College athletics has roots in the Ivy League, but in the 160 years since the first intercollegiate rowing competition between Harvard and Yale, its scope has far exceeded expectations. Brown and the other Ivy League institutions maintain varsity sports teams, but the prohibition of athletic scholarships and the commitment to high academic standards have ensured athletics’ power within the University is not excessive. But at other institutions, big-time sports have expanded into a billion-dollar industry that threatens to control University governance.
This fact has been emphasized in the past five years in the wake of several scandals. Just last week, it was revealed that Robert Barchi, president of Rutgers University, had been aware of a tape filmed months ago that displayed abusive behavior by Mike Rice, former coach of the Scarlet Knights basketball team — but Barchi did not fire Rice until the tape went public. This incident, along with other similar scandals such as those at Ohio State University and Penn State University, demonstrates the extent to which big-time athletics have distorted administrative priorities at some institutions, ultimately harming the supposed benefactors of this industry — the students.
Universities justify the millions spent on athletic facilities and coaches’ salaries with the claim that revenue from teams, most often football, benefits the institutions as a whole. But relatively few programs, even those playing at the highest level, are actually profitable. According to the Wall Street Journal, only 23 of the 120 programs in the top division of college football made a profit in 2011. Similarly, an NCAA analysis published in the Chronicle of Higher Education noted that only 14 athletic departments in the nation are truly self-sustaining — the remainder supplement their costs with student fees and institutional funds. If these athletic programs are not as beneficial as is widely believed, we must question why they are allowed to command so much money and exert so much influence.
Students who compete in Divisions I and II, with the exception of those at Ivies, are often given full scholarships. This money enables many to pursue college degrees, but while institutions, coaches and the NCAA make millions through licensing deals, students do not see one cent. This disparity would prove less stark if all the players were on paths to the multi-million dollar professional contracts believed to result from playing at this level. But only 1 percent of NCAA basketball players and 2 percent of NCAA football players are drafted by professional teams, and only some of these lucky few succeed on the professional level.
These figures might surprise the athletes themselves — in a 2010 NCAA survey, 76 percent of the male basketball players questioned said they considered themselves at least “somewhat likely” to continue to the NBA. Students who do not go on to play professionally are theoretically able to fall back on their academic pursuits, but athlete graduation rates in these divisions are often significantly lower. In 2011, the College Sport Research Institute at UNC-Chapel Hill studied graduation rates from 2000 to 2003 in the prestigious Pac-12 and Big Ten Conferences and found that graduation rates for football players in the two leagues were 26 and 21 percent lower, respectively, than those for non-athlete male students. Further, recent research suggests that neurological effects of injuries obtained in college football can have lifelong monetary and health consequences.
Though the NCAA relies on classifying its athletes as “amateurs” to prevent them from receiving payment, it is clear that students whose talents fuel a billion-dollar industry are not “amateur” at all and should not be treated as such. College sports have grown to the extent that they may supersede the institutions they supposedly represent, and lost among all of the glamor and glory is the well-being of the athletes themselves. In light of all of the recent controversies, major collegiate sports programs would be advised to step back and consider whether they have lost their focus.
Editorials are written by The Herald’s editorial page board: its editor, Dan Jeon, and its members, Mintaka Angell, Samuel Choi, Nicholas Morley and Rachel Occhiogrosso. Send comments to editorials@browndailyherald.com.
ADVERTISEMENT
