University Sports and Student Athletes

University Sports

Cricket proved its value as a peacemaker in the games between India and Pakistan. However, I doubted that it would ever be adopted by US universities because there is no money in it. Clyde McMorrow comments: "With regard to cricket as a revenue sport for U.S. Universities, I am reminded of my stay as a student in Australia and my introduction to cricket. My suggestion for revenue is to admit all spectators for free and charge them to get out. While cricket may be fascinating to play (silly mid on and all that), it is second only to golf in its boredom as a spectator sport. What is interesting here is that both of these games are of British invention. If you throw in croquet and darts it would appear that the British develop games for the enjoyment of the player whereas the U.S. games are designed for the spectator.

My own college sport was fencing in which all of the participants graduate. My daughters played soccer and softball in division III schools and will graduate on time as will all of their team mates. Division I football and basketball must be looked at in the ight of the admission standards of the institution. I have heard that Stanford's graduation rate is high, but this might be because Stanford attracts the football players with the highest academic qualifications. The NCAA requirement for college division I players does not require a C average in high school. So one assumes that there are a lot of players who have no intention of graduating and are using the time to develop skills that they hope to market to professional teams".

RH: An English expression not heard in the US is (or was), "That's not cricket", meaning that's not fair, honest, Why on earth was cricket singled out? No one says "That's not golf".

Jon Huyck writes: "For a provocative look at college sports (especially in the Ivy League), consider The Game of Life, written by former Princeton president Bill Bowen and James Shulman. It shows the price that even top academic institutions in this country have paid for their involvement in varsity athletics, and how far we have come from that first, inter-collegiate football game in 1869, when Princeton played Rutgers, and any student of either school was welcome to simply jump in and play. The book is so well-researched, incisive, and controversial that the current Princeton president has taken pains to distance herself from Bowen's analysis. Sitting Ivy League presidents hesitate to address the problem for fear of alienating alumni or seeming to be anti-athletic, elitist, egg-heads. As an Ivy League alumnus myself (Brown by way of Princeton), I fear that there is not the will within the League to break the power of the athleticarchy. (I just made up that last word. I hope it sticks!)". RH: Isn't the president of Princeton a woman? We should bring in the nefarious influence of those alumni who judge their alma mater (?) by the success of its football team, and who whoop for the president's head if it does not do well. Their mentality is so brutal that they would not hesitate to decapitate a woman president, which no gentleman would do.

John Allen writes: "Clyde McMorrow states "the NCAA requirement for college division I players does not require a C average in high school." In fact, the NCAA requirement for incoming student athletes is a 2.5 GPA in the core curriculum of 14 academic courses (English, math, science, social science, or additional academic courses such as those in foreign language, philosophy, comparative religion, etc.), plus a minimum SAT score (recentered) of 820 or a sum on the ACT of 68. Students with less than a 2.5 GPA may qualify if their SAT or ACT scores are higher. For example, a student with a C average (2.00) must present an SAT of 1010 (recentered) or a Sum ACT score of 86. There are no "sliding scale" provisions for students with GPAs in high school below 2.00. In other words, yes, the NCAA does require a C average in high school (see NCAA Division I Manual, 14.3, and more specifically 14.3.1.1.1 "Initial Eligibility Index.") It is possible that students may enter a Division I institution with less than a 2.500 GPA--but the scores that drop the student below the 2.5 will be in things like industrial arts (shop), physical education, home economics (family studies), business machines (typing), etc. that are not considered as academic core courses. It is also possible that students with less than qualifying SAT/ACT and GPA scores may enter a Division I institution but they do so without athletically-related financial aid, may not participate in athletics (including practice or team travel--including sitting on the bench during games) until they have satisfied NCAA regulations for academic progress, etc. And these regulations for sufficient academic progress are a great deal more rigorous than many people believe--particularly when one takes into account the demands placed upon student athletes in terms of practice time, travel time, weight-training, etc.

I would strongly suggest that, before people begin to make statements about the academic qualifications of Division I student athletes, they read the initial eligibility requirements in the NCAA Manual (which weighs about 5 pounds). Academic regulations are immensely more difficult now than they were 15 years ago, thanks to the NCAA academic reform movement prompted by the first Knight Commission report of the late 1980s. This is one of the reasons why there is a greater tendency (but the numbers are still very small) for students to move directly from high school into professional basketball".

RH: If student athletes went directly from high school into professional sports, it would be for universities an excellent purge.

There is also what looks like a comprehensive report on graduation rates for athletes if others are interested in continuing this analysis". RH: Frankly, I think we have devoted enough space and time to this.

Ins and Outs of Cricket

From England, John Heelan contributes to our discussion of cricket: "Perhaps cricket is just too difficult for Americans to understand? Here is a simplified description of the game for neophytes: The game is played by two sides of eleven players, each taking a turn to bat (being "In"). The objective of the side that is "In" is to stay "In" so that they can score as many runs as possible. The objective of the side that is "not In" is to get the "In" side "Out" as soon as possible by a mixture of bowling the ball, catching and hitting the wicket (3 vertical pieces of wood- stumps- surmounted by two cross-pieces- bails-) before the batsman can complete scoring a "run". If they succeed the batsman is "Out" and the next batsman is "In" and so it continues until the tenth batsman is "Out"- however even though the eleventh batsman is still technically "In", not having been got "Out" by the team that is "Not In", his "innings" is at an end as he is not allowed to bat by himself. British natural justice comes to the rescue of the eleventh batsman, who although realistically is "Out", for the reasons given above, is recorded in the scorebook as being "Not Out" although he is no longer "In". When all the team that was "In" are "Out", even the eleventh batsman who is adjudged "Not Out", the team that was "Not In" goes "In" and the team that was "In" attempts to get them "Out".

Generally, the team that has the most runs from their time being "In" wins the game, as long as they have managed to get the opposing side "Out" before they have scored as many. If they do not, then the game is a "Draw", unless the scores are exactly equal, with both sides having been fully "Out", the result is a "Tie".

Simple enough eh? Now for the tough bit- the Laws of Cricket (not the Rules- the "Laws!").

There are 42 Laws, innumerable intertwined sections, a myriad of subsections and an infinite host of "decisions" governing the game that has been played from well before the United States was a twinkle in the eyes of the Founding Fathers. Added to the "Laws" there are the "Regulations". Each major League, national or international, has its own set of amendments agreed to the basic Laws of the game. The Laws are administered on the field of play by two Umpires. Until recent times, the culture of cricket was for the players to accept without demur the decisions of the umpires, good and bad. Sadly that has now changed, and violence has been know to erupt from players disgruntled by particular decisions. Such behaviour is "not cricket" but increasingly becoming "cricket" as younger generations ape the behaviours they see displayed by international and county players,

Given the complexity of the game, it is perhaps necessary that method of watching has been developed. Perhaps the best way to observe a game that can last 5 days- with breaks for drinks, lunch, tea and sleep as necessary- is by dozing in a deckchair on a warm afternoon after a bibulous lunch, with a cooing snifter in easy reach, rousing oneself from time to time to mutter "Good Shot, sir!" or "Well bowled" when the sound of some filed excitement disturbs the post-prandial slumber. Even in a boring game, one can always look forward to the "tea" interval at 4 pm.

No..... I can see why it would not appeal to our North American cousins- too slow, no instant gratification, too complex to appreciate without years of apprenticeship, and until recently, too gentlemanly. No, no: let them stick with that adaptation of the "Rounders" game that our schoolgirls play.

John Heelan, UK, (ex professional cricket umpire and totally confused by Baseball)".

RH: Is the expression "that's not cricket" a legacy of the time when it was a gentleman's game in England, as opposed to that crude game, soccer?

Randy Black says: "John Heelan's description is perhaps the most amusing description of cricket that I have ever read. It would make an excellent essay to read on National Public Radio. All things considered, though, I have a equally rough time explaining the ins and out of baseball and (American) football to folks from other lands. Golf? Piece of cake. The player who has the fewest number of strokes at the end of 18 holes wins every time. A few weird rules, but generally a pretty straight forward game. Who was it who said, "Golf is a good walk ruined?" Mark Twain?" RH: Here we go again. I think it was Shakespeare.

From California, Clyde McMorrow wrote: "While cricket may be fascinating to play (silly mid on and all that), it is second only to golf in its boredom as a spectator sport. What is interesting here is that both of these games are of British invention. If you throw in croquet and darts it would appear that the British develop games for the enjoyment of the player whereas the U.S. games are designed for the spectato".

From the UK, George Sassoon comments: "So what? Player enjoyment is the name of any game, not making money for sponsors etc. A game dies once big money is involved. See the state of soccer in Britain today with illiterate teenage players being paid fortunes which they spend on drink, drugs, fast cars which they smash up, women etc.,
and they accept bribes from betting syndicates in places like Singapore to influence the result of games. The management of clubs is no better. I have fears that rugby union is going professional and the same will happen
there. I should explain that there are two brands of rugby in Britain, Australia, France and elsewhere: union which is 15-a-side and amateur, and league which is 13-a-side and professional and already afflicted by these ills.

One thing you could say for cricket in the U.S. is that it allows plenty of time for commercial breaks! What games weren't invented in Britain, anyway? I can only think of lacrosse (Canada) and polo (India)".

RH: And chess. Clearly soccer is not cricket, and that goes for soccer around the world.

Student Athletes

Daryl DeBell writes: "You had asked for us to try to find out about the graduation rates of student athletes at Stanford. Fox News just aired an account of the graduation rates of college athletes. Stanford was at the top with 100 per cent. Lehigh was second at 90. It dropped off from there to 69 for Duke. U Conn was in the bottom 10, with 27. I have to be a bit dubious about Stanford's 100. It almost has to be pumped up somehow, since entering freshmen in the student body generally do not graduate at that rate. This, I believe, was for basketball players, but Stanford does try to get all athletes to graduate".

Randy Black comments on Daryl DeBell's account of the graduation rates of student athletes: "I recall that the standard used to calculate the graduation rate among athletes uses a six year plan, or something along those lines. Certainly they are not expected to graduate in four years. I also recall that approximately 60 percent or more of all entering freshmen from all universities drop out/fail/do not graduate. Thus, it would seem that even the dismal 27% rate at the University of Connecticut is about normal". RH. I wonder if John Allen, once a pillar of sports at that university, has any comment.

John Allen says: "Randy Black is correct about an approximate graduation rate of somewhere near 30% for all students (not just student athletes) at all institutions--if we use the same methodology applied by the NCAA. The Fox account of graduation rates was very misleading (should anyone be surprised?). What Fox didn't tell you was that the methodology for calculating graduation rates is based exclusively on the number of student-athletes entering a school in a specific class, compared with the number of those student-athletes graduating from that institution within a 6 year time frame. What they also didn't tell you is that the NCAA regulations governing graduation rates are incredibly arcane (a student can transfer from one institution to another, graduate summa cum laude from that second institution, and count against the institution he or she initially enrolled in when the graduation rates are calculated). And, finally, what they didn't tell you is that the graduation rates for all student athletes is virtually identical to the graduation rates for all students--whether at Stanford or Duke or the University of Connecticut. I will grant that the graduation rates for men's basketball are lower than those of most other intercollegiate sports. They tend to be particularly low among the "elite" institutions in the sport--in spite of the fact that many of those institutions are highly regarded academically (the University of Connecticut, for example, normally ranks in the top 20 public research universities in the country)--because student-athletes depart for professional basketball before completing their degrees, and because the departure of just one or two student athletes in a class of three or four does enormous damage to "average" graduation rates. Ironically, the better a program becomes in terms of athletic success, the greater its likelihood of suffering the stigma of low graduation rates. Even Duke had a two year span when its graduation rate was well below 50% as the result of students leaving early to play in the NBA.

For the record--I served as the NCAA faculty athletic representative for the University of Connecticut from 1985 to 2000. And since I know something about that institution, let's take a non-hypothetical University of Connecticut example as illustrative. 4 students enter the class of 19XX in the sport of men's basketball. One of these students does not think he is getting enough playing time for the Huskies and transfers to another institution (very similar to UConn) where he completes his eligibility and graduates within the six year "window." A second student leaves UConn after his junior year for a lucrative career in the NBA and has a contract that pays him millions of dollars a year over the timeframe of a contract that he negotiated himself without an agent (he was a business major) and will renegotiate for probably even more money in the near future. This student, by the way, completes his remaining requirements for his bachelor's degree and graduates from UConn but does not do so within the 6 year window (he misses it by 3 months). A third student completes his degree in 5 years (the norm for student-athletes as most of them take 12 semester hours as a full load rather than the customary 15). A fourth student, from a foreign country, leaves UConn after only one year for three reasons: homesickness, a lucrative professional basketball contract in his home country, and a girlfriend who didn't want to leave home to come to the United States. UConn's graduation rate for that class is 25%; the student athlete who transferred counted against UConn's graduation rate, as did both the young man who departed early for the NBA's millions, and the homesick foreign student. In spite of the published 25% graduation rate, however, three out of four of these former student-athletes have their degrees and all are successful in their chosen careers. Of the three degree holders: one is teaching history and coaching basketball in secondary school; another is playing in the NBA for money that most of us in the academy can only vaguely conceive of and will, upon retirement, enter the business world; a third is playing basketball in Europe for an annual salary approaching $400,000 and plans on a career in international business, using his business degree, when his playing days are completed. The foreign student, who left UConn after one year with only 30 college credits, is still playing professional basketball abroad and is continuing his college education. Should we scold UConn for a graduation rate for this class that, by NCAA standards, is only 25%? I must stress most emphatically that the story of this one class does not represent an unusual or atypical year. Rather, it is highly typical of the elite basketball programs and this common annual pattern, multiplied over a decade, leaves UConn with a "dismal" overall graduation rate, using the NCAA method of calculation, of roughly 30%: students transfer elsewhere, students depart for the NBA or European professional leagues, and, yes, some students drop out (very few).

I would conclude with the comment that graduation within that six year window is not the be-all-end-all. If a young man or young woman is taken out of an intolerable social and economic environment, placed in an institution of higher education where both institutional and NCAA rules require that he or she progress satisfactorily toward a degree in order to continue participation in sports, but then leaves after 4 or 5 years without a diploma, that young person is almost always very different from the one who entered that institution--degree or not.

I would also suggest that persons unfamiliar with (a) the environment of major college sports, (b) the structure of the NCAA rules, or (c) the specifics of a particular recruiting class at a particular institution should not leap to judgment about the current fuss over graduation rates. We teach our students to be critical and to obtain and process all information carefully before reaching conclusions. We should do no less.

I was more than delighted to see the UConn men defeat Duke last night and hope to see them win another national championship by defeating Georgia Tech (whose NCAA graduation rates, by the way, are similar to UConn's) tomorrow. And I've just finished watching the UConn women's basketball team (with a team graduation rate of approximately 90% over the past 10 years) defeat Minnesota to move into the championship game against Tennessee (otherwise known as "the Evil Empire") on Tuesday night, attempting to win their third straight national title. It's time to sit down and write out my annual check to the UConn Foundation to benefit the expansion of UConn's academic programs".

RH: "An approximate graduation rate of somewhere near 30% for all students (not just student athletes) at all institutions". Is that correct, or is it a typo?

HankLevin writes: "For six years I was on the NCAA Research Committee that compiles these statistics. John Allen has suggested that differences among institutions are not all that important and that the actual graduation rates are generally low for all students. This masks very large differences among institutions in overall graduation rates, and especially those of scholarship athletes in basketball and football. It is true that Stanfords high admissions standards (generally the highest SATs in the country among scholarship athletes, and considerably higher than those of Duke in the years that I have checked) provide more capable students who would be expected to do better academically. But, unlike many of the sports powerhouses, Stanford does not have weak undergraduate curricula such as physical education or recreation and leisure or criminal justice majors where athletes are sequestered in order to get them through. Worse yet, most Division I institutions provide academic support personnel and tutors who make an important contribution to the written work of athletes. In some cases, all written work is done by these helpers. Scandals in recent years at the University of Tennessee and the University of Minnesota are only the tip of the iceberg. It is natural for such academic assistants to go native in providing help to the noted athletes who must be kept eligible for the sake of Alma Mater. There are differences among institutions in all of these practices and in graduate rates of athletes at different types of institutions".

I questioned the statement "An approximate graduation rate of somewhere near 30% for all students (not just student athletes) at all institutions" and asked "Is that correct, or is it a typo?" John Allen replies: "Not a typo: read the qualifier "if we use the same methodology applied by the NCAA" (which points up the fallacies in their methodology). Also keep in mind that this is a national average for all 4-year institutions. More than 50% of American students in 4 year institutions do not finish their higher education at the place they began, and thus are not "counters" in the NCAA way of calculating graduation rates". RH: It sounds to me like sports competitiveness gone mad, not sport got sport's sake.

Randy Black writes: "I agree totally with John Allen's scenario. And yes, it's not a typo. 30% is about right. I recall listening to the chancellor of the University of Oklahoma speak to the entering freshmen class in 1965. There were about 5,000 of us. He said, "Look to the student to your left and your right. They won't be here in four years." We laughed at first, then it sunk in. "I'll be here," I thought. I was. The percentage of entering freshmen vs who graduate remains fairly static over the decades.

Regarding the "system" of student-athletes who make it to the NBA. A tiny, tiny percentage of student-athletes in the USA are that lucky. Out of tens of thousands of college basketball players in the US and elsewhere, in any given year, the number who make it into the NBA is probably fewer than 75, if that many. Considering that there are only 450 NBA players, and since many are veterans from previous years, there are only so many slots from year to year for college types. Statistic: 30 teams, normal roster is 15 equals 450 players. Think about it: Tens of thousands of college basketball players in the US and elsewhere, and yet, fewer than 75 will have a shot at an opening in the NBA.

My concern is the number of illegitimate children fathered by NBA players. Sports Illustrated ran a story a few years ago that said there may be more children fathered out of marriage by NBA player then there were players. According to SI, one of the NBA's top agents says he spends more time dealing with paternity claims than he does negotiating contracts. The agent tells the magazine that there might be more kids out of wedlock than there are players in the NBA."

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/features/1998/weekly/980504/insidelook.html

Randy Black says: "I'm not certain that, using the same methodology as the NCAA, for non athletes, it is accurate, per John Allen.. I figured that it was just a matter of drop outs, not transfers having such an impact on the drop out/graduation rates. Here's a link to the NCAA numbers for all schools, conferences, ethnic groups in the US.
http://chronicle.com/stats/ncaa/

We find statistics on the graduation rates of student athletes totally confusing. Hank Levin explains: "Some of the confusion arises from the base used on athletes. First, there is a difference between all intercollegiate athletes, those on scholarships, and those on scholarships in the two “key” sports of Basketball and Football. If you include all sports such as tennis, swimming, water polo, crew, crosscountry, etc… you get much higher graduate rates than if you limit to the two big “revenue sports” of basketball and football. The NCAA is mainly concerned about the latter two sports where most of the abuses are found. Clearly, distinctions must be made among sports, scholarship athletes, gender, and revenue sports".

RH:I would put in a good word for that boring sport, cricket. The test matches between India and Pakistan were played in the best sporting spirit and did much to defuse a tense political situation. Other sports would probably have the opposite effect. The trouble is that US university administrations have not figured out how to make money from cricket.

Ronald Hilton -

Webmaster