College Athletics’ Slimmed Down Future?

“The athletic department of tomorrow could go through what Bristol is going through today,” writes Frank Hawkins, principal of Scalar Media Partners, a Manhattan sports and media consulting firm, in a May 9, 2017 article in SI.com. Hawkins was referring to the recent severe downsizing at the Bristol, CT based cable sports network ESPN.

As a result of a major drop in subscribers, ESPN released roughly 100 on air journalists.  This, after a previous round of dismissals of several hundred behind the scenes jobs two years ago. The reduced revenue is largely a result of customers switching to an “a la carte” model where they can pick and choose which channels they pay for. As a result, by some estimates, television rights fees will drop by at least 30% in the coming years. While many college network deals have several years remaining, the prospect of such decline has college officials considering what heretofore has been unthinkable – downsizing athletic departments.

It’s about time. 

For too long, athletic department spending, particularly the top 60 or so programs has been out of control. Head coaches regularly earn millions and even position coaches receive salaries in the mid-six figure range.  In almost every state in Union, the highest paid public employee is the football or basketball coach. A facilities arms race has been raging for years. Clemson University’s athletic complex includes a bowling alley and nap rooms. Auburn added a $14 million video board to its stadium.  At Texas, new lockers were installed in the football complex at a cost of $10,500 apiece.  According to public records, athletic departments at 13 schools have long-term debt obligations of more than $150 million as of 2014. 

According to The Washington Post, between 2004 and ’14 revenues at 48 of the biggest athletic programs grew from $2.7 billion to 4.5 billion, but spending moved in lockstep from $2.6 billion to$4.4 billion. And still most athletic departments operate at a deficit.

In an era of rising educational expectations and standards, decreasing academic resources, rising student athletic fees and rising student debt, such lavish, unchecked spending on athletics is obscene.

Despite widespread belief to the contrary, as information relating to finances becomes more transparent, it is clear that athletics has not been as fiscally sound an investment as long believed. Virtually every financial trend, throughout every NCAA division, points to athletics expenses increasing not only at a faster rate than generated revenues, but also far outstripping overall institutional spending.  Further, the total athletic expenditures as a percentage of total institutional expenses continues to increase. The fact is, there are no Division II or III institutions and only a small handful of Division I institutions where generated revenues exceed expenses. According to the NCAA, in 2013, the median negative net generated revenue, representing expenses in excess of generated revenues at the Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) schools was over $11.5 million and almost $11 million for both the Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) as well as Division I schools without football. In 2014, at the Division II level, those numbers are $4.1 million for schools without football and $5.2 million for schools with football at the Division II level. And in 2014 at the division III level, those numbers are $2.2 million without football and $2.3 million with football. And by all indications, institutional deficit spending on athletics, already significant, will continue to grow. 

So while Division I athletic programs are clearly generating a substantial amount of revenue, the fact is, except for approximately 20 programs, they spend far more money than they generate. That being the case, it is critical that university leaders consider whether such deficit spending is appropriate and commensurate with the academic benefits generated. 

But that is only part of the story.

While many return on investment analyses start and end with the hard numbers, to truly understand the cost of athletics, it is imperative to consider the educational opportunity costs associated with such deficit spending, Specifically, could the general institutional resources that are currently spent to underwrite the athletic program be spent on other academic programs or services that contribute more directly to institutional educational mission?

For example, would those resources be better spend on improving science labs or offering additional sections in majors where students often can not enroll in required courses due to lack of course offerings? Or, perhaps various student services could be expanded or the library or institutional wi-fi service improved. Or, in an age of rising student debt, reduce the school’s activity fee, which in part, helps pay for the athletic department deficit.

In short, institutions that are not willing to take a hard ROI look at their athletic departments in an era of rising educational expectations and tightening resources may be in for a rude financial awakening. Students and their parents are increasingly skeptical about the real value of a traditional college degree and thus are taking a closer look to determine which schools are best equipped and most committed to delivering on a quality education as opposed to sponsoring lavish athletic facilities and spectacle.  In such an environment, schools would be well served to consider whether their athletic programs can be restructured or rescaled in a way that makes more sense fiscally and fits more comfortably into institutional mission. 

While the usual knee jerk reaction to the prospect of downsizing or restructuring the athletic department is for the athletic “lobby” to scream bloody murder and claim that downsizing athletics will result in the demise of the institution, there is another way to look at the situation.

Specifically, could there be an educational opportunity in pursuing such a path?

Perhaps there is a branding opportunity for a school to position itself as one that is truly committed to academics and increasing the value of their degree and the academic quality of the experience for the general student body rather than spending significant time, energy, emotion and resources on an athletic department that serves a small slice of elite athletes and entertainment for the masses. In other words, if I am a student who cares first and foremost about the quality of academic experience my college offers, I would be attracted to a school that is committed enough to that principle to seriously consider whether money spent on athletics would be better spent on academic resources. In an age of rapidly rising student debt that thought is not so far fetched.  After all, when it’s all said and done, athletics remains an “extracurricular” activity, which means it is not a central component of the educational mission of the institution.

The question is this. Are lavishly funded athletic programs truly important enough to the long-term success and effectiveness of the institution to continue to compromise academic integrity, abandon fiscal prudence and jeopardize institutional mission in the name of entertainment and championship banners? When an increasing number of trend lines point to a future of declining revenue streams and rapidly rising expenses, institutions that do not honestly, carefully and seriously consider recalibrating their financial commitment to athletics may, in the not so distant future, be forced to go through what ESPN is going through today.

Revisiting “Sports: The All-American Addiction”

In 2002, I published a book titled “Sports: The All-American Addition”. The basic premise was that organized sport in America had evolved to a point where it’s overall impact on our schools, universities and society has become more negative than positive. My analysis focused on five areas: sports’ impact on the values at the center of our civil society, on educational values and institutions, on individual and public health, on school budgets and the economic vitality of a city or region and the notion that sports is a powerful vehicle to promote upward mobility. 

I recently re-read the book and was struck by two things. 

First, my analysis, narratives and arguments have held up pretty well. For example, sports glorification of violence and win at all cost culture continues to coarsen fundamental tenets of our civil society and that the glorification of athletic accomplishment still too often comes at the expense of academic excellence and educational achievement. Further, organized sports’ impact on individual and public health is not as positive as many believe particularly when increasing amounts of money, energy and emotion is heaped upon the very few, elite athletes while everyone else is pushed to the sidelines to watch, in this one of the most obese nations on the planet. As for economics, it remains true that pro sports teams and municipally funded stadiums are not the “economic drivers” that they are often played up to be. Finally, while the on the field gains for minority athletes have certainly been significant, those same gains, for the most part, still have not materialized in the coaching staffs, front offices and board rooms of college and professional teams. 

While I was amused that “The All-American Addiction” has held up pretty well, it was somewhat disconcerting that many of the issues and concerns identified persist.  Could it be that we really haven’t made much progress in addressing these issues over the past 15 years? 

But then something quite stunning became apparent.  Throughout the entire book, the issue of the link between football and brain trauma was not mentioned. 

Not once!

I consider myself an astute observer of trends in athletics so I don’t think this was an omission. Rather, in 2002, the link between football and CTE, concussions and brain trauma was simply not on anyone’s radar screen.

It goes to show you just how much things can change in 15 years. 

The relatively recent findings regarding this link will be the most significant and influential development in the history of the game of football and its place in our educational system and society. And we’ve just scratched the surface regarding research efforts and dialogue regarding that impact. As a result, there seems to be a growing realization that the game, both from a physical and cultural sense, has got to change. And by many indications, we are beginning to do something about it from efforts to make the game safer to making it “okay” for a parent or a kid to be able to opt out of playing the game. These are all positive developments. 

So maybe we have made some progress. The question is whether we can continue on that path over the next fifteen years. 

While there is no telling what football’s impact and influence on American culture will be in 2030, if past is prologue, my guess is that it will be significantly different than it is today.

Get Yourself a Copy

The ROI of Athletics

TAKEAWAYS | Read Full Article Online In evaluating its athletics program, the board must consider fiscal conditions, the welfare of athletes, institutional impact, opportunity costs, and brand risks associated with athletics, as well as the changing public environment and attitudes about the role of athletics in our institutions and culture.

Given the enormous financial stakes, intense media scrutiny, and the pressure to win at any cost, boards should know if the supposed educational and character-building benefits that accrue to athletes are real.

The most fundamental responsibility educational institutions have to all students, including athletes, is to provide a legitimate opportunity to earn a meaningful educational and social experience in a safe and secure environment. Boards must determine whether their institutions are delivering on that promise.

Read Full Article Online

---

The relationship between intercollegiate athletics and higher education has always been less than comfortable. But like an athlete’s body that eventually wears down after years of tears, bumps, and bruises, the forces pulling at that relationship have become exceedingly strained. Is the relationship broken? From soaring budgets to seemingly never-ending scandals to mounting legal pressures and growing concerns about athletics’ impact on campus culture and about the rights and physical and academic welfare of student-athletes, it is no stretch to say that the ROI (return on investment) of intercollegiate athletics is being questioned and challenged at institutions of all types and sizes.

In this environment, all boards, regardless of conference and divisional affiliation, need to undertake a thorough, clear-eyed analysis of their athletic programs’ alignment with institutional mission and strategy. The fundamental question: Do they contribute to institutional mission in relevant and timely ways? Is the amount of spending on athletics proportional to its contribution to mission and its educational value?

Make no mistake, significant upheaval is on the horizon. If higher education leaders don’t manage and structure that change, outside forces will. Here are five key questions to support the review process.

DO YOU HAVE ACCURATE INFORMATION?

Boards must be persistent in determining that the information they receive from institutional personnel truly reflects concerns about fiscal conditions, the welfare of athletes, institutional impact, opportunity costs, and brand risks associated with athletics. Are boards accurately assessing the changing public environment and attitudes about the role of athletics in our institutions and culture? Further, does your college or university really know how all of your constituents feel about the role and impact of athletics on campus? Or, does the board simply assume it knows the level of support for athletics, its cost, and impact on academic values and campus culture? For example, can you assume that because a program does not award athletic scholarships or spend lavishly on coaches’ salaries, that its potential to undermine academic values and institutional mission and strategy is minimal? Will de-emphasizing a sport adversely impact alumni giving and support? How do you know? Perhaps such a change would actually attract additional, more academically oriented donors.

In short, in a rapidly changing environment, it is unwise to make long-term, strategic decisions based on age-old anecdotes or simply because “we’ve always done it this way.”

ARE THE SUPPOSED BENEFITS RELEVANT AND TIMELY?

In conducting a thorough ROI analysis, it is tempting to consider various costs associated with athletics. While critical, it’s equally important to examine whether athletic departments are delivering the benefits long used to justify their place on campus.

For example, a primary defense for sponsorship of athletics, and in particular football, is that it serves as the “front porch” of the institution. But while the games provide compelling entertainment, it’s fair to say that much of what the public sees is not pretty. Increasingly, what the public and news media call attention to is hypocrisy, athlete exploitation, exorbitant spending, academic fraud, and, in the words of author Taylor Branch, in his widely read Atlantic magazine article “The Shame of College Sports,” “an unmistakable whiff of plantation.”

Is athletics a brand element that will advance the educational mission in the 21st century? With increasing evidence about brain trauma associated with football— as well as other sports, including women’s soccer—do colleges and universities want to highlight and celebrate an activity that places students at significant risk of life-altering brain damage?

Boards would be well served to consider whether they are approaching a point at which the physical toll for young people has become so clear that public perception of institutions that willingly “sacrifice” not only students but also their academic souls in the name of athletic glory may have shifted. Consider that in the early 1900s, boxing was one of America’s most popular sports. The NCAA sponsored boxing until 1960, when it became clear that the risk outweighed the benefits. Are we there yet with football?

Given the enormous financial stakes, intense media scrutiny, and the pressure to win at any cost, boards should know whether the supposed educational and character-building benefits that accrue to athletes are real. Have intercollegiate athletics become more about winning at any cost than about the process of education? Given that one of the leading justifications for athletics on campus is that sports supplement the educational process and instills positive character traits in participants, it is imperative that this question is answered.

Educators and sports advocates claim a series of positive impacts to justify athletics’ place on campus. Boards must evaluate whether these oft-stated benefits— including learning discipline, persistence, and personal responsibility— continue to apply in the 21st century, and if so, whether athletic departments are, in fact, delivering them.

Or, stated differently, can universities continue to sponsor and tolerate such a highly visible activity that on many levels appears to contradict their purposes?

DO WE UNDERSTAND THE TRUE COSTS?

Traditionally, discussions surrounding the cost of athletics have focused almost exclusively on hard finances. But as information relating to finances becomes more transparent, it is clear that athletics has not been as fiscally sound an investment as long believed. Virtually every financial trend, throughout every NCAA division, points to athletics expenses increasing not only at a faster rate than generated revenues, but also far outstripping increases in overall institutional spending. Further, not only is the expense per student-athlete continuing to rise, but the total athletic expenditures as a percentage of total institutional expenses also continues to increase. The fact is, there are no institutions in either Division II or III, and only a small handful of Division I institutions, where generated revenues exceed expenses. And by all indications, institutional deficit spending on athletics, already significant, will continue to grow.

Boards must consider whether this is a sustainable model and how such trends impact not only educational opportunity costs but also, in an age of rising student debt, the use of student fees to underwrite athletics. Per-student fees (assessed on all enrolled students to support the athletics program) are on many campuses in the hundreds of dollars, and in some cases are over $1,000 annually. When financial aid is considered, not only are students and their families supporting intercollegiate athletics programs that they may not patronize—let alone participate in—but state and federal governments are, as well. (See “A Question For” by John T. Casteen III in Trusteeship, July/August 2016.)

Regardless of an institution’s level of investment in athletics, it is critical that university leaders consider whether that amount is appropriate and commensurate with the academic and other educational benefits derived from athletics programs. Are potential educational opportunity costs associated with athletics spending detrimental to the development of other academic programs? When it comes to athletics within an educational institution, is bigger necessarily better? Does participation in a championship-winning team provide greater educational benefit to an athlete than participation in a nonchampionship- winning team? And in an age of rising educational expectations and financial pressures, is it prudent to continue to engage in increasingly expensive efforts to “keep up with the Joneses,” a practice that occurs, to varying degrees, in all NCAA divisions?

Finally, does the athletic “culture” align with the institution’s? Research tells us that even at small, elite liberal arts institutions, sports’ impact on admissions, academic performance, and campus culture is significant, because athletes tend to make up a larger percentage of the student body than at major Division I institutions. In other words, it is important that boards, regardless of their institution’s size or NCAA divisional affiliation, consider exactly how athletics impact educational values, campus culture, and institutional brand.

WHAT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO ATHLETES?

An educational institution’s most fundamental responsibility to every student is twofold. First, to provide an opportunity to earn a quality academic credential, and second, to keep students safe and healthy while on campus by establishing a safe and secure learning and social environment.

There is little question that the academic and social experiences of scholarship athletes at far too many institutions have been woefully inadequate and, in some cases, fraudulent. The news media have documented instances of institutions admitting underprepared athletes and providing “bogus” classes and majors, all in the name of achieving athletic glory. When combined with the excessive athletic training and time demands placed on athletes, their academic and social experiences may have little in common with those of the rest of the students.

To think that this doesn’t occur, in some form, at nearly every campus in America would be misguided. Are athletes being held to the same academic, social, behavioral, and judicial standards that apply to all students in order to form a healthy, functioning academic community? Or does “athletic privilege and exception” exist on their campuses? Boards should know.

And if questions regarding institutional responsibility for providing a legitimate academic and social experience are not enough, their ability to ensure students’ health and safety is now in question, too.

The primary driver of this conversation on many campuses is football, although depending on the institution and region of the country, one could add basketball, baseball, ice hockey, or lacrosse. Football’s engrained tradition, enormous entertainment appeal, and economic clout make it the unmistakable driver of the athletics enterprise at all levels. Football is the elephant in the room in the debate regarding the role of sports not only on campus but in our society. And the fact is, the rapidly accumulating evidence about football and brain trauma has raised the question of the game’s place in the academy to a new level. It is now a moral issue.

How does this square with institutional mission if we sponsor and celebrate an activity that research tells us can be profoundly dangerous and debilitating?

At the end of the day, boards must determine whether their institutions are delivering on the many promises they’ve made to student-athletes.

DO WE HAVE THE COURAGE AND CONVICTION TO LEAD?

Our society looks to higher education to provide broad cultural leadership and direction regarding the issues of the day, including the appropriate role of sports in our schools and society at large. To underestimate the impact of athletics on the larger issues of the public’s perception of the value of education versus athletics, as well as higher education’s ability to effectively fulfill its public mission, would be shortsighted. By directly addressing these issues on their campuses, boards can reaffirm the primacy of academic and educational excellence. This is a seminal moment for college and university leaders. It is a national teaching opportunity we cannot afford to waste.

But before boards can provide such leadership, they must look internally and ask whether they are prepared and have the courage and conviction to go where the resulting dialogue, logic, and data lead them. If, for example, it is determined that the athletics department is effectively contributing to institutional mission, perhaps we should invest more heavily in it. But what if it becomes clear that it is not? What if the various costs and institutional risks associated with athletics have come to outweigh its benefits? What should a responsible board do? Courage and conviction will be crucial. If there is any American institution that must demonstrate clearly that academic excellence outweighs athletic glory, it must be higher education.

Football As A Minor Recruitment Tool

Football as a Minority Recruitment Tool: Is There a More Effective Method? A first glance would suggest that, from an economic standpoint, college athletics is booming. The NCAA is currently in the middle of a 14-year television deal that will pay $10.8 billion for the rights to telecast the NCAA Men’s basketball tournament. ESPN is paying $470 million per year for 12 years to televise the college football playoffs. Corporations pay millions of dollars for sponsorship rights and skyboxes in stadiums. Colleges also rake in millions from the sale of sports apparel and related merchandize. The result is that athletic departments are awash in black ink, correct?

Apparently not.

Getting an accurate understanding of the true economic impact of athletics on broader institutional finances is no easy task. Colleges account for athletics expenditures in different ways and there is ample debate regarding the true costs of athletics. But for purposes of this essay, we will use financial data generated by the NCAA.

Based on that data, athletics has not been as fiscally sound an investment as long believed. Virtually every financial trend, throughout every NCAA division, points to athletics expenses increasing not only at a faster rate than generated revenues, but also far outstripping overall institutional spending. Total athletic expenditures as a percentage of total institutional expenses continue to increase. There are no Division II or III institutions and only a handful of Division I institutions where generated revenues exceed expenses. According to the NCAA, in 2013, the median negative net generated revenue, representing expenses in excess of generated revenues at the Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) schools was over $11.5 million and almost $11 million for both the Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) as well as Division I schools without football. And by all indications, institutional deficit spending on athletics, already significant, will continue to grow. Even in the case of football taken separately, the numbers are a bit startling. While it is widely believed that football programs themselves are profitable and underwrite the entire athletic budget, according to the NCAA, only 56% of FBS football programs operate in the black. And that number may be high as expenses directly related to football are often lumped into general athletic or general institutional expenses.

In short, while Division I athletic programs are generating revenue, except for approximately 20 programs, they spend more. That being the case, it is critical that we consider whether such deficit spending is appropriate and commensurate with the academic benefits generated.

Granted, there are institutional benefits associated with athletics that don’t lend themselves to precise economic analysis. For example, athletics generates visibility and branding opportunities as the institution’s “front porch”, scholarships present valuable educational opportunities for many young people who otherwise would not be able to afford college and sports serves as a powerful tool to unify a campus community.

But similar to the widely held belief that athletics generates excess revenue for the institution, it is arguable whether athletics is successfully meeting these justifications. Athletics visibility is a two-edged sword as it’s fair to say that increasingly what the public views -- hypocrisy, athlete exploitation, exorbitant spending, continued academic fraud and, in the words of Taylor Branch, “an unmistakable whiff of plantation” – is not pretty. And there is no longer any question that the academic experience that scholarship athletes are receiving at far too many universities has been woefully inadequate and in some cases, fraudulent. And while a winning team can unite a campus, athletics can also bitterly divide an institution in the case of an athletic scandal or when it is perceived that the athletic culture receives “privileged” status at the expense academic values and campus culture.

And if those challenges are not enough, institutions now have to consider their responsibilities relating to increased data regarding the link between football and brain trauma. Potentially most damaging is that an argument can be made that universities are physically “sacrificing” young people, the majority of them black, in the name of entertainment, athletic glory and generating revenue. The link between football and potential life-changing damage to the brain – the organ that makes us human - has raised the issue of the game’s impact on and place in the academy to a new level. It is now a moral issue.

Complicating the situation is the fact that these challenges must be met in an environment of rising educational expectations, declining resources, increased public skepticism regarding the value of a college degree and rising student debt. Thus, it is imperative that we take a serious look at how and whether athletics strategically aligns with and adequately contribute to institutional mission and strategy. Institutions must decide whether the educational return on investment for athletics is enough to continue to justify the tremendous time, effort, energy, emotion and risks associated with it.

Educational Opportunity Costs

In a perfect world, all institutional programs would be fully funded. But we don’t live in a perfect world. In an age of rising athletic department debt and tighter institutional budgets every institutional program and initiative must be evaluated to determine whether it remains relevant, timely and effective, including all aspects of athletic department spending.

The key question relates to “educational opportunity costs”. At what point does the amount of institutional educational expenditures appropriated to athletics begin to hamstring efforts to maintain and improve various programs and initiatives that are more central to the academic mission of the institution? For example, would those resources be better spent on improving science labs or campus wi-fi or offering additional sections in majors where students often cannot enroll in required courses due to lack of course offerings? At what point do the educational opportunity costs associated with athletics become too great?

Within that context, the purpose of this essay is to consider another long-held and largely unquestioned institutional benefit of athletics. Specifically, that institutional investment in athletics, particularly football (and to a lesser degree, basketball) is an effective way to attract, retain and graduate minority students.

While football attracts Black men to campus, the question is whether this is the most effective vehicle through which institutions can accomplish that worthy goal. Would those same institutional resources, if applied directly to academic, rather than football programs, yield better long-term institutional return on educational investment as it relates to minority recruitment, retention, graduation and future alumni giving?

Additional Services and Support

The use of football to attract minorities to campus creates an interesting educational dynamic. Specifically, it creates an environment and expectations that athletes are on campus to serve as athletes first and students a distant second. That reality cannot help but to negatively impact academic expectations, performance and graduation. Yes, institutions can claim these “students” in their diversity numbers, but the larger issue is whether they are being provided a legitimate opportunity to earn a well-balanced academic and social experience. We call them “student-athletes”, but they are, for all intents and purposes, professional athletes, who are often discouraged from participation in activities beyond their sport. The result is that their academic experience on campus has little in common with that of the general student body.

Because many of these athletes are under-prepared academically, they require significant academic support programs and facilities. Institutions should also consider whether those additional expenses are prudent and yield the best possible long-term benefit for the institution. What if not only recruitment expenses, but also the academic and social support expenses required to improve athletes’ chances at academic success were directed to support non-athlete minorities who are recruited based on academic rather than athletic credentials?

According to a 2010 study by the Delta Cost Project at American Institutes for Research, the gap between institutional investment in athletes versus non-athletes is wildly out of balance. The median spending per student versus athlete in the Power Five conferences ranged from 6.1 times more for athletes ($19,225 for non-athletes vs. $116,667 for athletes) in the Big Ten conference to 12.2 times more in the Southeastern Conference ($13,390 for non-athletes vs. $163,931 for athletes).

Another interesting piece of data regarding football and minority recruitment relates to the ratio of minority students on campus versus the ratio of minority athletes on football and basketball teams. According to a 2016 by the University of Pennsylvania’s Graduate School of Education’s Center for the Study of Race and Equity in Education the difference is stark. The study examined the “Power Five” conferences, including a comparison between the percentage of Black undergraduates on campus and the percentage of Blacks on the football and basketball teams. The numbers range from a discrepancy of 74.7% at Auburn University (3.2% Blacks in undergraduate student population versus 77.9% of Blacks on the football and basketball teams). While that is the highest discrepancy, the numbers for the rest of the schools in the Power Five conferences are not much better as only 15 of the 65 schools studied had differences of less than 50%. Interestingly, while universities claim that academically qualified Black men are hard to find, apparently it’s not so hard to recruit and admit Black football and basketball players. Clearly, something is out of balance. Perhaps if universities pursued Black male non-athletes with the same vigor as revenue generating Black athletes, they would attract more of them.

Further, despite investing in the best academic support services and facilities that money can buy, according to that same University of Pennsylvania study, just over half of Black athletes in the Power Five conferences graduated within six years, compared to 68 percent of athletes overall and 75 percent of undergraduates overall. The study also revealed that two-thirds of those institutions graduated Black male athletes at rates lower than Black men who were not athletes, despite non-athletes having far less access to high quality academic support and facilities.

The Cases of Freddie Football and Andy Academics

Consider the following two students, Freddie Football and Andy Academics. Both are minorities, first generation college students and both are underprepared academically. They are both “special admits”. From there, their academic and social experiences diverge sharply.

Freddie arrived on campus several weeks before classes began to participate in pre-season workouts and in some cases may even have played a game or two before attending his first class. This serves as a powerful message regarding priorities. Once classes begin, he is required to participate in athletically related activities for at least 40 hours per week but far too often many more, leaving him exhausted. The exhaustion, coupled with the extreme physicality of football (ever try concentrating after repeatedly banging your head against the wall?) makes studying almost impossible. Further, Freddie is enveloped in a culture where it is made crystal clear that football performance is far more important than academic achievement. He also knows that if he performs well enough athletically, it’s likely that with a minimal amount of effort, “The Program” will find a way to keep him eligible.

This is not to say that Freddie Football doesn’t want to be immersed in the institution’s academic culture. Rather the system, as currently structured, does not allow it. The athletic demands are too extreme. And he has little choice but to comply because he knows that if he doesn’t perform athletically, he will, like a professional athlete, be let go. Make no mistake, Freddie fully understands athletic department priorities.

Andy, rather than having to participate in athletics more than 40 hours per week, can devote that time to academic endeavors and campus community involvement. He also knows that it is academic performance that enabled him to have the opportunity to attend college and that he must perform academically to remain in school. Andy’s priorities are clear – academics are first and foremost. He knows that if he doesn’t perform academically he will flunk out.

Long-Term Educational ROI?

Finally, there is the issue of loyalty and potential future support Black athletes will provide the institution. While there is little data on institutional giving of Black athletes versus black or non-athletes generally, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that many Black football players have little inclination to donate to their schools after their playing days are over. Many feel that they have already “given” more than their fair share in the form of athletic talent and physical sacrifice for what turned out to be a false promise of a chance to receive a legitimate opportunity to earn a meaningful educational experience and degree. Besides, if only 50% of Black athletes graduate, how many are in the position to have earned a standard of living that would allow them to donate? In short, from a long-term institutional educational investment, does it make more sense to appropriate recruitment and retention resources to support a student who is on campus first and foremost for academic rather than athletic reasons? Is it money well spent to invest so much in someone whose future career goals are to play in the NFL rather than a student whose goal is to become a teacher, engineer or architect?

In the end, this is about education and academic values. It is about institutional priorities and cuts to the heart of the institution’s soul and mission. What does it say about an educational institution that claims to be providing legitimate educational opportunities to minorities when in fact, those “opportunities” are more about athletics, generating money and proving public entertainment? In a rapidly changing world, with increasing public skepticism regarding higher education’s value and effectiveness, university leaders must leave no stone unturned in the effort to maximize their institution’s ability to successfully fulfill its academic mission as opposed to its athletic reputation.

If an important institution goal is to increase enrollment of Black men, consideration should be given to all institutional efforts to do so, including the resources appropriated to football players at a rate of 6 to 12 times more than students generally. A central question in those discussions should be whether those institutional resources would be better spent improving and expanding recruitment efforts to attract minorities to academic programs rather than athletics. Perhaps, in the long run, it would be better to invest in academically motivated and committed minority students who may some day become scientists, doctors, business leaders or social entrepreneurs than athletes whose primary focus is on the less than 2 percent chance of becoming an NFL quarterback or linebacker.