Athletics and Academics Talk (with Dan Williams)

Learning and Retirement Group

25 January 02

Introduction. Allow me to begin with a bad joke, a dumb blonde story about a male blonde. An Irishman, a Mexican and a blonde guy were doing construction work on scaffolding on the 20th floor of a building. They were eating lunch and the Irishman said, "Corned beef and cabbage! If I get corned beef and cabbage one more time for lunch I'm going to jump off this

building." The Mexican opened his lunch box and exclaimed, "Burritos again! If I get burritos one more time I'm going to jump off, too." The blond opened his lunch and said, "Bologna again. If I get a bologna sandwich one more time, I'm jumping too." The next day the Irishman opened his lunch box, saw corned beef and cabbage and jumped to his death. The Mexican opened his lunch, saw a burrito and jumped too. The blonde guy opened his lunch, saw the bologna and jumped to his death as well.

At the funeral the Irishman's wife was weeping. She said, "If I'd known how really tired he was of corned beef and cabbage, I never would have given it to him again!" The Mexican's wife also wept and said, "I could have given him tacos or enchiladas! I didn't realize he

hated burritos so much." Everyone turned and stared at the blonde's wife. "Hey, don't look at me," she said, "He makes his own lunch."

For today’s talk the moral of this story is that stereotypes abound in society. Faculty and faculty viewpoints are frequently stereotyped. My goal is to disavow 3 broadly held assumptions:

1. Faculty speak with one voice

2. All faculty are against athletics

3. Faculty are indifferent to the role of athletics in an academic setting

Do faculty speak with one voice?

Do all loggers think the same? Do all Oregonians have the same views on abortion? Do you children all behave similarly? Obviously the answer is no in all three cases and the same applies to faculty. We are white, black, asian, hispanic, pacific islander. We are young, middle-aged and young-at-heart. We are married, single and divorced. We have children and are childless. We are republicans, democrats and independents, liberals and conservatives. On most issues we generate the same broad range of response as general public. Do we speak with one voice? Certainly not, but we do achieve consensus on many issues.

Are all faculty against athletics? It is frequently stated both inside and outside the halls of Academia that faculty are steadfast and united in their stand against athletics. To be sure, a substantial fraction are against athletics but many are in favor. My informal and non-scientific survey of my colleagues indicate about an even three-fold split: 1/3 in favor, 1/3 opposed and 1/3 don’t care as long as it doesn’t affect them. And even 1/3 in favor or opposed has variation ranging from strongly in favor (opposed) to weakly in favor (opposed). This is one instance where faculty do not speak with one voice.

Are faculty indifferent to role of athletics in our University? Not on your life. University athletics are front and center of many conversations at the University. Even the 1/3 who don’t care about athletics care about the effect of athletics on the University. The conversation usually boils down to several issues.

1. Academic standards. All Universities have some admission standards. Usually it is a combination of test scores and/or HS grades plus recommendations and essay(s). Sadly, the push towards success on playing fields has encouraged a decline in those standards. Duke’s average SAT score is 1310 for non-students and 840 for student-athletes, a nearly 500 point difference. Williams and Swarthmore each set aside 30% of the entering class for athletes, most of whom have much lower GPA and test scores than non-students. Many of these are from underprivileged/minority groups who happen to have an athletic skill needed by the university’s athletic dept. NCAA statistics for full-time enrolled students in Div 1A schools in 1999-00 shows 1.7% white students were student-athletes compared to 7.2% of entering black students. At UO in 1999-00, 47 out of 203 black students were student-athletes (23%) vs. 166 out of 8905 white students (1.9%). At OSU in the same period 28.5% black students and 2.2% white students were student-athletes. The flip side of this argument is that minority student athletes tend to pursue higher paying careers after school. Princeton’s statistics show that their minority students become doctors, lawyers, accountants, stock brokers and other careers. So there is a up side as well.

Graduation rates are another metric often used in this discussion. Data from all 321 Division 1 schools (1A, 1AA, 1AAA) are revealing. The graduation rate from the entering freshman class of 1994 (six year data from 1994-2000) shows that 56% of all students earn a degree. For student athletes it is 58%. Females student-athletes graduate at a significantly higher rate than females not engaged in sports. Interestingly, white male student-athletes have a slightly lower graduation rate (55%) compared to all white male students (57%) while black male student athletes have a higher graduation rate compared to the general black male student population (42% vs 31%), but both of these latter percentages are less than inspiring. On a sport by sport basis, the worse graduation rate is obtained by black male basket ball players who have a 35% graduation rate, still higher than general black male student population (31%). It is interesting to note that graduation rates for all students have risen since 1984 (56% vs 52%) but student-athletes show a greater increase (58% vs 53%).

The UO has major national bragging rights in academic success of our athletes: the UO graduation rate is much better than the national average - Male athletes’ graduation rate is 60% compared to 56% for all UO male students, and the figures are even better for female athletes (67% vs 60% for all females). UO student athletes also have GPAs slightly higher than that of the general student population. And UO graduates an astounding 91% of student-athletes that complete their eligibility requirements, a much higher rate than the national average of 74%. These UO numbers for overall student graduation rate, GPA, and graduation rate for those completing eligibility are at the top of the NCAA Division 1 teams that competed in bowls games this year. Why do our student-athletes, and student-athletes in general, do better than average academically? Probably due to special treatment.

2. Treatment of student athletes. Student athletes not only receive a scholarship to attend University, but once at the University, student-athletes are frequently coddled throughout their athletic careers. On the sports side, they have coaches, trainers, doctors, nurses, nutritional advisors, people to give them advice on weight training, food supplements, equipment, etc. They also have folks that help them find a job, a place to live, and generally settle in to University life. Academic help is provided too in the form of people to help them study, required study halls, tutors, and mentors. Then there are the myriad of athletic assistants that keep track of student’s academic records, their grades, their classes and their progress toward the degree, issues that need to be track to maintain athletic eligibility. Given all this assistance it is not surprising that student-athletes nearly always graduate at a higher rate than the typical student who is not on an athletic scholarship. NCAA statistics show that the average athletic dept expense per student-athlete at a Division 1A school in 1999 was a staggering $38,000! This brings us to #1 issue on campus - expenses of athletic departments.

3. Financial impact on the University. One of the biggest, and perhaps the biggest, issue of concern to faculty is both the absolute and escalating aspects of the costs surrounding athletics. Average expenses of the athletic department in a Division 1A school in 1999 was $20M (million), increasing from just $7M in 1985. This is a 300% increase - obviously such an increase has not been experienced on the academic side. One school (unnamed in the survey) spent $63M in 1999! At the UO our budget has gone up from $12M in 1991 to $23M in 1996 to $30M in 2001. To put this in perspective, the total University budget for academic purposes is $200M. Becasue athletics is a “dept” it accounts for 15% of the total University budget. My dept’s, biology, budget is $2.8M/yr. Our Athletic dept budget is increasing at the national average rate of 10% a year so next year’s budget will be $33M and then $36.3M and so on. This increase per year equals my dept’s total budget. On the plus side, the UO athletic department is one of the very few athletic departments in the country to have developed a plan to have a balanced budget (in 2.5 years). Most other Division 1 Universities have a $1.9M/yr deficit that is covered by a subsidy from the University. OSU currently has a $4M+ athletic deficit which is contributing to the current financial woes.

There are other financial issues of concern to faculty, for example, the Autzen Stadium expansion, currently costing $90M. This is the biggest public works project in Eugene’s history. Each of the 13,000 new seats will cost approximately $7,000 - the price of nearly 2 years tuition for an in-state student at UO. This expansion is necessary because football revenues fund the rest of the athletic dept and are therefore needed to pay to the skyrocketing increase in the cost of staying in the business of intercollegiate athletics. The US government last spring gave $100M to support the distribution of AIDS drugs in sub Sahara Africa and we here in little ole Eugene are spending $90M for a football stadium expansion.

4. Effect on the University and Society. The state of Oregon is in the midst of a major budget crisis. Current plans call for a 10% cut from the higher ed budget as well as significant cuts to K-12 schools and other essential state services. Such cuts will have devastating effects on our ability to provide a quality education to our students, your children and grandchildren. The last time such cuts occurred - the result of the Property Tax limitation bills, Measures 5 and 47 in the 90s – the UO closed programs, reduced faculty, increased class size and lost stature locally, regionally, and nationally. Here we are again, on the brink of another devastating cut, and we are spending $90M to expand a football stadium used 7 days a year. Is there not a cultural disconnect? How can we continue to fund sports at the expense of our societal future? How long do we pay lip service to the notion that education is the single most important aspect of an individual’s development and long term success both financially and healthwise? Sports has become the dominant theme in our culture, alongside pop music and pop culture? What does this say about our societal priorities?

I love sports - do it everyday. I cheer for my children’s teams, the Ducks, a few professional teams, and all Olympic athletes. But it is not the most important piece of my life.

In the best of all worlds, sports and academics complement each other to build healthy minds and strong bodies. But when the two become in conflict with each other, which should have priority? Has the wrong one become dominant over the other? These are the questions being raised by faculty and which should be discussed by the general public at large.