ON THE KNIGHT COMMISSION REPORT ON
INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS
and
SOME REFORM ISSUES RELATING TO
THE UNIVERSITY OF OREGON'S ATHLETIC PROGRAM
Richard A. Sundt
University of Oregon
18 July 2001
A. ON THE KNIGHT REPORT'S VIEW OF ATHLETICS TODAY
I believe the Knight Commission has done a very good job in pointing out the major problems affecting intercollegiate athletics at the beginning of the 21st century.In the areas which concern me most especially, (a) institutional responsibility for the academic welfare of student athletes and (b) holding all university personnel (in academics and athletics) accountable to a common educational ethos, the Commission echoes almost exactly my own thoughts. My comments will be directed mostly to the two issues signaled above.
Except for some parts, which thankfully don't apply to Oregon, many other parts of the Report's assessment of intercollegiate athletics do indeed describe the ills that plague our university's sports program (in common with most others).Consequently, the Report is worthy of careful reading by all Oregon faculty, administrators and athletic personnel. The picture it paints of athletics today is almost as important and helpful as the recommendations of reform it proposes. By laying bare the unhealthy state of athletics (at least as it affects basketball and football), the Report calls attention to current problems and clearly explains why the need to resolve them is urgent and why faculty everywhere should not stand idly by on the sidelines.
University presidents should respond soon to the Commission's call for a deep and fundamental reform of athletics. Faculty at Oregon and nationwide should encourage administrators to heed the Report and begin implementing its recommendations.The NCAA likewise should embrace the Commission recommendations as a positive contribution to bringing sanity back to intercollegiate athletics, even if it means sacrificing the NCAA's income and status.
Among the Report's observations which are applicable to Oregon under the terms listed above (and some others), I highlight and comment on the following items:
1) "A frantic, money oriented modus operandi that defies responsibility dominates the structure of big-time football and basketball." (p. 17)One result of this in Oregon is the Athletic Department's recent restrictions on broadcasting, which threatens freedom of the press guarantees, in addition to being fan unfriendly (clearly reflected this month in the editorial and fan letters to the editor in the R-G).
2) "�accommodating excess�who can build the biggest stadiums, the most luxurious skyboxes." ( p. 17)In other words, keeping up with the Joneses, and we in Oregon have started a trend by building a covered practice field, now being emulated by others. The New York poster also ups the advertising race.
3) "Presidents and trustees accept their athletic department's argument that they have to keep up with the competition." (p. 18).What happens when athletic costs run more than the income generated by the Autzen expansion? Well, the plans are now for a $100 million basketball arena, hardly what Oregon can afford. The faculty need to be aware of this now, not when it is too late.
4) The idea that a sports program builds university spirit among students seems outmoded at best, as the following observations from the Report suggest: "To what purpose, indeed, are luxury skyboxes built?�certainly not to accommodate more students, in whose name and for whose benefit collegiate sports were originally introduced�The central goal is to garner greater fiscal windfalls from wealthy boosters�while students are often relegated to the endzone�" (p. 18)
5) "Repeated studies indicate that most contributions�come from those to whom athletic records have little import." (p.18) The UO administration claims that sports attract donations, some of which eventually go to academics.They say that some who give to sports will later donate to academics. I don't doubt that this is true, but are the amounts substantial enough to justify a $29 million- a-year athletic budget which, since 1991, has been supported with a $22 million subsidy from general funds? Is it enough to justify the enormous amount of faculty and administration time that goes into supervising athletics? (The Runge affair alone consumed a great deal of presidential hours which could otherwise have been devoted to academics.) When we have had successful capital campaigns, to what extent is the success due to the fact that the University pulled out all stops for such an effort?The results have to be contextualized for the success of pre-planned campaigns is not dependent on athletic success; fundraising plans are conceived and carried out (and succeed) in situations that are not always (if ever) temporally connected to wins in the athletic field. The administration says it can quantify the benefits to academics, but so far it has not done so on paper, item by item, and in relation to other factors besides athletics (i.e. context).
6) "�downside to this arms race�They must siphon from the general revenue�" (p. 18)At Oregon we are beginning to reduce the subsidy to athletics, but how long will it be before we have to resume full subsidy? Will the Autzen stadium expansion really keep athletics in the black for the next decades? By its own admission it will not, hence the plans for a basketball arena as the next market venture.
7) "�football and men's basketball coaches are paid a million dollars or more a year." ( p. 18) We in Oregon have now entered this league in football, an amount, which at one associate professor's salary, could fund 22 experienced professors.Adding this many to the faculty would reduce class sizes (this would be welcome given that some 400/500 courses have 50 to 60 students), and/or provide better staffing for our campus museums, etc.We need also to stem the growing divide, economically and in terms of educational ethos, between academic and athletic personnel--we should all feel we are part of the same educational enterprise; astronomical disparities in salaries erode morale; so too do different standards on how personnel are compensated for simply doing their job.(On these matters see also A.9, C.3a and C.7).
8) "But coaches have a quite different perspective�"(p. 18)One can understand this when they are expected to generate revenues and have short-term contracts, based mainly on winning, and thus no security.This is where we have to get beyond the idea that sports are all about winning. But as long as presidents nationwide think that sports are necessary for securing donations, the push will continue to be "competitive," and salaries are bound to escalate further.
9) The astronomical salaries are leading to a divorce between athletics and academics and to the emergence of an ethos among athletic personnel that bears no relation to the mores of education (see more specifically C.3a below): "Coaches' salaries�are considered as though they have nothing to do with the traditions and principles of the universities in which they are housed. This lack of academic connection is the fundamental corruption of the original rationale for both sports and coaches on campus: that they are integral components of a well-rounded student life and a useful complement to the universities' other central pursuits. What we now have is a separate culture of performers and trainers�unconnected to the institution that supports them." (pp. 18-19)
10) "There is a rush to approve cable and television requests for � games on weekday evenings� So much for classroom commitments." (p. 19)On generating postseason revenues: "In allowing commercial interests to prevail over academic concerns and traditions, presidents have abdicated their responsibilities." ( p. 20) Unfortunately, Oregon and Oregon State exemplify perfectly the disregard for academic scheduling by moving the Civil War game to early December, conflicting with deadweek. In addition, they both voted to resurrect Pac-10 post-season basketball, which also interferes with academics. In both cases the pursuit of money has ignored the mission of our respective institutions. Now is the time to convince the Pac-10 to scrap post-season play.Let us draw strength in this battle from the Report: "No academic institution should allow television to arrange its class schedule; neither should television control college athletic schedules." (p. 25) (See also A.12)
11) "Meanwhile�manufacturers inundate prominent coaches and universities with goods and money in exchange for exposure--advertisements of all kinds on campuses, stadiums�" (p. 20) In Oregon, the logos painted on the endzones of Autzen stadium would appear to illustrate this observation of the Report. One could understand if the Autzen family coat of arms were displayed on the endzones, but other logos don't seem appropriate and require some explanation.
12) Related to number 10 above: "The NCAA Manual also says that postseason play is meant to be controlled to 'prevent unjustified intrusions on the time student-athletes devote to academic programs, and to protect [them] from exploitation by professional and commercial enterprises.' Yet the number of postseason bowl games has grown� and the men's Division I basketball tournament is three weeks long�." (p. 21)
B. THE REPORT'S CALL TO ACTION
It has long been obvious that only the presidents of the institutions making up the NCAA and the various conferences can affect change. This view finds a place in the Report: "But a determined and focussed group of presidents acting together can transform the world of intercollegiate athletics." ( p. 26) (my underlining).These individuals have the power to reform and create a level field so no one institution feels it is at a competitive disadvantage against all the others. One solution is for presidents to agree not to use athletics as a tool for fund raising. It is high time administrators admit the fact that, as the Report states (and backed other sources) : "Most Americans believe �universities are about teaching�not winning and losing�Most pay only passing attention to athletic success or failure.And many big donors pay no attention at all to sports. "(p. 23)Let us strive to be competitive by the quality and creativeness of our educational programs, not by the winning records of our teams. It is time for administrators to think of new strategies for raising funds, strategies that shield institutions from the heavy-hand of the sports- industrial- complex and the escalating costs engendered by professionalization and commercialization: "Expenditures roar out of control because administrators have become more concerned with financing what is in place than thinking what they are doing. And the market is able to invade the academy both because it is eager to do so and because overloaded administrators rarely take the time to think about the consequences." (p. 29) Now is the time for new, creative thinking on fundraising and demythologizing its relationship to athletics.
But the Report also stresses, and quite rightly, that faculty also have a role, even though it is limited (but not insignificant): "They must defend the academic values of their institutions. Too few faculty speak out�" (p. 25).Fortunately, under the leadership of the past Senate president, Professor James Earl, the University of Oregon Senate has passed two resolutions defending academic values. But the faculty needs to encourage a more thoroughgoing reform if athletics is not to undermine the quality and freedom of academics at Oregon. We the faculty cannot do this alone. Reform efforts have to be led by presidents and athletic directors.
C. SOME OF THE REPORT'S REFORM RECOMMENDATIONS
1) "The length of playing, practice and postseason must be reduced both to afford athletes a realistic opportunity to complete their degrees and to enhance the quality of their collegiate experiences." (p. 27)Oregon has been going in the wrong direction and needs to change course. The sports establishment and presidents need to reduce the number of games so students are not playing during school days.Tournaments in the various sports should be arranged for weekends--period. An academic-centered reform is the only way to go. It is the only way to get students back into the classroom. In the process, competition levels may drop, but we should not be training professionals. With less professionalism and fewer games, revenues will diminish and this can serve in a natural manner to self-correct the escalating salaries of coaches and other costs. (See also A.12)
2) Related to C.1 above: "Insist that institutions [I would substitute faculty] alone should determine when games are played�" ( p. 28)
3) "Consider coaches' compensation in the context of the academic institutions that employ them. Coaches' jobs should be primarily to educate young people. Their compensation should be brought into line with the prevailing norms across the institution."( p. 27)This is exactly what needs to be done, but how to do it is the toughest question. First, I would like to offer suggestions as to how coaches can be more like faculty and partake in a common educational ethos. Secondly, I have some suggestions on how to control salaries, and in the process, the escalation of bowl and tournament games that eat into academic scheduling.
a)Coaches should be offered a salary without incentives, and let them live with that basic pay, just as faculty have to.Do not offer things that teaching faculty do not get. Eliminate bonuses for filling the stadium. Despite the extra work of grading and advising that comes from having full and overenrollments in their classes, faculty are not monetarily rewarded for this (nor should they be). Do not offer coaches bonuses for graduating even a single student. We the faculty work hard to advise and teach students to excel and graduate at no extra fee. If coaches regard themselves as educators, then they need to recognize that filling classrooms or stadiums and graduating students are simply a part of everyone's job description at a university. The reward is the satisfaction that comes from educating students and preparing them for life.
b) A basketball coach at a midwestern university (not in Indiana) recently signed a contract that will pay him about a $1 million. In addition (as if this is not enough for living comfortably), he will make (as reported in Bloomington's Herald-Telephone, 8 June 2001) "an additional $250,000 if, for any three year period of the contract, his program has produced at or above a .600 aggregate winning and over a 60% graduation rate� [there are also bonus for even better win records]. Then there are bonuses for winning a Big Ten regular season title ($50,000), winning a Big Ten tournament title ($25,000), qualifying for the NCAA tournament ($20,000), making the Final Four ($100,000) and winning an NCAA title ($250,000)." So do faculty get such rewards for publishing their books, most of which earn few royalties? Is it any wonder that we have a proliferation of postseason tournaments, and that there is little concern among athletic personnel if these disrupt the academic schedule and are destructive to the study of their players? Where is the educational ethos? How are coaches the educators they so often claim to be? One way to reform escalating salaries is simply to ban bonuses and let coaches be rewarded with the satisfaction of having done a good job.And for heaven's sakes, let us not put so much emphasis on winning; there should be other values upon which job security is based.
4) "Prohibit athletes from being exploited as advertising vehicles�" (p. 28).The giant New York billboard, with the corporate logos plainly visible (how couldthey not be when the student-athlete is 10 stories tall?), is an unfortunate case in point (in addition to increasing the advertising arms race). New Yorkers certainly see it as an ad, whether that was or was not the intention of the parties responsible for this poster. There are now many theories as to what this billboard was intended to accomplish and who was responsible for it. None of this speculation is healthy for our university.
5) The Report also states that "Athletics cost must be reduced." ( p. 28). Rightly so.I refer to an article in the NCAA News, 4 June 2001. We should oppose the NCAA plan to increase the number of sports required for Division I status if we wish to cut ballooning expenditures. The NCAA Football Study Oversight Committee, composed of college presidents, which made this recommendation, is out of touch with the Knight Commission (and with education itself): "Other alternatives includedletting the market drive scheduling..." So much for getting student-athletes into the classroom on the part of our top "educators." Does the NCAA really care about academics?
6) "The independence of athletics foundations and booster clubs must be curbed." (p. 38).And on p. 47: "All funds �will be channeled through the institution's general treasury, not through independent groups, whether internal or external."While all of us appreciate boosters and alumni for support they give to the university, be it for athletics and/or academics, there seems to be a problem with the way these well-meaning groups interface with the university. This is a murky area; clarity and forthrightness would be most welcome.Since money is often an issue and it is private, we are told that we cannot ask questions about the identity of booster groups and their motives, even as they appropriate the name of our university, thereby involving us all in their cause. Statements from the administration regarding the recent ad in New York (which has been interpreted in many different ways, and in many cases negatively be the media and the NY public) suggest that a private group was involved in its conception and sponsorship, and thus all questions about the billboard are out of bounds. The Knight Commission recommendations, if adopted, would help create a more open and trusting relationship between the university faculty and booster groups. Especially with regard to athletics, the faculty should not be shut out from discussing initiatives that affect or involve the university and its image as an academic institution. We have an Intercollegiate Athletics Committee that is willing to serve the Athletic Department and the administration, but it cannot do so if these act without first seeking the opinions and advise of the committee, the faculty body duly charged with overseeing athletics.
7) "Coaches should be offered longterm contracts." p. 39.This could begin to address the escalating costs of salaries. Eliminate bonuses. Let us acknowledge that there is value in other things besides winning.
D. OUR OPTIONS NOW -- THE ROAD AHEAD
The Commission reports that "there are no downsides to thoroughgoing reform. When and if accomplished, athletic contests would still be attended by their fans and covered by the media even if the players were students first and athletes second� But if there is no downside to deep and sustained reform, continued inattention to the problems described here is fraught with potential dangers�The search now is for a will to act." (pp. 30-31)
In essence there are three options with regard to athletics: REFORM IT; FRANCHISE IT; or ELIMINATE IT.
The middle option seems to me the wrong way to go: Why have a program that is organically disconnected from the university?
Those who believe that athletics is an integral part of the college experience (this is not the thinking or practice elsewhere in the world) should opt for reform, both for the good of academics and of athletics. I think we now have a 50-50 chance to affect real, profound change. I most heartily agree with the Knight Commission's final words:
"If it proves impossible to create a system of intercollegiate athletics that can live honorably within the American college and university�then the nation's colleges and universities [should] get out of the business of big-time sports." (p. 30)
So, as I see it at least, the two options are either reformation or elimination. My comments on the Knight Report as it pertains to Oregon athletics are intended to suggest what needs be done here (and elsewhere) in order to reform the sports program, in other words to engage the first option.
To me the status quo is not acceptable for in the long run it will ruin academics. It is already ruining the major intercollegiate sports.
