculty leaders, believes that reform requires a comprehensive approach that addresses five issues: (1) academic integrity, (2) athlete welfare, (3) governance of athletics at the school and conference level, (4) finances, and (5) commercialization. Some of these issues may be resolved quickly, but others may require as much as a decade. With a comprehensive plan, however, we can avoid the ineffectiveness of the piecemeal approach of the 1990s. The present document reflects a consensus within the COIA; not every faculty leader associated with the Coalition will agree with all points. It is our hope that in conversation with other groups and individuals-such as the NCAA, the Association of Governing Boards (AGB), the AAUP, and university presidents-it can contribute to a plan of action for the coming decade. The Coalition encourages efforts to compile and analyze relevant data, and remains open to rethinking its positions as information becomes available.

There is wide diversity among college sports. While some issues may be of general concern, others may pertain very differently to team and individual sports, or to sports where the highest levels of competition are professional or amateur. A document as brief as this cannot attempt comprehensiveness. The process of reform we envision would appropriately adapt to each sport the general approaches we advocate. While some aspects of reform can and should be carried out immediately, others may involve complex solutions and significant lead time. The goal of the Coalition is to work with all groups over the next two years to develop a comprehensive plan that can be practically implemented as a series of scheduled steps.

The goal of reform is not negative; it is to bring out the positive aspects of intercollegiate athletics, which contributes to the personal development of athletes, connects schools to their alumni and communities, and enhances life on campus and off.

I.
Issues of Academic Integrity
1. Initial eligibility and admissions. In football and men's basketball especially, many athletes are academically under-prepared, and have such heavy commitments to sports that they have little or no prospect of graduation. Students should not be enrolled if they do not have reasonable prospects of graduation. The Coalition supports the NCAA's initiative to raise initial eligibility standards through strengthening core course requirements, and supports the proposal to increase this requirement to 16 courses within five years. The NCAA's sliding scale of GPA and SAT/ACT scores has significantly increased reliance on high school grades. Universities should be required to inform high schools of the academic success rates of their graduates by sport, so that they can assess whether graduating athletes are really prepared to succeed academically. Admissions decisions regarding athletes with scores below institutional standards should involve academic review procedures no less rigorous than apply to other types of students; faculty review is recommended.

2. Continuing eligibility. The COIA supports the NCAA's recent strengthening of continuing eligibility standards, and its incentives/disincentives proposal. Exceptional cases may occur with regard to both GPA and progress-towards-degree requirements; appeals in such cases should involve faculty and NCAA review.

3. Grading and program integrity. At some schools athletes are given preferential treatment to


2757


 
  ensure continuing eligibility, either through academically unchallenging programs or differential grading practices. Such practices can only be addressed at the institutional level. Faculty at all schools should be provided with data concerning the majors and academic performance of all athletes, disaggregated to the highest degree permitted by law and distinguished by sport; procedures should be developed that allow faculty to determine there are no pressures to lower academic standards, and that permit abuses to be easily reported.

4. Academic advising and related services. Because athletes have such heavy burdens on their time, schools typically provide them enhanced support. Advising programs supervised through the Athletics Departments are a common source of academic violations. COIA recommends that Athletics Department advisors be appointed in the regular campus advising system, report through the academic advising structure, and be assessed by an academic-side review.

II.
Issues of Athlete Welfare

1. The 20-hour rule. The NCAA places a 20-hour weekly maximum on in-season non-academic athletics activities to ensure that athletes can give adequate time to academics. Athletics departments must not permit coaches to schedule explicitly or implicitly mandatory training beyond the limit. Athletes often wish to devote more time to training individually, and this is their prerogative, but coaches and advisors should discourage it when it appears to interfere with academics. The Coalition supports efforts underway among NCAA Faculty Athletics Representatives (FARs) to develop better methods for enforcing the limit. Not only training, but all explicitly or implicitly required activities should be considered part of the 20-hour limit. Schools should empower Athletics Governance Committees to develop principles for training schedules and to monitor compliance. Evaluation of coaches should include their compliance with training limits, and encouragement of a balanced approach to academic and athletic needs. Athletics conferences should consider training-limit violations an infringement on conference rules, and review practices at member schools.

2. Schedules for competition. Schedules should provide an adequate competitive season with the least possible interference with the academic needs of athletes. In recent years, seasons in many sports have grown in length and number of competitions; no further expansion should be adopted, and efforts should be made to reduce season schedules. The Coalition recommends that the NCAA and FARs lead an effort to develop and adopt optimal scheduling principles for each sport. Certain principles should apply generally: weeknight competitions during the regular season should generally be eliminated; seasons must be designed to minimize travel. In this same spirit, spring football practice should be curtailed and closely monitored.

3. Scholarships. No athlete should feel the need to shortchange academic commitment in order to retain scholarship support. Scholarship support should never be terminated for a student who has demonstrated effort in athletics, who wishes to continue in athletics, and who has met standards of academic and personal conduct. Lengthening the term of athletes' scholarships should be explored.

4. Integration in campus life. Athletes on campus are students first, and should have the opportunity to participate fully in campus life. They should not be segregated in their own dormitories. They should participate in normal orientation activities. Athletic advisors should make athletes aware of the full range of campus opportunities available to them. They should help them coordinate major requirements and the demands of athletics. No athlete should be discouraged from pursuing a major because of athletics.

5. Professionalization. Athletics departments should make their goal the development of well-rounded students. While coaches work to win, those who win at the cost of the balanced development of their athletes should not be rewarded or retained. The NCAA, through the work of FARs, athletics directors, and coaches, should develop 'best-practice' criteria for the evaluation of coaches and other athletics staff, to reward excellence that conforms with the best amateur


2758


 
  ideals, rather than the standards of professional sports.

III.
Governance Issues

The ultimate authority for athletics governance must lie with university presidents. Athletics programs must enhance the academic mission. For presidents to be effective in aligning athletics with the academic mission, they must have the backing of governing boards and effective input from faculty. Our focus here is on the faculty role.

1. Faculty Athletics Representatives. The effectiveness of the FAR is central to athletics governance. The appointment and evaluation of the FAR must be credible to administration and faculty, and the FAR must be supported with funds, release time, and authority. Guidelines designed to assess FAR offices have been developed at PennState University. The Coalition proposes these be used to develop a 'best-practice' model for other schools during 2003-04. Individual schools must be responsible for the effectiveness of the FAR office, but NCAA review should be part of a best-practices model.

2. Athletics Governance Committee. An Athletics Governance Committee should exist on every campus, bringing faculty (including the FAR), administrators, and students together to oversee intercollegiate athletics. It should be the chief policy-setting organ for athletics programs, and should review special admissions, major personnel decisions and reviews, and assessment of budgets and financial performance. The constitution, appointment and authority of the committee must ensure credibility. The Coalition proposes that Penn State Guidelines be used in this case too, as the basis for a best-practices model.

3. Faculty senates. Faculty senates or their executive committees should receive detailed reports on campus sports programs at least annually from the FAR and Athletics Governance Committee, including academic performance of athletes, program budgets, and NCAA infractions. Faculty senates should be involved in the appointment of both the FAR and faculty members of the Athletics Governance Committee. A best-practices model should be developed for faculty senates in these regards.

4. Financial reporting principles. Uniform reporting standards for athletics budgets should be established, to allow the development of common guidelines and practices, and to provide more transparency in how colleges and universities account for revenues and expenses. At most schools, athletics program expenses exceed revenues and require funds from the academic side or the assessment of student fees. These should be determined through an open governance process, in which governing boards, administration, and faculty participate.

5. The role of conferences. Conferences enhance the role of athletics by creating traditions of rivalry central to school identity, and alumni and community loyalty. As a level of athletics governance, the conference can create or influence policies concerning academic standards, athlete welfare, limits of program scale, and so forth. The conference has its fullest effect when its members share regional identity, academic standards and goals, or longstanding common traditions. Lasting reform of college sports requires stable conference structures that represent academic rather than simply financial relationships. Conferences that also serve as academic consortia, such as the Big Ten, and recent initiatives by faculty leaders in the SEC to create structures of conference-wide faculty governance to complement and monitor athletics relationships, are models of the direction the Coalition believes conferences should take. Coalition partners such as the AGB and the AAUP can play a role in promoting models for intercollegiate relationships, but ultimately, university presidents and conference commissioners must set long-term conference goals beyond athletic revenues.

IV.
Financial Issues

The rising costs of athletics programs place a strain on schools at a time of budget scarcity, and


2759


  attempts to solve this problem through increased commercialization can lead to an impairment of institutional control over athletics, increased financial commitments (e.g., facilities), and violations of taste that can alienate donors. Reform in this area is likely to take longer than in the others, because of the complexity of the issues. However, so many problems can be traced to issues of cost and commercialization that no reforms will be effective unless these are successfully addressed. Gradual but firmly scheduled changes pertaining to cost and commercialization must accompany the more rapid implementation of reforms in the areas of academics, welfare, and governance.

1. Winning and revenues. Winning is the goal of athletes and coaches, and programs appropriately promote winning. In the revenue sports, winning is also generally viewed as essential to financial health. However, to the degree that financial success is tied to winning, intercollegiate athletics cannot be healthy on the national level: not only do half of all competitors lose,but the emphasis on post-season tournaments and national championships raises the bar and increases the number of programs that fall short. The link between winning and financial success induces programs to invest in sports with the goal of financial returns, and drives a competitive cost spiral. The Coalition supports increased revenue-sharing (beyond the participants in events) to minimize revenue-driven incentives for winning. To the degree allowable under federal anti-trust laws, conferences should also seek to control expenses and capital investment, to create as level a playing field as possible. Increasing revenue-sharing and limiting expenses may disadvantage programs that are currently most successful financially; developing a plan that buffers these effects during the period of reform is necessary and will take time.

2. Professional standards and costs. Increased media attention and rising expectations among fans have led to the application of professional standards to college sports, including increasingly sophisticated equipment, facilities and specialized coaching staffs. Training for professional sports careers is not a goal of intercollegiate athletics, nor does it benefit the vast majority of college athletes; higher education gains nothing from serving as a minor league for professional sports. Conferences should establish standards for equipment, facilities, and coaching staffs appropriate to amateur competition, and restrain excesses as violations.

3. Other cost reduction possibilities.

a. Scholarships. The present number of athletic scholarships may be too high, and should be reviewed for each sport, with the goal of fostering amateurism and reducing the impact of commercial expectations. Scholarships based on need should be considered as an alternative to the current system, consistent with the concerns raised in the earlier discussion of scholarships and athlete welfare.

b. Football squad sizes. The size of football squads should be reassessed.

c. Season length and design. Shortening seasons (and post-seasons) is justified on student welfare grounds and would also cut costs. Schedules should be designed to emphasize conference play, reducing travel costs.

d. Off-campus recruitment. Off-campus recruitment by coaches places a heavy demand on coaches' time, requiring more staff, and it encourages students' self-identification as athletes rather than students. This costly competition for prospects provides no net gain for higher education, and rewards coaches for success as recruiters, rather than for adding value as teachers, mentors, and coaches. The Coalition recommends exploring limitations on off-campus recruitment.

V.
Over-commercialization

Televising games can deepen the loyalties of nationally dispersed alumni and raise public awareness of higher education. However, the marketing of intercollegiate athletics impairs institutional control, and may undermine support for academics. It may link universities to products and corporate sponsors that


2760


  present conflicts with institutional values; may impair institutional control over scheduling and contracts; and may lead to misjudgments of taste that damage public perception of higher education. 'Name recognition' and 'fan loyalty' based on televised sports has not been demonstrated to contribute to the academic mission, and is costly and unproductive for American higher education; it contributes to a misperception by young people and parents of the nature and purpose of higher education, and reinforces an emphasis on athletics over academics in high schools. Moreover, college programs increasingly emulate features of professional sports, raising costs that eliminate revenue gains. Stepping back from over-commercialization entails cost-cutting and the articulation by presidents and conferences of firm standards of presentation and control.




Posted on the Faculty Council Web site on November 5, 2003. Paper copies are available on request from the Office of the General Faculty, FAC 22, F9500.