Athletes’ Hours Renew Debate Over College Sports

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is known for scripting its messages carefully, and never was that more evident than at its annual convention here last week. As Myles Brand, the group’s president, delivered his annual state-of-the-association speech to the 3,000 or so members in attendance, a giant teleprompter told him when to stand up, when to sit down, and — literally — when to catch his breath.

But this year, some of Mr. Brand’s polished talking points contradicted many of his constituents’ beliefs. That has led to some harsh criticism from leading members. And the NCAA struggled to put a positive face on the fallout.

Over the past year, members of Congress have poked around the well-fed belly of intercollegiate athletics, questioning whether college sports deserves its tax-exempt status. Mr. Brand has led the countercharge against the government, repeatedly defending the educational value of the games.

The NCAA started a Web site last year, NCAAStudent.org, to illustrate how its athletes balance sports with their academic responsibilities. And in Mr. Brand’s speech here, he said the main difference between college and professional sports was that “those who participate in our athletics events are students, and students first.”

But even the NCAA’s athletes don’t believe that’s true. According to an NCAA survey of 21,000 players, the majority view themselves more as athletes than students.

It’s no wonder. Major-college football players reported spending an average of 44.8 hours a week practicing, playing, or training for their sport, the survey found, with golfers, baseball players, and softball players not far behind. That’s on top of the time athletes spend in the classroom.

‘Owned by the Coach’

Those findings shocked campus leaders here.

“That’s out of control,” said Walter Harrison, president of the University of Hartford and past chairman of the NCAA’s Executive Committee. “I’m hoping the [NCAA] bodies that oversee football will do something about this, and that the board of directors pays attention to it.”

Robert S. Chichester, until recently athletic director at the University of California at Irvine, wondered whether players were being pressured to train that many hours or choosing to do so on their own.

“If we’re requiring student-athletes who might not otherwise want to spend that much time on their sport to practice and train that many hours, then we really have a problem,” Mr. Chichester said.

John A. Roush, president of Centre College, believes colleges are responsible for the long hours athletes spend on sports. He is a former Division I athlete and football coach, and his two sons played big-time college football.

“It’s not just the time but the command of the experience these coaches have. They dictate what kids do on their breaks, in their summers,” Mr. Roush said. “In Division I sports, the time of these young men and women is owned by the coach who is under so much pressure to win that it goes against reason.”

Mr. Brand said the key question was how much balance athletes had, and whether players had enough time for their academic responsibilities. “Once you get past 40 hours,” Mr. Brand said, “you’re really pushing it.”

But he added, “If they choose to say, The two things I want to do in college are get a good education and participate in athletics — rather than hang out and eat some pizza and drink beer — you know, that’s up to them.”

But there are increasing concerns about how little control athletes have over their classroom experience. One in five say their sports participation has prevented them from choosing the major they wanted, the same NCAA study found.

And as colleges have demanded more of athletes, and the NCAA has raised academic standards to keep players on track toward graduation, academic advisers have seen an increase in athletes’ choosing certain majors.

Members of the NCAA’s powerful Committee on Academic Performance, which created the stricter academic requirements, said at the convention that they plan to look at the effect their rules have had on players. And for the first time, the NCAA will explore whether athletes cluster in certain majors.

“At some level, everyone knows that athletes are being channeled into certain majors,” says Mr. Harrison, the committee’s chairman. “It would be helpful to know how much it is happening and whether it is increasing.”

Price of Commercialism

Mr. Brand also used his pulpit here to push what has become a core theme of his presidency: Encouraging athletics programs to be on the leading edge of commercialization in higher education.

On the whole, he said, college sports produce revenue of some $10-billion a year. He argued that universities have an “obligation” to help themselves by exploiting commercial opportunities.

The message sent a strong signal to federal lawmakers: College sports brings in lots of money, not only for colleges, but local businesses. In other words, don’t mess with it.

Mr. Brand has some concerns about allowing companies to use images of athletes in their advertisements. But when it comes to paying for escalating coaches’ salaries and new facilities, his message is unwavering: Show me the money.

Some campus leaders fear the increasing commercial focus clouds the mission of college sports. What exactly is that mission? According to the NCAA, it is to help educate its 380,000 athletes, most of whom will go pro in something other than sports.

To wary educators, though, that is sounding more and more like spin.

http://chronicle.com Section: Students Volume 54, Issue 20, Page A1