Sports Sociology II

Sports and Higher Education

Source for lecture: Shulman, J.L. and Bowen, W.G. The Game of Life – College Sports and Educational Values. Princeton University Press, 2001.

I. Questions related to collegiate athletics and academics

A. Questions

• How did athletic programs become institutionalized within American higher education?

• What is the relationship between athletic programs and the educational mission of higher education and how has this relationship changed over time?

• How has the role of athletics in institutions of higher education been affected by trends in American society such as commercialism and athletic specialization?

B. The issues are not new

1929 Carnegie Commission Report:

“The defects of American college athletics are two: commercialism, and a negligent attitude toward the educational opportunity for which the college exists.”

II. History of Collegiate Athletics

A. Mid to late 1800’s

1. First intercollegiate athletic competition was a crew race between Harvard and Yale in 1852 on Lake Winnipesaukee in NH

2. First intercollegiate baseball game was in 1859 between two private schools in MA

3. First intercollegiate football game was in 1869 between Princeton and Rutgers (though the game played would not be recognized today as football)

4. The latter two were student-organized games between clubs, not University sponsored varsity sports

B. Football and the Institutionalization of College Sports

1. In the 1870’s and 1880’s, the game of football developed in part due to the introduction of rugby rules via games between Harvard and McGill (Canada)

2. Some of the Ivy schools accepted common rules, and by the 1890’s, their championship game in NYC was watched by ~40,000 fans

3. Midwestern schools gained name-recognition by challenging well-known Eastern schools in football

3. The first Rose Bowl game was played in 1902, which was won by Michigan over Stanford, 49-0.

4. In the early 1900’s, there were few professional sports (no football, basketball, or hockey leagues). College football became very popular as a spectator sport.

5. However, as football gained popularity, it also gained a reputation as a dangerous sport.

6. 18 players died playing football in 1905

7. In 1905, President T Roosevelt called a meeting with three Ivy league presidents and football coaches to discuss the problem

8. This meeting lead to some rule changes – including legalization of the forward pass

9. Only currently enrolled undergraduates were allowed on the team

10. Some schools chose to ban football, but others played with the new rules

11. The colleges also began to institutionalize college sports, rather than leaving them as student-run clubs – the idea was to gain more faculty control over sports

12. A few salient dissents, e.g., one Big Ten member, Univ. of Chicago, eliminated football in 1939, in an attempt to keep athletics from influencing the academic mission of the institution (Note: Today Univ. of Chicago has top ranked academic programs, but not sports teams.)

C. Institutionalization of College Sports - Summary

1. “No other historical development in intercollegiate athletics has been as influential, or as subtle, as the progressive institutionalization of the athletic clubs… In institutionalizing these programs, the schools have, in effect, declared ‘this is something that we do’.”

2. Instead of gaining academic control over athletics, institutionalization lead to athletics influence on academics

III. How does athletics influence the institutional mission?

A. The mission statement

1. Each University/College has a mission statement

2. NAU “To serve the citizens of Arizona … by preparing students to be well-educated, informed, productive participants in their communities and the larger society. To encourage independent and critical thought and creativity … well as the habits of cooperation and teamwork.”

3. Common themes include:

– Pursuit of knowledge and learning for its own sake

– Education for leadership, citizenship, and success in life

– Intellectual and moral development

– Diversity

B. Athletics and Admissions

1. Athletics influences who is admitted

2. The admissions advantage (increased probability of admission, controlling for SAT scores) increased from 1976 to 1999:

Men Athletes Men Minorities

1976 – 23% 49%

1989 – 30% 26%

1999 – 48% 18%

C. Athletics and Socioeconomic Diversity

1. Athletes playing high profile sports are less likely than their classmates have college-educated parents

2. Athletes playing low profile sports are no less likely than their classmates to have college-educated parents

Division 1A public Universities 1989

All students – 63%

Low Profile Athletes – 67%

High Profile Athletes – 40%

(Ivys: 73%, 78%, 63%)

D. Athletics and Racial Diversity

1. High profile sports have a disproportionate percentage of minorities, and this percentage has increased

2. 1976 – Approx 5% of all male students were African American, 20-25% of high profile athletes were African American

3. 1989 – 4-6% of male students, 10% (Ivy) to 39% (Div 1A) high profile athletes, but 3-7% low profile athletes

E. Does Recruiting of Athletes Increase Diversity?

If the athletic contribution to socioeconomic and racial diversity were eliminated, the diversity of the general student population would decrease by 1-2%

F. . Sports and Academic Performance

1. Athletes, particularly in the high profile sports, are academic underachievers in terms of GPA

2. This result holds even after accounting for SAT scores (a marker of preparation), socioeconomic status, and major

3. Is this gap explained by the time commitment?

4. This explanation (time) is not supported by comparisons with students involved in other extracurricular activities with heavy time commitment (newspaper, orchestra, etc.)

5. Influence of coaching? Coaches are rewarded more for wins than graduation rates (witness firing of Bob Davie of Notre Dame)

IV. College Sports and the Entertainment Dollar

A. Winning affects entertainment revenue

1. In 1995 Northwestern’s football team had unusual success (went to Rose Bowl) – revenues from merchandising fees increased from $40,000 to $400,000

2. The Rose Bowl appearance was worth $1 million

3. Apparel sales made $5.7 million for the University of Michigan in the year both the football and hockey teams won national titles

5. A season of ticket sales at basketball power Duke provides ~$2 million

6. Television and post-season games made ~$9 million for U of Michigan and ~$5 million for Duke in 1997-98

7. On the other hand, ticket sales, television and post-season games earn little for non-division I school

B. College Sports and Finances

1. Does athletics provide a profit?

2. The cost of winning is high – Division 1A schools spend $20-25 million on athletics (U. of Michigan spent over $40 million)

3. In Div 1A, $6-10 million is spent on football alone, in contrast, $0.4-0.45 million is spent on a typical low profile sport

4. In 1997, 43% of Div 1A schools made a profit on athletics (profit even less likely for non-Div 1A schools)

5. Average losses on athletics range from $1-3 million – athletics are not an “investment”