View in portable document format.



COIA founded in 2002; 56 Div 1A University Senates; M. Granof former UT rep.

cooperate with the Faculty Athletics Representatives Association, the Drake Group

Go to:

5 of 12 Big XII schools: Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma State and UT Austin

—now working with the Curley Center for Sports Journalism to evaluate the integration of athletics into the academic mission of every member institution
— Correlation of academic and athletic rankings
— Public statements
— COIA works with the NCAA, Faculty Athletics Representatives Association (FARA), Division 1A athletics directors (D1A Ads), the National Association of Academic Advisors for Athletics (N4A), the Knight Commission, the AAUP, the Drake Group.
— Membership drive

Formal COIA policy papers in full or summary form (pdf or html) are at:

A sample of public debate on the issues addressed can be found at:

Shorter commentaries, arranged by subject categories, including formal responses:

UT issues:

Using the rules, guidelines and customary practices of the NCAA, UT Austin and the UT system, Men’s and Women’s NCAA Programs at UT Austin are well-run and models of transparency.

BUT As trendsetters, UT Austin has a responsibility that we go beyond ‘following the letter of the law’, follow our institutional motto: what starts here changes the world.

ACADEMICS: professional sports not an option for most athlete students. NCAA percentages turning pro: Men’s Basketball 1.2% Women’s Basketball 1.0% Football 1.8%

NCAA Measurement Guidelines APR Can and should we do better?

NCAA issues: clustering of majors among student athletes and their ‘majoring in eligibility’

6-year graduation rates, especially among African-American athletes, satisfactory point total of APR (925) worked out roughly to a 50% graduation rate

APR has very low GPA standards 2nd year 1.8, 3rd year 1.9, 4th year 2.0 UT average GPA for all students MEN 3.05 WOMEN 3.18 TOTAL 3.12

APR leaves student athletes with 80% (96 hours) of degree done at end of 4 years

CLUSTERING IN COURSES AND MAJORS at UT Austin: 42% of all male student-athletes (2007 MAC report) majored in Education, 21% in Liberal Arts, 16% in Communications.

HOURS SPENT ON ATHLETICS: The NCAA survey 2008: "Major-college football players reported spending an average 44.8 hours a week practicing, playing, or training for their sport.”

NEGATIVE NATIONAL PRESS: UT a BCS academic ‘bottom-feeder’ two years running

NATIONAL ARTICLE “BCS teams flunk off the gridiron.” Chicago Tribune 12/21/09

“This year, it was Oklahoma and Texas fans battling it out for the right to play in the Big 12 and National Championship games. Texas fans were devastated when they lost the rankings fight.

But the real tragedy for this team is that only 40 percent of its players, and only 27 percent of its black players, will graduate. Texas' football players put the school on the national stage. And what do they get in return? Besides the precious few that will make it to the NFL, most will leave school without a degree and with few career prospects.” NATIONAL NY Times story on December 26, 2008

NATIONAL NY Times story on December 26, 2008

put a spotlight on UT’s failure to ‘emphasize academics’ to a nationally coveted recruit. He chose OU. The story also reported that said recruit attended a party held by UT boosters during OU-UT game weekend that featured copious drugs, alcohol and ‘freaky sex’. This obviously was not an official UT-sponsored event, but we surely bear some responsibility for creating this kind of tailgating and ‘Tailhook’ mentality. And, like it or not, this is the picture of UT that is out there, thanks to our big-time sports program.

ADMISSIONS STANDARDS, RECRUITING, ACADEMIC ACCOMPLISHMENT: NATIONAL STORY Atlanta Journal-Constitution: UT Austin had a very large gap in SAT scores between regular students and the student athletes whom UT recruits and admits.


At UT Austin the average SAT 2003-2005 for all male students was 1265, for male athletes 1029 (236-point diff.), for football 948 (317-point diff.) (3.20 GPA) and for male basketball 797 (468-point diff.) (3.23 GPA).

At University of Oklahoma: SAT for all male students was 1180, for male athletes 981 (199-point diff.), for football it was 920 (260-point diff.) (3.00 GPA) and for male basketball 869 (311-point dif.) (2.77 GPA).

How are GPA results attained? FAIRNESS ISSUE.


UT's ca. $125-million athletics budget = $244,000 per athlete per year (ca. 511 athlete-students). If the athletics and academic budgets at UT were combined, the sports budget would be about 7% of the total. This is being used on 1% of the student body. Institutional budget works out to ca. $34,000 per student; student-related expenditures is $11,344 for each student.

By contrast, for 2006, according to Fred Heath, we spent $41.6 Million in total library expenditures and $16.0 million on library materials for our 50,000-plus students and our 2,300 FTE faculty (3700 teaching staff).

Most current NCAA stat: 17 of 119 D 1A programs ‘make money’. Avg. deficit 2006 $8.9 million annually for 99 schools. Is this responsible decision-making by institutions?

What responsibility do we have in our role as the Joneses? Our new $900,000 per year salary to an assistant football coach (head-coach apparent) copycatted at University of Oregon assistant with like designation at $7 million over 5 years.

For recent developments at the University of Oregon and even right down the road at UT San Antonio, see:


1. It would be good in the future for the yearly reports of the Men’s and Women’s Athletics Councils to have separate academic statistics complied for scholarship vs. non-scholarship athletes.

2. It would also be good to have reports not just on colleges in which the students are majoring, but on the specific majors they choose.

3. May we also have for each sport a rundown of the top-ten athlete-enrolled courses?

4. Since the concern for athletes who do not graduate after 6 years is persistent, may we ask that UT athletics undertake what many academic departments have had to undertake: a report on what former participants in their programs end up doing? Nathan Tublitz, having reviewed our student-athlete academic profile, proposes:

1) Recruit and admit only those student athletes who are capable of doing college work on their own at UT (without the plethora of tutors, advisors and minders to help them);

2) Require student athletes maintain a cumulative 2.5 GPA or higher in order to remain on scholarship and athletically eligible (this is not unlike other campus scholarships which have a minimum GPA requirement).


1. As a top program, besides winning, what do we do better than other schools for our student-athletes?

2. What areas at UT Austin are most in need of further improvement?