COMMENTS ON THE ATHLETICS-ACADEMIC RESOLUTION

26 March 2002

Richard A. Sundt, Art History, rsundt@oregon

Professor James Schombert has asked me to comment on several matters relating to the resolution I introduced last month concerning athletic scheduling and its impact on academics. The issues at hand are various and intertwined, and to my mind, they go to the very core of our educational mission. I will begin by responding to Prof. Schombert's most fundamental and very sensible question: Academically speaking, will keeping the Saturday before finals free from a football game make any difference to our students, both athletes and non? In order to answer this question, I will need to make some references to the situation in other sports, particularly basketball. This will in turn serve as a basis for discussing the larger issues that the resolution given below seeks to address.

1. THE RESOLUTION

For the sake of convenience I include below the text of the resolution and my introductory remarks (13 March 2002):

When the date of the 2001 Civil War football game was changed to the Saturday before finals, the University of Oregon Senate passed a resolution (US00/01-4) recommending that, "in the future," the scheduling "of major events should not interfere with dead week and final exams." I thus thought we had settled this issue, but apparently not. If plans announced last month go forward, they will contravene the Senate resolution adopted less than a year ago (11 April 2001). I would therefore like to introduce a resolution aimed at 1) reasserting the principle of faculty governance, and 2) strengthening the faculty's role in setting the university's academic agenda. The resolution reads as follows:

1) The University of Oregon Senate resolves that the University shall not schedule regular season games during dead and finals week.

2) Exceptions to this rule shall only be made by a majority vote of the University Senate.

3) Working jointly, the Faculty Advisory Committee and the full Intercollegiate Athletics Committee may stand in for the Senate during those times of the year when senators do not hold monthly meetings.

4) This resolution takes effect beginning 15 September 2002.

5) Current commitments relating to scheduling are not affected by the terms set forth in this resolution.

2. FOOTBALL, OTHER SPORTS and THE RESOLUTION

Since the resolution was prompted by an attempt to reschedule for the next two years a football game in dead week (between Oregon and Washington, accompanied by a $1.2 million ABC contract for each year), it is appropriate to begin discussing the academic vs. athletic issues in terms of football, although the same issues are applicable to other sports, particularly basketball, and with even greater urgency (as I will detail later). The March resolution is not aimed at any one sport. Having said this, the fact is that football is different from other sports in several respects, and some of these are from my point view advantageous. In contrast to other sports, which are played over two quarters, football provides an easier framework for smoothing out conflicts between academic and athletic scheduling because only one term of play is involved. I would support a move to amend the resolution above to make it applicable only to football as long as there is recognition that the problem of academic-athletic scheduling needs to be addressed locally and nationally for other sports besides football.

3. FOOTBALL'S ENVIABLE SITUATION

At the hand of Mike Bellotti and under the overall supervision of Bill Moos, Duck football is enjoying not only enormous athletic success, but academic success as well. It was recently reported (Oregon Outlook, Spring 2002) that among PAC-10 schools the graduation rate for Oregon football players (at 70%; 61% according to the Chronicle, perhaps based on earlier data) was second only to Stanford's. This impressive achievement is no doubt due to concerted efforts by the Athletic Department to promote educational opportunities for student athletes. Unfortunately, the picture is not quite as rosy for other Oregon sports, like basketball. The bright spot there is that graduation rates for Oregon basketball are above those of other PAC-10 teams, some of which are as low as 13% (according to the Chronicle). This less favorable situation for Duck basketball is not due to lack of commitment on the part of Ernie Kent and Bev Smith. Other circumstances, which I will explain later, and largely out any individual coach's control, are among the factors that tend to keep graduation rates low or lower for basketball. This is not a local problem, but a national one, so I am not attempting to demean our two fine coaches and their efforts, nor the players.

Football's academic record at Oregon is enviable, and as such it is something that we should not jeopardize by altering a scheduling arrangement that has benefited both the players and the student population in general. Football has, in comparison to basketball, an optimum situation, so let us not throw it away. If football has a better graduation rate than basketball (this is true in Oregon and nationwide as well), it is partly because the former sport is not faced with the same demanding schedule as the latter one. In the case of basketball, game play impacts on dead and finals week of both fall and winter terms since regular season begins in early November and goes through March. Until last year, when a change was instituted (which faculty understood to be an exceptional arrangement, and not the start of a new trend), football played its last game (against OSU) around mid November. This meant that student athletes had about three weeks of study prior to finals without having to worry about preparing for a game. Surely this is a factor that must count as one major explanation for football's higher graduation rate in Oregon. In measuring the academic achievement of football players we should not simply consider the efforts of the Athletic Department staff, however helpful they might be. There are other factors that also account for Duck football's academic success, and that is that about 30% of the regular season games are played before classes get started in Oregon, all thanks to our quarter system. Stanford's ability to do well academically is also aided by the fact that it too is on quarters. Most of the other PAC-10 schools (if not all) operate under semesters, so all their matches take place while classes are in session, and it is significant that these teams have lower graduation rates than Oregon and Stanford.

Basketball, on the other hand, has not had the luxury of not playing during finals and deadweek, and this may well be part of the reason why graduation rates in this sport are low. Another contributing factor is that basketball is played over two semesters, or two quarters in Oregon's case. This is in contrast to football whose regular season is played only in the fall.

Currently, Oregon finds itself in an optimum situation, one that it shares with no other school in the PAC-10, except for Stanford. In both universities, football players begin the season without classes; for the remainder of the season they also have classes, but finish playing about three weeks before finals, allowing plenty of time for study and bringing up the graduation rate. But Oregon's academic advantage is in danger of being jeopardized if the playing schedule is allowed to encroach into dead and finals week. Why change what ain't broken? Why tamper with what thus far has been a winning formula for both academics and athletics? The proposal to change the UW game to the Saturday before finals is not in the best interest of the players.

4. FOOTBALL PLAYERS and THE REST OF THE STUDENT POPULATION

Holding games during dead week in football carries far greater consequences than doing the same in other sports. In contrast to basketball, which has ten-to-twelve person teams, the football squad numbers around 100. With football also comes a large marching band, and this adds another 250 students to the group required to forego their study period. Then there are many regular student fans who are tempted to do the same. I have not included the cheerleaders, but we already have 350 students directly distracted by football at the end of fall term. It is not as if there had been no games all autumn long to entertain students and community alike.

There is precious little time nowadays for quiet and reflection. I believe the study of academic disciplines needs this, and we as faculty should provide opportunities for students to think (whether they take them or not is up to each individual). We should definitely not promote situations that encourage students to rush into final exams without having had time to digest facts and concepts. Thus, a decision to encroach on the last week of class has ramifications that reach beyond the football team, something that the Athletic Department and the administration need to take into consideration.

5. LENGTHENING THE FOOTBALL SEASON

The present proposal to push games into dead week has nothing to do with the PAC-10 or the NCAA; it is a purely local decision between two schools, and thus under our control. All this is happening because the networks have several Saturdays free between the end of regular season and the beginning of the bowl series that need filling at modest cost. The university apparently still intends to sign a two-year contract with ABC that would bind the Universities of Oregon and Washington to compete during the Saturday before finals. Note that this is not for one year but two; this demonstrates how little regard the administration and the Athletic Department have for the Senate's resolution on the Civil War game. So if so soon after passing this legislation we are ready to lengthen the season for two more years, what are the chances that this will happen again two years hence, and then become a permanent condition, assuming that the TV networks are not going to go away any time soon? We are seeing a trend that does not augur well for academics. We either try to stop it now or never, in which case we might as well then forget about faculty control of academic agenda as a viable concept.

Clearly, the market is driving the scheduling of games, not good pedagogy. It is unsettling to learn that the guardians of academe are contributing to this trend. The NCAA News (June 4, 2001, p. 23) reported that the Football Study Oversight Committee, which is composed primarily of college presidents, put forth a proposal last year that included "letting the market drive scheduling." I don't know if this proposal has been adopted or not, but one can see that it is certainly determining the course of events in Oregon and Washington.

What we are witnessing with the Civil War and UW game changes is the gradual encroachment of athletics into precious academic time. Not far down the road we can expect the addition of more regular games. This lengthening of the season has already occurred through the bowl championship series. As the Knight Foundation Report noted, the number of bowl games has mushroomed in the last decade from 18 to 25, and college football is now played from August to January (A Call to Action, p. 21). At the national level, leaders are calling for cutting down the football season, but here in the Northwest we are doing our darndest to lengthen it, and messing with what has been so far a play schedule that accommodates academic study far better than other sports, and evidently to salutatory effect judging from the academic performance of Duck football players.

This tendency to lengthen and increase play is alive and strong in Oregon in other ways as well. We are in fact one of the leaders in this movement. As we have witnessed this March, the PAC-10 instituted this year a post-season basketball tournament. It is wedged tightly between the end of the regular season and the beginning of the NCAA tournaments. Why add more games to an already crowded play schedule and so soon before the NCAA? Even professionals in athletics have been calling for decreasing tournaments, not increasing them. I wrote to President Frohnmayer (4 August 2000) urging him not to vote for post-season play. The arguments put forth by the Casanova Center prevailed (a notable hold out was Jody Runge, but not really for academic reasons).

6. BASKETBALL'S GRUELING SCHEDULE

In order to highlight football's enviable situation and the danger of tampering with it by stretching the playing season, let me give some statistics for women's and men's and basketball:

Women's Basketball: A 19-week season with 32 games, and with the Women's National Invitational Tournament, this makes a 21-week season with 36 games (through the end of finals week; I am not counting play taking place during the week prior to Spring quarter). This means 1.71 or nearly two games per week, thus requiring play on Tuesdays, Wednesdays or Thursdays, in addition to weekends. This doesn't leave much room for going to class, particularly when the team is away from home. Compounding the problem is that in the 2001-2 school year the women played during dead and finals week, both in the fall and winter terms.

Men's Basketball: A 19-week season with 31 games, and with PAC-10 and NCAA tournaments, the season was extended to 20 weeks and a total of 35 games (through the end of finals week; I am not counting play taking place during the week prior to Spring quarter). This averages to 1.75 games a week. Play for the men also took place during dead and finals week of both fall and winter terms.

Such grueling schedules inevitably take a toll on academics. Some schools cope with this better than others, but on the whole not very well. This NCAA system, of which Oregon is a part, counts among its membership universities with dreadful graduation rates, which makes one wonder why this is allowed to happen in institutions of higher education. Here are some examples: University of Arizona, 13%; University of California, Berkeley, 18%; University of California, Los Angeles, 36%; and the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, 8% (Chronicle; ratios cited are for men; women do better).

Even coaches and athletic directors recognize the reasons for the lower graduation rates in this sport. William Byrne, former Athletic Director at Oregon and now at Nebraska wrote in the NCAA News (15 January 2001): "It has been my experience that academically, some of our basketball players often are the most at-risk athletes we have on our campuses. They travel more and they play more games. Therefore, not having then on campus for class and study works against their success… By reducing the number of games, they can stay at home and go to class more often. I think this is the best and most compelling argument to limit the number of contests." Similarly, the former director of women's athletics at Iowa, Christine Grant, declared in the NCAA News (7 January 2002): "If you really want to reform athletics, consider banning all midweek competitions." But when the basketball coaches met in January of this year to tackle reform, their "Game Plan" made no mention of reducing the number of games and offered no essential change in operation or structure. Such dribble as "Trustees and Presidents will be urged to provide student athletes and coaches an annual address from the president…" are not the type of recommendations that will yield meaningful results. So don't look to the coaches and the NCAA for reforms. Also don't look to Oregon's Casanova Center or Johnson Hall. We have just voted to add more basketball play by re-instituting the PAC-10 tournament, even though it comes right before the NCAA and interferes with dead and finals week. Only the faculty can begin a grass-root effort to ensure that students playing basketball have more time for class and the opportunity of taking exams under normal conditions.

7. THE POST-MASCULINE ATHLETIC AGE and THE VISIBILITY FACTOR

What we are seeing in basketball, and in other sports as well, is a lengthening of playing season and number of games. None of this is for academic reasons. Intercollegiate athletics has become an end in itself, even here in Oregon, notwithstanding the commitment to graduation, now under threat for the sake of acquiring more TV revenue. The argument that all this play, regular and post-season, gives Oregon visibility and as such is good for a struggling state university is hard to accept, particularly in this post-masculine athletic age. Really, are not 31 games of men's basketball in 19 weeks more than enough for visibility? Maybe this was insufficient in ages past when women were not playing basketball, or doing so with little public attention. But this is not the case in 2002. So, to the men's 31 games, we can now add women's 32 games, all taking place simultaneously. This has earned us 63 windows of visibility in regular season play alone (71 if we include the post-season). This is about 3.33 windows per week. Is this not overkill? Is this necessary? With the women now added to the playing pool, surely we could reduce the amount of visibility to more reasonable proportions, thereby offering more learning time to student athletes. We continue to think as if we were still in a male-dominated athletic environment. The load can now be shared, but what we have done recently is to increase the work for all, needlessly duplicating efforts. If the administration and the Athletic Department have their way, we shall now start doing the same for football.

8. REDUCING MIDWEEK COMPETITION

What we need to do as faculty, as coaches, as presidents, and as members of the NCAA and PAC-10, is decrease the number of games for basketball. We also need to work out for this and other sports a system of scheduling that keeps play during weekends. Without any good rationale, weekdays have been hijacked by athletics as if class attendance does not matter. This has now reached epic proportions. Except for football, midweek competition is now becoming routine, normality, and not the exception. Surely it doesn't have to be the way it is. If so, the faculty might as well pack and go home, or simply conduct all classes through the Internet.

9. A CALL TO ACTION

It is clear to me that I am not alone in my dismay about the influence of athletics on education. It is evident that we are losing control of the academic agenda for the profit of the media and the sports establishment, which includes the NCAA. This is an institution to which Oregon belongs and which draws 80% of its operating budget from TV revenue (A Call to Action, p. 19). The NCAA is therefore unlikely to ever advocate game reduction. The Knight Foundation Report (examining athletic reform), released in 2001, recommends, among other things, "that the length of playing, practice and postseasons must be reduced to afford athletes a realistic opportunity to complete their degrees…" (A Call to Action, p. 27). This report also challenges various groups and individuals to work for reform, including the faculty of each university: "Faculty too have a critical role to play. Above all they must defend the academic values of their institutions. Too few faculty speak out on their campus or fight aggressively…they have surrendered their role as defenders of academic integrity in the classroom. Further, the academy has capitulated on its responsibility and allowed commercial interests…to dictate the terms under which collegiate sports operate… There are scattered signs of faculty awakening (a reference to Oregon's resolutions last year) but on many campuses, faculty indifference prevails…."

10. SOME FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS:

A. Unfortunately, owing to the structure of the playing season for basketball, we in Oregon cannot affect the needed changes at this moment. However, we as faculty should urge coaches, the athletic director and the university president to work towards reforming this sport, notably by reducing the number of games played. This will not avoid entirely the problem of playing during dead and finals week. The only way to solve this, at least with respect to finals, is for the University of Oregon and the whole Oregon University System to adopt semesters. This would greatly benefit athletics, and in my opinion, academics as well. In the end too, it would save money and make us more efficient by eliminating 33% of certain activities.

B. The faculty should urge the University's president to convince the PAC-10 to discontinue its post-season conference play since this interferes with dead and final week and comes immediately before another tournament in which we also participate (the NCAA championships). In addition, PAC-10 post-season play interferes with midterms for universities on semesters.

C. Given the realities of the current scheduling system for athletics other than football, I suggest amending the resolution I offered in March to apply only to football. On the issue of immediate concern, we can and should exercise the type of local control that is not presently open to us in basketball and other sports.