Universities Should Heed Commission's Ideas for Spending on Athletics

If you want to tell whether major universities place a higher value on academics or athletics, follow the money. From 2005 to 2008, spending on athletic programs jumped 38 percent at the big college level, or twice the rate of spending hikes on academics.

The Knight Commission working with the National Collegiate Athletic Association to determine the effect of money on college sports sees this as an indication that things are spinning out of control. The panel is right, but reversing course will take considerable courage on the part of university presidents who know that keeping alumni happy with winning sports teams is vital to the financial health of their institutions.

The commission offers three solid ideas for keeping spending in check:

— Make all spending on sports programs public. Universities are unnecessarily proprietary on the specifics of athletics spending, fearing full disclosure would put them at a competitive disadvantage.

— Reward schools that make academics a higher priority, and punish those that don't by denying them participation in postseason bowls and tournaments.

— Treat athletes as students, and not professionals. This may be the toughest reform to swallow because it would mean shorter seasons and more time in the classrooms, and denying student athletes admission to top-flight universities they aren't academically qualified to attend.

College athletics is undeniably a big money enterprise. The University of Michigan, for example, has revenues of $100 million a year. That would make it a major business if it were in the private sector.

But having just come through the spectacle of Michigan State University basketball coach Tom Izzo, who makes $3 million a year, being courted by a pro team willing to pay him $6 million a year, it drives home how much money is really in play.

State university football and basketball coaches are the highest paid public employees, earning 15 to 20 times more than a governor.

U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan, who issued a statement in support of the Knight recommendations, wants universities that don't graduate at least 50 percent of their student athletes to be ineligible for postseason play. That would send a strong signal that colleges are not simply farm clubs for pro teams, but it would it would wreak havoc with sports like basketball, which is losing its best players after one or two years.

For example, four freshmen from the University of Kentucky squad were selected in the first round of last week's National Basketball Association draft.

Only one player, Quincy Poindexter of Washington, among the 30 first-round draft picks had exhausted his four years of college eligibility. (Patrick Patterson of Kentucky graduated in three years.)

More than anything else, the one-and-done phenomenon exposes college athletics as being about the money. The recent reshuffling of traditional athletic conferences is another confirmation.

The Knight report recognizes that money will drive decision-making as university presidents consider its recommendations. So it suggests that revenue earned from the lucrative NCAA men's basketball tournament be placed in a fund and distributed to colleges based on the academic performance of their athletes.

That may be what it takes to restore some balance to college athletics. The universities should take a hard look at these recommendations, and at their exploding athletic budgets, and start to return college sports to its amateur roots.

REPRINTED FROM THE DETROIT NEWS

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM