Debates about the future of athletics in higher education frequently point to a developing financial crisis. The crux of this crisis \u201clies in the mathematically impossible quest of each athletic department to keep up with the most accomplished athletic departments,\u201d perpetuating what is commonly referred to as the athletics \u201cArms Race\u201d (Bass, et al, 2015, p. 72). For schools that generate considerable revenue amid this race, \u201cit will likely be business as usual in the coming decades\u201d (Bass, et al, 2015, p. 73). However, there may be trouble on the horizon \u201cfor those institutions relying on university funding and student fees for large portions of their budget\u201d (Bass, et al, 2015, pp. 73-74). As coaching salaries and the cost of facilities continue to rise, many institutions will be hard pressed to compete without maintaining public support and\/or deferring costs to students in the form of fees.<\/p>\n
Recent court decisions may ultimately exacerbate the \u201cArms Race.\u201d For example, while the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals did not award more substantial remedies in the case of O\u2019Bannon vs. the NCAA<\/em>, the court did find that \u201ccertain amateurism rules violate federal antitrust law\u201d (McCann 1). To help preserve this system and settle the monetary portion of a class action lawsuit, the NCAA and eleven member conferences recently created a 208.7 million dollar fund for the benefit of current and former Division I basketball and football players. This fund \u201cwill award class members money up to, but not exceeding, their full cost of attendance\u201d and help to maintain \u201ccost of attendance as an appropriate dividing line between collegiate and professional sports\u201d (\u201cNCAA Establishes Fund,\u201d 2017).<\/p>\n For the time being \u2013 and because there are provisions that allow institutions to compensate any student-athlete up the full cost of attendance \u2013 \u201cthe NCAA\u2019s controversial system of \u2018amateurism\u2019 largely remains in place\u201d (McCann 2). However, the Ninth Circuit\u2019s decision could be used as favorable precedent by those who would argue that the NCAA and its member institutions \u201cconspire\u201d on a \u201csystem where no school pays student-athletes in excess of athletic scholarships\u201d (McCann 3). While the Supreme Court has yet to weigh in on this controversial issue \u2013 and while the impact of the O\u2019Bannon decision may take several years to play out \u2013 a future decision in favor of student-athletes could \u201cupend the NCAA\u2019s system of amateurism\u201d and create an even more competitive environment in which they are compensated above and beyond the cost of attendance \u2013 for example, in the form of revenue sharing or cash incentives.<\/p>\n This type of environment would only increase competition (and spending) for the most talented players. At the very least, \u201cantitrust legislation appears to hold some opportunities for athletes to join together and [\u2026] secure health insurance, across the board guaranteed scholarships, and an overall voice in the decision making of the NCAA\u201d (Bass, et al, 2015, p. 85). Moving forward, it will very important to monitor the implications of future court decisions for athletics funding across the board. Decisions in favor of high-profile athletes \u2013 including intersections with the requirements of Title IX \u2013 would force colleges and universities to reimagine the ways in which they fund all sports.<\/p>\n As the costs associated with athletics continue to rise, institutions may also be pressed to demonstrate \u2013 and perhaps even to quantify \u2013 the educational legitimacy of intercollegiate athletics. Researchers have made frequent reference to the holistic benefits of athletic participation. These include \u201cenhanced time management skills, heightened levels of self-discipline, and the ability to balance dual roles as both students and athletes\u201d (Weight, et al, 2014, p. 391). However, \u201cmany of the benefits have not been quantified with empirical research\u201d (p. 391). Findings of one recent effort to fill this research gap suggest that participation in athletics may not necessarily \u2013 or automatically \u2013 result in \u201cuniversal holistic development\u201d and that practitioners must \u201cdeliver programs to cultivate<\/em> the benefits [of participation] (p. 391). In other words, college and university personnel must be active in helping student-athletes recognize and practice transferable skills (i.e., skills learned through athletics participation) in other contexts.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, another recent study, which surveyed employers to assess the perceived benefits of athletic participation, found that companies seeking to fill positions with former athletes \u201cdo so because they pair athletic participation with dispositional attributes [\u2026] including competitive nature, goal-orientation, ability to handle pressure, strong work ethic, confidence, coach-ability, ability to work with others, self-motivation, mental toughness, and time management skills\u201d (Chalfin, et al, p. 19). However, there was also a tendency in these surveys to value superior athletic achievement and\/or team leadership experience (e.g., team captains, All-Americans) more highly than \u201cmembership on an athletic team\u201d (p. 20). Again, this study suggests that participation alone may not result in tangible benefits. Amidst growing pressure to demonstrate the educational legitimacy of athletic participation, institutions will need to be proactive in conducting their own research\/ assessment, and in taking steps to connect the perceived benefits of athletic participation to their core values and desired outcomes.<\/p>\n The NCAA is taking steps to help institutions in these assessment efforts. Realizing the need to help student-athletes excel in the classroom, the Division I Committee on Academics has tentatively endorsed \u201ca tool that identifies potential data points that high-level leaders at schools could review to analyze academic performance on an individual campus\u201d (\u201cDI Academics Group,\u201d 2017). Member institutions would have the option to use this tool in assessing student-athletes\u2019 overall performance and comparing it to that of the general student population. Among the \u201cdata points\u201d is student-athletes\u2019 rate of participation in engaging educational activities such as internships and study abroad.<\/p>\n To support participation in these activities, the Division I Council passed legislation that \u201cextends the time students have to complete four years of eligibility if they pursue a degree-applicable internship or study abroad program during the regular school year. Students generally have five years to complete four years of eligibility, and with the new rules, that time spent in the internship or study abroad program is exempt from counting against the five-year period\u201d (\u201cDI Council Approves,\u201d 2017). This rule change is part of \u201ca division-wide effort to provide students with the opportunity to better balance their athletics and academic commitments\u201d (\u201cDI Student-Athletes,\u201d 2017).<\/p>\n Already, \u201cstudent-athletes and other representatives of schools in the Atlantic Coast, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12 and Southeastern conferences approved several measures aimed at helping their student-athletes have more discretionary time if they want it\u201d (\u201cDI Student-Athletes,\u201d 2017). Measures include: requiring \u201cthe creation of a time management plan for each sport and an annual review of that plan\u201d; prohibiting \u201cathletically related activities during a continuous eight-hour period between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m.\u201d; and requiring \u201ca seven-day break after the season and 14 additional days off during the regular academic year when classes are in session\u201d (\u201cDI Student-Athletes,\u201d 2017).<\/p>\n References<\/strong><\/p>\n Bass, J.R., Schaeperkoetter, C.C., & Bunds, K.S. (2015). The \u2018front porch: Examining the increasing<\/em>\u00a0interconnection of university and athletic department funding<\/em>. ASHE Higher Education Report, 41(5). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.<\/p>\n Chalfin, P., Weight, E., Osborne, B., & Johnson, S. (2015). The value of intercollegiate athletics participation from the perspective of employers who target athletes. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 8<\/em>, 1-27.<\/p>\n DI academics group exploring evaluation tool. (2017, Feb. 6). Retrieved from\u00a0http:\/\/www.ncaa.org\/about\/resources\/media-center\/news\/di-academics-group-exploring-evaluation-tool<\/a><\/p>\n DI council approves time commitment legislation. (2017, Jan. 18). Retrieved from\u00a0http:\/\/www.ncaa.com\/news\/football\/article\/2017-01-18\/di-council-approves-time-commitment-legislation<\/a><\/p>\n DI student-athletes to have more time away from sports. (2017, Jan. 20). Retrieved from http:\/\/www.ncaa.org\/about\/resources\/media-center\/news\/di-student-athletes-have-more-time-away-sports<\/a><\/p>\n McCann, M. (2016, Oct. 3). In denying O\u2019bannon case, Supreme Court leaves future of amateurism in limbo. Sports Illustrated<\/em>. Retrieved from\u00a0https:\/\/www.si.com\/college-basketball\/2016\/10\/03\/ed-obannon-ncaa-lawsuit-supreme-court<\/a><\/p>\n NCAA establishes fund for student-athletes. (2017, Feb. 3). Retrieved from\u00a0http:\/\/www.ncaa.org\/about\/resources\/media-center\/news\/ncaa-establishes-fund-student-athletes<\/a><\/p>\n Weight, E., Navarro, K., Huffman, L., & Smith-Ryan, A. (2014). Quantifying the psychological benefits of intercollegiate athletics participation. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 7<\/em>, 390-409.<\/p>\n Notes from \u201cEmmert Stresses Diligence in Three Commitments to College Athletics\u201d<\/u><\/p>\n \u201cWith regard to student-athlete health and well-being, [NCAA President Mark] Emmert said higher education has a unique opportunity and responsibility, especially given that some of the world’s best research universities are within the membership.<\/p>\n \u201cThe NCAA and the U.S. Department of Defense continue to collaborate on a concussion study that has more than 28,000 participants. The goal is to find more conclusive ways to benefit the Association\u2019s student-athletes by making sports safer to compete in, and in the process aid society more broadly. Mental health care is another issue that Emmert said student-athletes often want to discuss. He believes it is important to evolve the college sports culture so that coming forward with a mental health issue will be encouraged and not stigmatized. Intercollegiate sports can play a role in reaching that goal in society, Emmert said.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cEmmert then pointed to sexual assault as an area of well-being that needs continual focus. The Association took steps to address the issue this year when the NCAA Sexual Assault Task Force published a prevention tool kit that was endorsed by higher education associations, committees throughout the NCAA governance structure and subject matter experts throughout the field. And the NCAA\u2019s top governing body, the Board of Governors, has created a Commission to Combat Campus Sexual Violence to continue that work and initiate a change in campus culture.\u201d<\/p>\n Citation<\/strong><\/p>\n Emmert stresses diligence in three commitments to college athletics. (2017, Jan. 20). Retrieved from\u00a0http:\/\/www.ncaa.org\/about\/resources\/media-center\/news\/emmert-stresses-diligence-three-commitments-college-athletics<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Debates about the future of athletics in higher education frequently point to a developing financial crisis. The crux of this crisis \u201clies in the mathematically impossible quest of each athletic department to keep up with the most accomplished athletic departments,\u201d perpetuating what is commonly referred to as the athletics \u201cArms Race\u201d (Bass, et al, 2015, … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-78","page","type-page","status-publish"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/library.providence.edu\/fhertr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/78","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/library.providence.edu\/fhertr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/library.providence.edu\/fhertr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/library.providence.edu\/fhertr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/library.providence.edu\/fhertr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=78"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/library.providence.edu\/fhertr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/78\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1383,"href":"https:\/\/library.providence.edu\/fhertr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/78\/revisions\/1383"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/library.providence.edu\/fhertr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=78"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}