Jake Castellini MMWR Professor Matos 11/27/2012

College to Corp: The Effects of Increasing Commercialization in Collegiate Athletics

From ticket revenue, to merchandising, sponsorships, TV contracts, videogame deals and more, Division 1A mens college football and basketball are multi-billion dollar industries that are only getting bigger. As in any other industry, the corporation that produces the best product gains the largest portion of the market product. It is the same way in big-time collegiate athletics, the schools that produce the best teams get the biggest peice of multi-billion dollar college sports pie. But at what cost? Some colleges will do whatever it takes to keep their teams on top. This increasing commercialization of collegiate athletics is causing universities across the country to compromise their institutional and ethical values in order to produce and maintain successful football and basketball programs.

Increasing Commercialization
(still struggling to find solid numbers for this because the NCAA likes to hide how much money they actually make)

The Benefits
There are undoubtedly some benefits to the commercialization of collegiate athletics. As demonstrated above, there is a lot of money to be made for the big-time sports schools thanks to the increasing commercialization, money that can be invested back into the school. Increased commercialization has also lead to an increase in the amount of athletic scholarships, making it possible for many athletes to receive an education they would not have the opportunity to receive

otherwise. Commercialized college sports programs are also one of the main ways that those schools get publicity. Studies suggest that having a successful big-time college sports program also helps to attract more applicants and raise donations (Clotfelter, 2010). So there are some major benefits, but do these benefits justify colleges compromising their values?

The Costs
Academics and Special Treatment The first and most common way that schools compromise their values is through sacrificing academic standards for athletic performance. In the same way that ethically questionable companies lower quality standards in order to produce a more profitable product. Almost every Division One school in the country has lower academic standards of admittance (lower minimum SAT and ACT scores) for their athletes than they do for their regular students. This allows them to recruit a wider range of athletes and, in theory, produce better teams than they would be able to if all their recruits had to first get into the school on their academic merit. Even the more academically prestigious universities, which may have higher academic standards for their athletes than the National College Athletic Association (NCAA) requires, still have lower academic standards for their recruited athletes than for their regular applicants. The difference is staggering when you look at a teams average test scores and the average scores of the whole student body. For example, at Northwestern the average SAT score for non-athletes was 1344, for the basketball team 974; at Duke the basketball team averaged an 887 and the rest of the student body a 1392; at Virginia non-athletes averaged a score of 1293, basketball players averaged 854; and at Michigan the football team averaged an 834, while the rest of the school averaged a 1271. Score differences like this are common at all selective big-time sports schools(Dowling, 2001). It is unfair and unethical for schools to hold athletes to different

admittance standards, as colleges are, at least in theory, primarily academic institutions not athletic programs. By expecting less from their student-athletes than they do from their students, Universities are compromising their academic values, essentially just to make more money off of their athletic performance. Colleges continue this special academic treatment of their student athletes after admittance as well. Like a corporations protecting their investments, colleges will do what it takes to make sure that their athletes pass so that they can maintain their eligibility. In his article Big-Time Sports as Academic Prostitution, Professor William Dowling claims that at selective schools hideaway curriculums are being created to help athletes pass, who would not be able to handle the regular work load (p. 4). Here at Notre Dame even, athletes are given given special treatment. Athletes here have access to private tutors and are given free one-on-one attention that would be next to impossible for a regular student to find. They also register get the first choice of classes to ensure that they have access to the easiest schedule they can get. Practices like this are commonplace across the country, where the athletes get better treatment because they are worth more to the universities. At the University of Kentucky, the basketball team has their own seven million dollar dorm, adjacent to the athletic tutoring center and complete with flat screen TVs on the walls that display the players schedules for them (Hudson, 2012). This extreme difference in the treatment of student-athletes and regular students illustrates how universities put their sports programs first and everything else second. Even with all the special treatment, hideaway curriculums, and private tutoring some schools are still unable to get their players to pass. This year a record ten basketball teams will be banned from the NCAA tournament because they failed to meet the team academic standards set by the NCAA (ESPN.com News, 2012). The fact that ten team all failed to meet academic

standards is proof that colleges across the country are admitting athletes that are just not academically prepared for college. Because even with all of the of the private tutoring and special help they were not able to pass class schedules that its safe to assume were not particularly rigorous. Some colleges will compromise academic standards even further by cutting corners and straight up cheating in order to pass players that are academically incompetent. In 2001 the NCAA found that a University of Georgia assistant basketball coach, "fraudulently awarded grades of A to three men's basketball student-athletes" who had been enrolled in his class (Associated Press, 2004). When a university takes shortcuts like this they are undermining their mission as an institution. The primary mission of a college should be to educate, not to win football or basketball games. After all, a majority of college athletes do not go on to play professional sports and by allowing them to breeze through school without getting a good education, they are setting them up for failure in life. It is unethical the way that some schools only care that their players pass, or appear to pass, so that they can play and continue to make the school money. Pay to Play (If I have room to discuss this, there is a lot to talk about) Scandals When large companies experience internal scandals that will harm the reputation of the company and ultimately their bottom line, the heads of these companies often go to extreme lengths to keep these scandals covered up. Its the same way in big-time college sports. Some colleges have gone to extreme and even morally disgusting lengths to cover up scandals that would prove detrimental to their programs.

One example of this sort of scandal and cover up would be the recent incident involving the Ohio State football program. This scandal started when eight Ohio state football players, including starting quarterback Terrelle Pryor and running back Dan Herron, received $14,000 in cash as well as tattoos for Ohio State football memorabilia. The then head coach of the Buckeyes Jim Tressel was tipped off to these allegations in April of 2010 but did nothing to stop the blatant NCAA rule violation. The players were finally caught in December of 2010, but allowed to play in the that years BCS Sugar Bowl on the condition that they serve a suspension at the start of the next season. But when it came to light that Tressel had know about and tried to cover up the incident, the NCAA came down hard on the OSU football program. Slapping the buckeyes with a one-year bowl ban, probation, and a reduction of scholarships. Tressel also lost his job and was essentially banned from coaching college sports(ESPN.com News, 2011). All of this because Tressel decided that winning football games and the multi-million dollar BCS pay out was more important than doing the ethically right thing, turning in his star players who had clearly violated NCAA rules. And Ohio State is just the team that got caught, it is safe to assume that other schools and coaches across the country are doing similar things. However the most horrifying example of programs compromising ethics in order to protect a profitable team has to be the Jerry Sandusky/Penn State scandal. Sandusky, a former assistant coach on the Penn State football team, was convicted of forty-five counts of child sex abuse which had been taking place for more than a decade. According to the Freeh Report, the published findings of the investigation into the Sandusky child molestation case, multiple members of the Penn State community were well aware of the situation and did nothing to stop it. Head Coach Joe Paterno, University President Graham Spainer, Vice President Gary Schultz, and Athletic Director Tim Curley all had knowledge of the crimes as early as 1998 and failed to

pass the information on the authorities or do anything to stop it. Others also knew and did not report it to the police including assistant coach Mike McQueary and a Penn State janitor. Both
of whom witnessed the molestation first hand(Shipley, 2012). In this terrible instance several

people in the Penn State organization put protecting their highly profitable football program over the safety of those young boys by not speaking out about what was going on. Compromising their moral values because they knew if the news were to get out it would have decimated the program (which it ultimately did). This example goes to show that some colleges will go to extreme, almost unimaginable lengths to protect the money making machines that are Division 1A mens college football and basketball teams.

Conclusion
It is clear that the increasing commercial nature of college athletics is raising the stakes of the game. With more and more money involved, schools will go to greater and greater extremes to produce and maintain winning teams. As universities continue to look more like big corporations doing whatever they can to produce the most competitive product, they will continue to compromise their institutional and ethical values in order stay on top. And what can be done to stop it? There is no way to stop the growth of this industry, because there is no way to prevent college football and basketball from growing in popularity. It is up to the NCAA to increase regulation, and heighten sanctions in order to keep teams honest. Which they have begun to do. The NCAA announced this year that they will increase, rather drastically, the academic expectations for incoming freshmen (Holsick, 2012). Which will make it easier for schools to maintain their academic integrity at the same time as their competitive edge. And the sanctions that they are handing down to teams, mentioned above, which include postseason bans,

are forcing programs to reconsider the financial risk-reward of breaking the rules. But as long as there is money to corporations and colleges alike will do whatever they can to get a piece of it.

Works Cited Associated Press. "Coach gave every student an A." ESPN.com. 4 Mar. 2004. ESPN. 29 Nov. 2012 <http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=1750279>. Clotfelter, Charles T. "Sports Are Good for Colleges." The Chronicle of Higher Education 57.10 (2010). Expanded Academic ASAP. Web. 18 Nov. 2012. Dowling, William C. "Big-Time Sports as Academic Prostitution." Academic Questions 14.4 (2001): 82-90. PILOTS: Published International Literature On Traumatic Stress; ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection. 16 Nov. 2012 . ESPN.com News. "APR: Ten teams lose postseason." ESPN. 20 June 2012. ESPN Internet Ventures. 29 Nov. 2012 <http://espn.go.com/mens-collegebasketball/story/_/id/8077431/connecticut-huskies-9-others-sit-postseason-apr>. ESPN.com News. "Ohio State Gets One-year Bowl ban." ESPN. ESPN Internet Ventures, 22 Dec. 2011. Web. 15 Nov. 2012. <http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/ 7372757/ ohio-state-buckeyes-football-penalties-include-bowl-ban>. Hobson, Chad. "No place like home: UK's new gold standard in housing CoachCal.com."CoachCal.com. 7 Sept. 2012. 29 Nov. 2012 <http://www.coachcal.com/16170/2012/09/no-place-like-home-uks-new-gold-standardin-housing/>. Hosick, Michelle Brutlag. "New eligibility standards start in 2016." - NCAA.com. 25 Apr. 2012. NCAA. 30 Nov. 2012 <http://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/article/2012-04-26/neweligibility-standards-start-2016>.

NCAA Eligibility Center. NCAA Freshman-Eligibility Standards. Brochure. Author.Ncaa.org. 05 July 2008. NCAA. 29 Nov. 2012

<https://web1.ncaa.org/eligibilitycenter/hs/d1_standards.pdf> Shipley, Amy, and Jenna Johnson. "Freeh report on Penn States handling of Jerry Sanduskys child sex abuse reveals total disregard for victims." Washington Post. 17 July 2012. The Washington Post. 29 Nov. 2012 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/freeh-reporton-penn-states-handling-of-jerry-sanduskys-child-sex-abuse-reveals-total-disregard-forvictims/2012/07/12/gJQAfVoMfW_story.html>. Zimbalist, Andrew S. "Chapter 2: The Student Athlete." Unpaid Professionals: Commercialism and Conflict in Big-time College Sports. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1999. 16-53. Print