College athletics in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Athletic Performance Pyramid for the U.S.

College athletics in the United States refers primarily to sports and athletic competition organized and funded by institutions of tertiary education (universities, or colleges in American English). In the United States, college athletics is a two-tiered system.[1] The first tier includes the sports that are sanctioned by one of the collegiate sport governing bodies. The major sanctioning organizations include the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) and the National Junior College Athletic Association (NJCAA). Individual sports not governed by umbrella organizations like the NCAA, NAIA, and NJCAA are governed by their own organizations, such as the National Collegiate Boxing Association and Intercollegiate Rowing Association. Additionally, the first tier is characterized by selective participation, since only the elite athletes in their sport are able to participate. The second tier includes all intramural and recreational sports clubs, which are available to a larger portion of the student body.

Competition between student clubs from different colleges, not organized by and therefore not representing the institutions or their faculties, may also be called "intercollegiate" athletics or simply college sports. College sports originated as student activities.

Unlike in the rest of the world, in the United States today, many college sports are extremely popular on both regional and national scales, in many cases competing with professional championships for prime broadcast and print coverage, and for the top athletes. The average university will play at least twenty different sports and offer a wide variety of intramural sports as well. In total, there are approximately 400,000 men and women student-athletes that participate in sanctioned athletics each year.[2]

"The principle of student-athlete welfare, for example, requires athletic programs to protect and enhance the physical and educational welfare of student athletes. It requires an environment for the student athlete that: (1) is well integrated with the overall educational experience, (2) values cultural diversity and gender equity, (3) is healthy and safe, (4) fosters a positive relationship between the student athlete and coach, (5) exhibits fair, open, and honest relationships on the part of coaches and administrators towards student athletes, and (6) involves student athletes in matters affecting their lives. Other principles for the conduct of inter-collegiate athletics include gender equity, sportsmanship and ethical conduct, sound academic standards, nondiscrimination, diversity within governance, rules compliance, amateurism, competitive equity, recruiting, eligibility, financial aid, playing and practice seasons, postseason competition and contests sponsored by noncollegiate organizations, and the economy of athletic program operations. Each principle, briefly defined in the constitution, provides the philosophical basis for extensive and often complex subsequent rules in the operating and administrative bylaws."[3]

Beginnings[edit]

The first organized college sports club was formed in 1843 when Yale University created a boat club.[4] Harvard University then followed in their footsteps, creating a similar boat club a year later. The creation of these organizations set the stage for the first intercollegiate sporting event in the U.S. This event took place in 1852, when the rowing team from Yale competed against the rowing team from Harvard at Lake Winnipesaukee, New Hampshire.[4] This marked the beginning of intercollegiate competition and triggered the creation of numerous college athletic organizations.[citation needed]

In the late 1850s, bat and ball games had started to become widely known and the sport of baseball was starting to become an establishment at U.S. universities. The first intercollegiate baseball game took place in 1859 between Amherst College and Williams College.[5] The popularity of collegiate baseball increased from this point, and by 1870, college teams were playing extensive schedules. In 1879, the first official intercollegiate baseball league was formed. Track and field also grew in popularity during this time, and the first intercollegiate track and field event occurred in 1873. This competition featured a two-mile race between athletes from Amherst College, Cornell University, and McGill University of Montreal, Canada.[5] The first intercollegiate soccer match in the U.S. took place on November 6, 1869, in New Brunswick, N.J., when clubs from Princeton and Rutgers played under rules modified from those of association football.[6] The first intercollegiate rugby game took place on May 15, 1874, at Cambridge, Massachusetts when Harvard played against McGill University. The first intercollegiate football game between teams from Rutgers College (now Rutgers University) and the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University) took place on November 6, 1869 at College Field (now the site of the College Avenue Gymnasium at Rutgers University) in New Brunswick, New Jersey.[citation needed]

Organization[edit]

In addition to the National Collegiate Athletic Association, there are other collegiate multi-sport athletic organizations, some of which also have hundreds of member schools. These include:

There are a number of single sport-organizations, including leagues and conferences (see "List of college athletic conferences in the United States"), as well as governing bodies that sponsor collegiate championships (see "Intercollegiate sports team champions").

The role of intercollegiate athletics at U.S. universities[edit]

During the early 1840s, student-athletes contributed actively to all phases of administration and control.[9] Student athletes were involved in the sporting process, made athletic procedures and regulations for universities and also played an important role in determining which sporting events would and would not happen on universities. Today, the kind of involvement on the part of the athlete is virtually unheard of, with the only remnants of student participation in athlete administration being programs in which student governments have some control over the distribution of free allocations to athletics.[9] Furthermore, this movement today focuses on the role of intercollegiate sports in the United States rather than the contributions of the student athlete. Intercollegiate sports has definitely made in impact in today's world.[citation needed]

"The term intercollegiate athletics is defined as athletic contests between colleges. Colleges grant academic degrees upon completion of designed curricula. As college students, student athletes must attend classes; they must work to complete specific requirements in order to earn a degree; and they must have minimal academic success as determined and sanctioned by the NCAA if they are to continue participating in athletics. As their admission to college is based, at least in part, on academic credentials, athletes must be students. Thus, academic departments are directly involved in the application of athletics within a university: Student athletes must take academic courses. Subsequently, academic curricula influence student athletes. When academic and athletic departments have conflicting aims, problems arise that affect the entire institution.American society values the elitism of academics and athletics in a manner that provokes conflict for participants in both domains. At various colleges, it is believed that academic elitism can be constructed on athletic elitism: Athletic teams aspire to be national champions, while their affiliate academic institutions seek national rankings. However, the means by which coaches and faculty achieve national reputations can create conflict for student athletes attempting to exist in both environments. Although both aspire to excel, the different measures of excellence for academics and athletics necessitates compromise by those who are placed in both settings."[3] This policy, attempted by a large number of colleges can only work, in practice, for a few.

In today’s intercollegiate athletic environment, administrators have the unique challenge of balancing university values while attempting to maximize the revenues realized by their department. In an effort to maintain financial sustainability, several athletic directors have publically stated that the elimination of men’s non-revenue programs is the only way to balance their athletic budgets. It is clear that men’s nonrevenue sport teams will be facing declining financial support in future generations[10]

"Division I institutions are required to have seven athletic teams for men and seven for women (or six for men and eighth for women). As well, there must be two team sports for each gender, and each gender must have a team in each of the three season (i. e., Fall, Winter, Spring). Excluding basketball and football, teams must play 100% of their minimum number of games against Division 1 opponents, and 50% of games above the minimum number must be played against Division 1 teams. Men’s and women’s basketball teams must play all but two of their contests against Division 1 opponents, and men must play at least one third of their games in their home arena. In Division 1, football is further sectioned into 1-A and 1-AA. Division 1-A schools must play at least 60% of their games against 1-A opponents, and demonstrate their ability to attract a high level of spectatorship."[11]

Popularity and importance of intercollegiate athletics in the United States[edit]

Graham Harrell, recruited to professional football from his performance as a college football player

Intercollegiate athletics exist in numerous countries around the world, however nowhere does it have the impact and popularity that it does in the United States.[citation needed] The reasons for this are both cultural and economic. American colleges seek the publicity of being successful in college sports, believing it to be good at increasing interest from potential students and donations from alumni, whereas a university's athletic history is considered unimportant by students in most of the rest of the world and alumni donations are much less substantial.[citation needed] As well, in the United States, college athletics is run much like a business and ticket and merchandise sales and broadcast contracts provide a source of income for the institution, whereas in other countries universities are primarily government-funded.[citation needed]

Athletics are increasingly subsidized by tuition. Only one in eight of the 202 Division 1 colleges actually netted more money than they spent on athletics between the years 2005 and 2010. At the few money making schools, football and sometimes basketball sales support the school's other athletic programs. The amount spent on an athlete in one of the six highest-profile football conferences, on average, is six times more than the amount spent to educate the non-athlete. Spending per student varied from $10,012 to $19,225; cost per athlete varied from $41,796 to $163,931.[12]

In 2012, a ticket to watch a popular football game could cost from $100 to $3,000, depending on the success and national visibility of the team. Tickets to a basketball game could cost from $5 to $500.[13]

As well, in many European and Latin American countries, university is free-of-cost, so there is no possibility of offering the generous scholarships to athletes that American colleges do. Even where university is not free, such as in Canada or the United Kingdom, the costs for most students are highly subsidized by the government. In Canada the governing body, Canadian Interuniversity Sport, bans certain types of scholarships precisely to prevent the type of commercialization of university sport seen in the United States. For these reasons, elite international athletes may move to the United States for their higher education, although they only usually benefit financially, after higher tuition costs are accounted for, if they have "full-ride" scholarships.

The scale of college sports in the US is measured by the great number of universities that participate, the number of both male and female athletes that participate, and the number of sports being played. Furthermore, the great scope of college athletics in the United States can be seen merely by examining the number of people who are fully employed and make a living contributing to college athletics, including coaches, referees, and so forth.[citation needed]

Another reason for the importance of college athletics in the U.S. is the important role it plays in the hierarchy of sport organizations. In his article about collegiate sports programs, Thomas Rosandich refers to a "performance pyramid", which shows the general progression of athletic organizations in the United States.[14] At the bottom of this pyramid is youth sports organizations, since these organizations have participation open to nearly everyone. As the pyramid progresses, the level of competition increases, while the number of competitors decreases until the highest level of organized sport, professional sports, is reached. In many respects, the intercollegiate sports level serves as a feeder system to the professional level, as the elite college athletes are chosen to compete at the next level. This system differs greatly from nearly all other countries in the world, which generally have government-funded sports organizations that serve as a feeder system for professional competition. As well, in many countries professional clubs recruit athletes as children and develop them in their own academies, rather than through high school sports, signing them to professional contracts before they are done secondary school.[citation needed]

The last factor in this is the great economic impact created by college athletics in the American economy. Universities spend a very large amount of money on their college organizations in the facilities, coaches, equipment, and other aspects, and as a result produce substantial revenue from their intercollegiate athletic programs in ticket and merchandise sales. The economic impact distinguishes United States collegiate athletics from the college athletics elsewhere.[citation needed]

Debate over paying athletes[edit]

Professional pay[edit]

In recent years a debate has arisen over whether college athletes should be paid.[15] Ever since the instatement of the collegiate athletics, athletes have not received compensation for their participation. Yet it has been argued that college athletes are being exploited by their colleges by not being paid.[16]

There are arguments in favor of paying athletes. "The NCAA brings in millions of dollars each year in television, advertising and licensing revenue, and the schools benefit from ticket and merchandising sales and donations."[17] A few schools even benefit from owning their own networks. The University of Texas owns The Longhorn Network and Brigham Young University owns BYUtv.[18] "Everyone seems to profit except the men and women who make it all possible by playing. Paying college athletes would present a myriad of legal issues for the NCAA and its member institutions. First among them would be the fact that by paying college athletes, whether by salary or stipend, the athletes would lose their amateur status and become employees of the institution that they represent. As employees, according to Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, these athletes would be entitled to form or join labor organizations and collectively bargain. The National College Players Association already serves as an advocacy group for college players across the nation, and it is not a stretch to imagine that this group, or one like it, would take the next step and certify as a union given the revenue involved in college athletics. Already graduate teaching assistants at several colleges have formed unions so there is a precedent for this sort of activity among students on college campuses. Paying college athletes would also present issues under Title IX and the Fair Pay Act. Title IX dictates that institutions accepting federal funds must offer equal opportunities to both men and women."[17]

About one in ten college teams help to generate a large net amount of revenue for their school, but the athletes are not personally rewarded for their contribution. In 2010, two of the most profitable college conferences—the Southeastern Conference (SEC) and the Big Ten—earned over one billion dollars and $905 million, respectively.[16] The University of Texas' football program, the most valuable in college sports, is estimated by forbes.com to be worth over 133 million dollars, totaling over a billion dollars in the last decade.[19] This money is spread through administrators, athletic directors, coaches, media outlets, and other parties. None is given directly to the players. Collegiate athletics entails time-consuming, intense commitment to practice and play. ESPN writer Robert Lipsyte contends that "a lot of athletes are simply getting cheated out of the chance for an education" since they are not able to truly focus on their studies.[20] Only some athletic scholarships are "full rides", and many student-athletes are not able to afford dining, entertainment, and even some educational expenses.[21] Outside of summertime, when work is permitted, student-athletes have no extra time for work in addition to practice, training, and classes.[21] Paying student-athletes would give the athletes an incentive to stay in school and complete their degree programs, rather than leave early for the professional leagues.[21] They would be much less tempted to earn money by taking illegal payments and shaving points.[21] By not paying their athletes, colleges avoid paying workmen's-compensation benefits to the "hundreds" of college athletes incapacitated by injuries each year, according to journalist Taylor Branch.[16] Furthermore, if an athlete receives a serious injury while on the field, he/she may be in trouble due to the fact that scholarship does not pay for the bill of the surgery. In addition, not all student-athletes have full rides, some receive only partial scholarships.

Colleges such as University of Connecticut (UConn), Syracuse University, and Kansas State University have some of the worst graduation rates in the country for their student-athletes. UConn has had a 25% graduation rate until recently when they improved to 50%. Yet, UConn still receives $1.4 million for reaching and competing in the NCAA tournament despite the low amount of graduates. The institutions and the NCAA do not appear to be committed to making sure that their athletes actually graduate. Paying these athletes would give some incentive to stay and finish college.[22]

Steve Spurrier, the head football coach of the South Carolina Gamecocks, has said that all 28 men's football and basketball coaches in South Carolina's conference, the SEC, favored paying athletes up to $300 per game for football players and a little less for basketball players. It would cost the SEC about $280,000 per year, says Spurrier, which is nothing compared to the amount of money being brought in by the conference.[23][24]

After a number of efforts to go to trial against the NCAA's incoming revenue, a court date has been set. Former UCLA Bruin Ed O'Bannon along with Oscar Robertson and Bill Russell lead the lawsuit. The trial is scheduled to begin during the summer of 2014. Although the NCAA claims that their athletes have amateur status, the organization has made billions of dollars off of merchandise licenses. The NCAA has earned billions from broadcast revenues annually. By selling the image of their players, the NCAA is able to make money from each sport. O'Bannon has stated that some of this revenue should be spread out among the players who help bring in this cash to the NCAA.[25] Last year, ESPN analyst Jay Bilas gave evidence to this fact showing how a person could search the NCAA website by player name and have the resulting school jersey appear.[26]

In a recent court case brought by a few Northwestern University football players against the NCAA, argued that the players should be able to unionize and bargain collectively.[27] The court ruled in the plaintiffs (players) favor. The court's decision only applied to those football players at Northwestern on a scholarship. Kain Colter, a former quarterback at Northwestern, testified that required football practice and playing had reduced the time he could have used to pursue his quest to become a medical doctor. He stated that athletic departments should decrease the maximum amount of hours a player must participate in a sport to remain part of the team and retain a scholarship. As it stands, 50 hours a week is the maximum.[28]

It is said[who?] many other universities will soon follow.[citation needed] The recently formed College Athletes Players Association (CAPA) is focusing mainly on the idea of giving compensation to football and basketball players. It hasn't decided if this will affect nonrevenue sports. The NCAA has denied the thought of calling student-athletes ‘employees’.[citation needed]

Coaches' salaries[edit]

Critics have pointed out that while student-athletes are not paid, many Division I athletic directors and basketball and football coaches have annual multi-million dollar salaries. In 2014 the highest paid NCAA basketball coach was Duke University's Mike Krzyzewski at $9,682,032[29] and the highest paid football coach the University of Alabama's Nick Saban at $7,160,187.[30]

Arguments against paying college athletes professional salaries[edit]

On the other hand, college athletes are often (though not always) given a full scholarship to their respective college and benefit from perks that the general student body does not receive. "The average fair market value of top-tier college football and men’s basketball players is over $100,000 each. Even though a full scholarship covers the cost of full attendance, many are living below the poverty line, says the report, The Price of Poverty in Big Time College Sport. A national college athletes advocacy group and a sports management professor calculate in the report that if college sports shared their revenues the way pro sports do, the average Football Bowl Subdivision player would be worth $121,000 per year, while the average basketball player at that level would be worth $265,000.players at the most powerful programs are worth far in excess of even the average athlete. The report estimates that Duke’s basketball players are worth the most, at around $1 million each, while Texas’ football players top that sport at $513,000 each."[31] ESPN columnist Dan Shanoff insists that college athletes are able to take advantage of "Not just a free room and board: the best dorm rooms on campus [ and ] not just free books and classes: first choice of any classes they want".[20] A college athlete can receive up to $120,000 in total scholarships, so essentially they already are being paid for their participation. "The NCAA also is setting up a $17 million Student-Athlete Opportunity Fund that has no financial-need restrictions. It's to be used for "educational and developmental opportunities" [Nebraska Proposal, 2009]. Some would argue that the $17 million granted by this fund would be sufficient compensation.[who?] This debate has caused certain elite colleges to take caution asking athletes to sign forms that prevent them from suing the college. The signed forms gives the college full imagery benefits, allowing them to use their names to sell team t-shirts and jerseys. Insurance wise - a plan proposed by William E. Kirwan, Ohio State University President, would insure athletes against injuries and mishaps during workouts, practices and games [Lipsyte, 2009]. Furthermore, because of title IX all college athletes would have to be paid, including teams that do not produce a lot of revenue. More and more programs would be cut in order to make paying athletes work economically. Although schools would still be able to field "club teams" for those sports, just like they do now as a way to get around Title IX requirements. "Club team" players almost never receive scholarships and are truly amateur athletes in every sense of the word. By paying college athletes to play football, basketball, baseball, soccer, etc., athletes would no longer carry that amateur status since they are being paid under that institution.

Out of 332 schools currently competing in the NCAA Division I, fewer than a dozen have athletic departments that are making a profit. Out of the 120 programs that comprise the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS), 14 are profitable. 88% of the top football programs in the country are losing money. Most universities are unable to pay for these athletes along with the coaches and renovations on stadiums out of money earned from athletics.[22] A recent editorial from McClatchy-Tribune Business News asked why it was necessary to pay these athletes. Kenny Mossman, associate athletics director for communications at the University of Oklahoma (OU), explained, in a recent column, about how paying student-athletes more than what they already receive in scholarship money can be harmful to a university. At OU, with 20 sports and over 400 student athletes, Mossman figures the cost to OU would be $3.6 million a year if stipends were $1,000 a month.[32]

Exploitation of student athletes[edit]

Several college athletes have been accused of financial improprieties, including Reggie Bush, Cam Newton, and Johnny Manziel. A USA Today article takes issue with the critics because the terms had been drawn up by the colleges.

For college athletes to be held to the terms and conditions of a one-year scholarship that have been set by the very authorities who financially benefit the most and render the athletes involved voiceless in the process is a glaring conflict of interest. In an article by usa today they state “Players in the NCAA's top-tier Division I bowl subdivision say they devote more than 43 hours a week to the sport during the season, and those in a couple of other sports — baseball and men's basketball — approach that commitment, an NCAA study shows.” (Wieberg, USA Today). The power of the system to hold these athletes out for ridicule and disparagement while presenting them as subjects of moral outrage distorts the real impropriety here. The conditions of the athletic scholarship and transfer rules, prohibitions against agents, limits on due process, failure to deliver on the promise to educate, the unobstructed selling of athlete images, and the like are tools of exploitation that benefit college sport leaders while oppressing those who perform on the field."[33]

Damage to college sports[edit]

Intercollegiate Athletics reported that big time college sports, which are sporting teams that produce most of the revenue for a university or institution, "do in fact cause more damage to the University, its students and faculty, its leadership, its reputation and credibility than most realize – or are willing to admit. Directly, it has been reported that the majority of universities subsidize their intercollegiate athletic programs out of general funds, thus funneling money that could be used for educational pursuits into sports. Although there is no one certain cause explaining how sports in America became institutionalized within the university, three societal forces have been identified that played a role: the growth of the entertainment industry and the commercialization of athletics, the increased competitiveness of college admissions and efforts to create well-rounded student bodies and the increased competence and specialization of pre-college athletic talent. Viewed retrospectively over the past 100-plus years of its history, intercollegiate athletics has moved from mainly providing an avenue for student athletes and fans to enjoy sports participation to predominantly focusing on increases in revenue and institutional prestige that can be generated through a high-profile team."[34]


Title IX[edit]

Although Title IX (of the Education Amendments of 1972) requires gender equity for boys and girls in every educational program that receives federal funding, the law has specifically made an impact on the distribution of college athletes by sex since its passing in 1972. The law states that

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance...

—United States Code Section 20, [35]

In 1975, the final clause of Title IX was signed into law and included provisions prohibiting sex discrimination in athletics. The regulations pertaining to athletics require that an institution which sponsors interscholastic, intercollegiate, club or intramural athletics shall provide “equal athletic opportunity” for members of both sexes.[36] Since the passing of Title IX, many NCAA institutions have had problems with the compliance of these regulations. In order to successfully comply with Title IX requirements, NCAA institutions must meet one of the requirements in the "three prong test" as follows:

  1. Prong one - Provide athletic participation opportunities that are substantially proportionate to student enrollment. This part of the test is satisfied when participation opportunities for men and women are "substantially proportionate" to their respective undergraduate enrollment.[citation needed]
  2. Prong two - Demonstrate a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex. This part of the test is satisfied when an institution has a history and continuing practice of program expansion that is responsive to the developing interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex (typically female).[citation needed]
  3. Prong three - Full and effective accommodation of the interest and ability of underrepresented sex. This part of the test is satisfied when an institution is meeting the interests and abilities of its female students even where there are disproportionately fewer females than males participating in sports.[citation needed]

OCR (Office of Civil Rights) is one of the governing bodies that attempts to ensure that title IX is enforced. They have the power to pull federal funding from schools or organizations that are found to be non-compliant with title IX, although this power has never been exercised. The OCR will usually work with the school or organization that is non-compliant to set up a schedule or plan to follow to become compliant.[37]

A body of literature currently exists concerning institutional compliance and gender equity issues surrounding Title IX. Research has found that:

  • Division I non-football schools (formerly known as Division I-AAA) are more likely to comply with Title IX requirements than Division I FBS (formerly I-A) or Division I FCS (formerly I-AA) schools, which sponsor football.[38]
  • Smaller institutions are more likely than larger institutions to be in compliance with Title IX.[39]
  • Southern schools are less likely to comply with requirements.[38]
  • The attitudes of key individuals (i.e., university president or athletic director) are critical components in determining whether an institution’s athletic program complies with Title IX.[38]
  • A college’s reputation for academic integrity and for success in women’s athletics suggests greater enthusiasm towards creating equal athletic opportunities for women.[40]

Title IX has had a considerable impact on college athletics. Since its passing, Title IX has allowed for female participation in high school sports to increase nearly tenfold and almost double at the college level. Before the law was passed in 1972 fewer than 300,000 girls in high school and fewer than 30,000 girls participated in sports. As of 2011 more than 3 million high school girls participate in sports and more than 200,000 girls participate in college sports.[41] Though Title IX is just 37 words in length, it has been both credited with and blamed for a lot of things that have happened in college athletics in the past four decades.[42] Studies on the gender equity of sports found on college campuses have provided an examination of how Title IX is perceived. Questions have been raised over the equity between male and female student athletes. Females, regardless of whether an administrator, coach, or athlete, thought there to be less equity than males when it comes to these five factors: program support, financial support, sports offerings, scheduling, and changes in the past two to three years.[43]

In regards to the concept of "pay-for-play," (see section above, "Debate over paying athletes") Title IX is generally seen as a substantial roadblock, only because of the differences between big-time men’s sports (football/men's basketball) and women's sports, but also because of the gap between those "big two" sports' profit-producing programs and virtually all other collegiate sports, both male and female.[42] Depending on how one views "pay for play," this can be either a positive of negative effect of Title IX.

In addition, Title IX legislation has affected male athletes as well as male coaches. Title IX has been associated with the cutting of opportunities available for men and boys. As budgets are stretched to accommodate additional programming requirements for women and girls. More than 2,200 men’s athletic teams have been eliminated since 1981 to comply with the proportionality prong of Title IX requirements.[36] Thousands of male athletes have been kept from participating in collegiate sports while men’s athletic scholarships and coaching positions have diminished as well.[36] However, increases in opportunities for male coaches have resulted from Title IX legislation. In coaching before Title IX, 90 percent of women's intercollegiate sport teams were coached by women: same sex coaching was the norm.[44] By 1978, when all educational institutions were required to comply with Title IX, the percentage of same sex coaching had plunged to 58.2 percent. Although the actual number of female coaches increased between 1979 and 1986, the percentage of female coaches continued to decline over that same period.[45] The all-time low of 47.3 percent of women coaching female sports was achieved in 1990. In addition, although men have found it relatively easy to break into coaching female athletes, female coaches have not experienced the same opportunities to coach male athletes. In 1972, 99 percent of collegiate men's teams were coached by men and the same is true today.[45]

Women have greatly benefitted from Title IX and have had increased opportunities in college athletic participation. Research evidence shows that increasing female participation in sports has had a direct effect on women’s education and employment.[46] The changes set in motion by Title IX have explained about 20 percent of the increase in women’s education and about 40 percent of the rise in employment for 25-to-34-year-old women.[46]

Facts about NCAA student athletes[edit]

See also: Student athlete
  • NCAA By law 17.1.6.1 sets a 20 hour per week limit on time spent on athletics for Division I athletes; however, in a 2006 University of Nebraska study, done in cooperation with the NCAA, it was reported "coaches do not follow the rules of hours of week for practicing".[47]
  • In the same study, 60% of the student-athletes surveyed reported they view themselves "more as athletes than students".[47]
  • The study also reports, "many individuals with whom student-athletes come in contact with view them more as athletes than as students".[47] Although there is a 20 hour per week limit, most student athletes would argue that they put more than 20 hours in a week.
  • About 400,000 students participates in games each year, and over thousands of students receive scholarships.
  • In the near future, athletes may be getting paid for the hard work they put into their athletics. This is a big possibility for Big 10, Big 12, SEC, and Conference USA as the commissioner for these divisions have decided that this is a subject worth looking into.
  • It has been reported by the NCAA that college baseball players are more likely to go pro than any other collegiate sport. About 10.5% will go from college baseball straight to pro.
  • Full-ride scholarships are actually a myth. A scholarship is actually good for one year and may be renewed on the coaches decision.
  • Academics to the NCAA is a very important matter and dictated whether or not you get to play in a sport and whether or not you can get a scholarship.
  • Graduation rate are a lot lower then thought for college athletes. 65 teams that played in March Madness 2005, only 43 of them would not have qualified if there was a 50% graduation rate required. Meaning, a large number of the players participating in March Madness will not actually graduate.


Longest-running annual international sporting event[edit]

Every year, the United States Military Academy (Army) Black Knights face the Royal Military College of Canada (RMC) Paladins in the annual West Point Weekend ice hockey game.[48] This series, conceived in 1923, is claimed as the longest-running uninterrupted annual international intercollegiate sporting event in the world.[49][50]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Rosandich, Thomas. "Collegiate Sports Programs: A Comparative Analysis." page 476. Education, 2002.
  2. ^ Rosandich, Thomas. "Collegiate Sports Programs: A Comparative Analysis." page 474. Education, 2002.
  3. ^ a b Peer Review Bates, Bradley. "The Role and Scope of Intercollegiate Athletics in U.S. Colleges and Universities Read more: College Athletics - History of Athletics in U.S. Colleges and Universities, Academic Support Systems for Athletes - The Role and Scope of Intercollegiate Athletics in U.S. Colleges and Universities - StateUniversity.com http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1853/College-Athletics.html#ixzz1qPAa2uvB". Education Encyclopedia. 
  4. ^ a b Lewis, Guy. "The Beginning of Organized Collegiate Sport." page 224. American Quarterly, 1970.
  5. ^ a b Lewis, Guy. "The Beginning of Organized Collegiate Sport." page 228. American Quarterly, 1970.
  6. ^ Lewis, Guy. "The Beginning of Organized Collegiate Sport." page 229. American Quarterly, 1970.
  7. ^ http://www.accasports.org/
  8. ^ http://www.cccaasports.org/
  9. ^ a b Peer Review Renick, Jobyan (October 1994). "The Use and Misuse of College Athletics". The Journal of Higher Education. No. 7 45,: 545–552. 
  10. ^ Peer Review Cooper, Coyte; Erianne Weight (April 2011). "Investigating NCAA administrator values in NCAA Division I athletic departments". Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics 74 (College Sport Research Institute): 74–89. 
  11. ^ Siegel, Donald (2013). "The Union of Athletics With Educational Institutions". science.smith.edu. Retrieved 12 June 2013. 
  12. ^ Marklein, Mary Beth (January 16, 2013). "Athletics get more dollars than academics". Florida Today (Melbourne, Florida). pp. 4A. 
  13. ^ Reader's Digest: 50. January 2013. 
  14. ^ Rosandich, Thomas. "Collegiate Sports Programs: A Comparative Analysis." page 471. Education, 2002.
  15. ^ Casey Lartigue, Jr. (1999-06-30). "End Education Charade of College Basketball". USA Today. 
  16. ^ a b c Taylor Branch (2011-10-01). "The Shame Of College Sports". The Atlantic. 
  17. ^ a b Simzak, Michael (19 December 2011). "Bowling for Dollars: Should College Athletes Be Paid?". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 12 June 2013. 
  18. ^ Normand, Travis (5 February 2012). "College Football: BYU and the irony of the Longhorn Network". Bleacher Report. Retrieved 2 April 2014. 
  19. ^ Smith, Chris. "College Football's Most Valuable Teams". Forbes. Forbes. Retrieved 30 October 2013. 
  20. ^ a b ESPN.com: Page 2 : Should college athletes be paid?
  21. ^ a b c d Should Student-Athletes Get Paid? United States Sports Academy, America's Sports University®
  22. ^ a b Salmon, Barrington M. "College Athletics: To Pay Or Not To Pay." Washington Informer: 40. Nov 2011. Proquest. Web.
  23. ^ "Steve Spurrier: SEC coaches all for paying players". Retrieved October 27, 2013. 
  24. ^ Zenor, John. "Spurrier: SEC Coaches All For Paying Players". Retrieved September 26, 2013. 
  25. ^ Mark Koba. (2013-02-03). "How College Athletes Could End Up Getting Paid Like Pros". CNBC. 
  26. ^ Waldron, Travis (7 August 2013). "ESPN's Jay BIlas Exposes NCAA's Hypocrisy on Amateurism With Simple Web Search". Think Progress. Retrieved 2 April 2014. 
  27. ^ University of Northwestern
  28. ^ Strauss, Ben, and Steve Eder. "College Players Granted Right to Form Union." The New York Times. The New York Times, 26 Mar. 2014. Web. 27 Mar. 2014.
  29. ^ "NCAA Salaries". USA Today. Retrieved November 29, 2014. 
  30. ^ "NCAA Salaries". USA Today. Retrieved November 29, 2014. 
  31. ^ Peer Review FROMMER, FREDERIC (September 13, 2011). "http://www.suntimes.com/sports/colleges/7635972-419/should-college-athletes-be-paid-as-much-as-1m-says-new-report.html". Sun Times. 
  32. ^ "Editorial: Pay for Play is Already Here." McClatchy - Tribune Business News: 1. Jan 26 2007. Proquest. Web.
  33. ^ Staurowsky, Ellen. "How Colleges Exploit Student-Athletes". 
  34. ^ Peer Review Frans, Kelly. "WAYS IN WHICH INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS CONTRIBUTE TO UNIVERSITY SUCCESS". 
  35. ^ 20 U.S.C. § 1681
  36. ^ a b c Owoc, Karen. "Title IX and its Effects on Men's Collegiate Athletics". USA Sports. Retrieved 16 February 2012. 
  37. ^ Buzuvis, Erin E. "Title Ix At Forty: Equality Beyond The Three-Part Test: Exploring And Explaining The Invisibility Of Title Ix's Equal Treatment Requirement." Marquette Sports Law Review 22.(2012): 427-459. LexisNexis Academic: Law Reviews. Web. 24 Sept. 2013.
  38. ^ a b c Calkins, C.K. (2000). "Factors influencing Title IX compliance in college athletics". University of Colorado. 
  39. ^ Sigelman, L.; Wahlback, P.J. (1999). "Gender proportionality in intercollegiate athletics: The mathematics of Title IX compliance". Social Science Quarterly 80 (3). 
  40. ^ Hooks, D.T. (1998). "Complying with Title IX: An examination of the effects on three NCAA Division III colleges in Pennsylvania and the difficulties the law's 104 interpretation has created for small colleges attempting to achieve gender equity". University of Pennsylvania. 
  41. ^ Buchanan, Maggie Jo Poertner. "Title IX Turns 40: A Brief History And Look Forward." Texas Review Of Entertainment & Sports Law 14.1 (2012): 91-93. SPORTDiscus with Full Text. Web. 25 Sept. 2013.
  42. ^ a b Voepal, Michelle. "Title IX a Pay for Play Roadblock". College Sports. ESPN. Retrieved 16 February 2012. 
  43. ^ Hull, R.A. (1993). "A comparison of the perceptions of NCAA Division III athletics administrators, coaches, and athletes regarding compliance with Title IX.". Ball State University. 
  44. ^ Acosta, R.V.; Carpenter, L.J. (1992). "As the years go by: Coaching opportunities in the 1990s". JOPERD 63 (3): 36–42. doi:10.1080/07303084.1992.10604132. 
  45. ^ a b Acosta, R.V.; Carpenter, L.J. "Women in intercollegiate sport: A longitudinal study - Thirteen-yearupdate". 
  46. ^ a b Parker-Pope, Tara (February 15, 2010). "As Girls Become Women, Sports Pay Dividends". New York Times. Retrieved 16 February 2012. 
  47. ^ a b c National Study of Student Athletes Regarding Their Experiences as College Students
  48. ^ "Army-RMC Rivalry". Go Army Sports.com. Retrieved 1 January 2009. 
  49. ^ Crowly, R, and Guinzburg, T: "West Point: Two Centuries of Honor and Tradition" (ISBN 0-446-53018-2), page 234. Warner Books, 2002.
  50. ^ Some other international competitions predate the Army-RMC game, but have been interrupted for various reasons. For example, the Six Nations Championship in rugby union, previously known as the Home Nations and Five Nations, was first conducted in 1883 and has been continuous since 1899, but was interrupted for both World Wars, and was started but not completed in 1972. West Point Weekend itself has not been continuous since 1923; only one Army–RMC game was played during World War II.

External links[edit]