Even back in the old days, before the current era in which the best basketball players in the country (most of whom are black) routinely leave school for the NBA without their college degrees, there was a perception that basketball players were athletes first, students second. In response to this, the NCAA and their network partners suddenly began referring to players as "student-athletes," as if to remind viewers that these players weren't just biding their time until the NBA called. They were students who happened to play a little basketball on the side. Not too many people believed this.
Around this time, driven mainly by the words of a handful of vocal coaches such as Georgetown's John Thompson, the other side of the coin was revealed. According to Thompson and others, these young men weren't exploiting their universities, but vice versa. Once their athletic eligibility was exhausted, their existence on campus was no longer necessary; their progress towards graduation was no longer important. As a result, players in basketball programs at otherwise respectable universities were winning championships and varsity letters without earning diplomas. During a time period in the 1990's, the University of Cincinnati, under the watchful eye of Coach Bob Huggins, graduated 0% of its male basketball players. Zero. In defense of Mr. Huggins, the small numbers of a basketball team are dangerously vulnerable to statistical extremes, but zero percent? Wouldn't someone have graduated at least by accident? Not according to the NCAA.
But when this problem refused to go away, the NCAA did a curious thing. Rather than bring this issue into the light, or punish those universities with poor graduation rates, especially those who were specifically unsuccessful in graduating black basketball players, the NCAA decided to stop revealing graduation statistics for mens basketball. They cite privacy issues, which are a real concern. If, for instance, they report that Big State University graduated 50% of the black players who enrolled on scholarship in 1998, and there were only two black players who enrolled in 1998, it isn't difficult to figure out who graduated and who didn't. There are many ways around this problem, however. First, the NCAA could combine basketball and football, two sports with similar graduation issues. The larger number of football scholarships would help to protect the anonymity of non-graduating players. A second choice would be to group the statistics in five- or ten-year periods. A report indicating that Big State had graduated 33% of its players from 1985-1995 would protect privacy while pointing out a troubling trend.
Personal privacy is certainly a huge issue, but the NCAA is not being genuine. In hiding behind their supposed concerns about privacy, they are burying their heads in the sand and showing a lack of concern for the student-athlete.
This problem will never go away until a) the NCAA gets honest and directly pays the players, or b) graduation rates are tied to the number of available scholarships.
a) is the least hypocritical, but it will never happen. First, head-in-the-sand types will weep and gnash their teeth at the loss of the pure student athlete, which, in revenus sports occurred sometime in the 70s, if not sooner. Secondly, colleges would be forced into more direct competition for top talent with various professional leagues. Since players cannot be paid, these amateurs can only receive under-the-table cash, cars, and the occasional recruiting sex party. Meanwhile, coaches have shoe contracts and the schools make millions.
b) would be very interesting. Imagine, for example, Bob Huggins unable to offer a scholarship for a few years because of that 0% graduation rate. Or Stanford being able to offer 3 more scholarships than any other school for the next few years. This would certainly force schools to clean up their acts, or at least cheat differently. In the worst case, we would be treated to many more Jim Harrick-esque tests as colleges try to graduate players they fail to educate. The NCAA should adopt this just for the potential comedy.
You could even make exceptions to the rule so that schools are not penalized for successful early entrants. The purpose of college, after all, is to prepare an individual to be a productive member of society. Carmelo Anthony may never graduate from Syracuse, but should Syracuse be penalized because Anthony was a guaranteed lottery pick, with a guaranteed future? Probably not. The kids being screwed by the current system are not the sure-fires -- the Carmelo Anthonys, Allen Iversons, or Chris Webbers. No, it is the other 99% of college atheletes who have little pro prospects, and less education. This sort of exception would force schools either to educate their students, or at least provide some solid job placement, in order to avoid losing scholarships. It might not be perfect, but it could improve the post-collegiate life of a lot of atheletes.
Posted by: Tie Scholarships to Grad Rates | March 21, 2004 at 09:49 AM