The root of many problems in big-time college sports could be traced to one basic conflict: You can’t do two things full-time. That’s how Steven King sees it, anyway.
If you’re dedicating 40 hours a week to your sport, as many college athletes say they do, you’re probably going to have a hard time excelling in class, says Mr. King, an assistant professor in the School of Media and Journalism at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. In fact, he says, many athletes have dropped his classes, one of which requires about 100 hours of work outside the classroom.
So Mr. King has come up with a plan: Allow players to enroll in as few as six credit hours during their traditional playing seasons — half of the typical full-time load for athletes — and extend their scholarships up to two years, to six (though they would still have only four years of athletic eligibility).
The idea, which comes amid a national debate about reducing demands on athletes’ time, might seem far-fetched. Easing players’ academic loads would slow their progress toward a degree, a key marker of success for the National Collegiate Athletic Association, and invite questions about institutional priorities.
North Carolina is one of many universities whose athletic departments have come under fire for academic misconduct. Mr. King has thought a lot about the no-show classes taken by thousands of UNC students, including a disproportionately large number of athletes. While his plan is not a direct response to the scandal, he believes it could provide a way forward to athletic departments there and elsewhere.
Letting players prioritize classes in their off seasons, when they have more time, could lead to a more enriching educational experience, Mr. King says. The flexibility would allow more athletes to enroll in classes and pursue majors that interest them, he says, and could free them up for internships and study-abroad opportunities that many athletes miss out on because of the rigors of their playing routines. Students who don’t need a lighter load would be under no obligation to take it.
A reduced schedule might also help more athletes be successful academically, Mr. King says, leading to better job prospects. And it would come at a relatively small cost to the athletic department: at UNC, about $11,000 more in room and board per student per year for each additional year of study. Tuition costs would stay about the same, spread over the additional time students are enrolled. (Many universities, including UNC, have already committed to paying the full cost of their athletes’ education, no matter how long it takes.)
Mr. King’s plan, which he has dubbed onFieldinField, is to “enable student-athletes to be successful both on the field and in their chosen field of study.” He has spoken with representatives of the NCAA who track academic progress to see if it would be possible to study the impact of his proposal on teams in one conference (he has yet to get any takers). And he has discussed the proposal with Bubba Cunningham, the athletic director at Chapel Hill, who believes it has merit. At least one powerful conference commissioner agrees.
Other athletics leaders, however, say the NCAA already provides enough flexibility for students to take a varying course load, and permitting such a reduced schedule would send the wrong message to athletes about what matters most.
“There are lots of college kids working 40 hours a week and carrying a full load of classes,” says Bob Bowlsby, commissioner of the Big 12 Conference, who opposes the idea. “This is about being a student first. They’re there to be a student, and any time we depart from an educational mission, we are getting off the path.”
44,000 Athlete Voices
The lack of balance in many players’ lives has been apparent for a while. And it has bred all kinds of problems, including the temptation to cheat in class or cut corners academically. Until last year, the issue of time demands on athletes had not attracted much attention from the NCAA. Now it’s one of the association’s top priorities.
The NCAA recently completed an extensive survey of Division I players, coaches, and administrators, asking for their views on how much time athletes should spend on their sport, the best way to account for those hours, and how teams’ off-season activities should be regulated. More than 44,000 athletes and some 3,000 head coaches responded.
For the most part, athletes are looking for a lot more downtime than they get: a half-day of rest following road trips, two to four weeks off after their competitive season ends, and more chances to do internships and study abroad without the fear of losing their scholarships.
When I look at our basketball team that is missing weeks of school, how wonderful would it be if they could have a lower time commitment?
A majority of coaches say they would support giving players more time off, according to people briefed on the survey results. But in football and men’s basketball, where financial pressures are greatest, coaches aren’t as supportive.
The responses generated a strong reaction on Twitter, with some observers noting that coaches control their teams’ calendars and often don’t give players the rest they need.
Relief is clearly not coming from the playing schedule. Few coaches or administrators who responded to the survey favor reducing the frequency of competition. Even if coaches wanted to, conference television agreements would make that difficult, says Michael Cross, an assistant athletic director at Pennsylvania State University.
In fact, he says, many teams’ schedules are expanding, with more preseason tournaments, more international travel, and other games that don’t count toward NCAA maximum-contest limits. The scheduling creep is perhaps most obvious in men’s basketball. Forty years ago, teams played a maximum of 30 games. This year’s national champion, Villanova, played 40.
Beyond competition itself, travel makes it difficult for many athletes to be serious students during their playing seasons, says Erianne A. Weight, director of the Center for Research in Intercollegiate Athletics at Chapel Hill.
Ms. Weight, an assistant professor of exercise and sport science who has tried to quantify the value of athletics participation, believes that many players could benefit from a reduced academic load during the busiest part of their playing seasons.
“When I look at our basketball team that is missing weeks of school,” she says, “how wonderful would it be if they could have a lower time commitment?” But she thinks players should still complete 18 to 24 credits a year, the current NCAA minimums. “You can have your academic semester and a more athletic-centric semester,” she says, and make up any remaining credits in the summer, as opposed to Mr. King’s additional time.
At the same time, she believes athletes should receive academic credit for training that they are already required to do, including classes on leadership, nutrition, and NCAA rules.
Unrealistic Expectations?
Brian D. Shannon, a law professor and the faculty athletics representative at Texas Tech University, does not believe that athletes should be allowed to take fewer than 12 credit hours unless they have an internship, practicum, or study-abroad opportunity. “I could see it tied to those types of programs, but not across the board,” says Mr. Shannon, who serves on the NCAA’s Division I Council. (Its Committee on Academics has already proposed allowing players to take nine credits in a semester in which they have such commitments.)
The NCAA has been very successful in trying to help move a great number of student-athletes toward a degree and maintain the hallmark of being student-athletes. I would hate to see some reduction in that commitment.
The association should continue to emphasize the importance of players’ making significant progress toward a degree while they are competing in their sport, Mr. Shannon says. “The NCAA has been very successful in trying to help move a great number of student-athletes toward a degree and maintain the hallmark of being student-athletes. I would hate to see some reduction in that commitment.”
Sports are the carrot keeping many players in college. If their eligibility to play were up, and they were only halfway to a degree, which would be the case for some students under Mr. King’s plan, they might not stick around.
And yet the number of scandals has highlighted how unrealistic current academic expectations are for many elite athletes. If they could take fewer classes when they feel the greatest crunch, they might not be as inclined to look for academic shortcuts.
Giving athletes more time to complete their degrees is an idea that could gain traction, says David Berst, a former senior NCAA official. He sees an appetite for increased flexibility, in part to appease players.
“We’re probably heading into something of a renaissance for the interests of the student-athlete,” says Mr. Berst, who retired last year after more than four decades at the association, including many years overseeing Division I.
For athletes looking to benefit from higher education, he says, what matters is not so much how long they spend in college, but how much they get out of it.
Brad Wolverton is a senior writer who covers college sports. Follow him on Facebook and Twitter @bradwolverton, or email him at brad.wolverton@chronicle.com.
