By citing several significant problems plaguing the legitimacy of student-athletes, the NCAA Division I Board of Directors is actively reevaluating the way it issues scholarships to schools and teams that don’t make the grade in the classroom before leaving the locker room. Some favor these changes to bolster academics, while others oppose amendments to the current policies. Those arguments follow:
1. Normalize academic standards
Being a star athlete should not preclude an individual from making the same grades as any other applicant hoping to enroll at a university. In fact, it is still possible to win national titles without athletic scholarships. UCSD is a good example: It has won national titles based solely on non-scholarship players. Some may argue that athletes do not have enough time to study, but UCSD athletes have higher GPAs than other UCSD students.
2. Encourage graduation
Unfortunately, many athletes are led to believe that they will make it all the way to the professional ranks of their respective sports and are thus also encouraged not to complete their degree. However, only a small percentage of NCAA athletes are drafted into the professional ranks. According to the NCAA, 1.3 percent of college athletes are drafted in the NBA, 2 percent are drafted in the NFL, 10.5 percent are drafted in MLB and 4.1 percent are drafted in the NHL. With numbers such as these, student-athletes must have a degree to fall back on. Obviously, there are many highly touted student-athletes who are ready for the draft before their senior year, but they are exceptions to the rule.
3. Reduce cheating
Cheating and violations of other academic rules is rampant among student-athletes. There have been cases where a head coach or an assistant coach will teach a class and simply let his or her players pass without doing the required work. For example, the NCAA Division I Committee sentenced University of Georgia for four years probation for academic fraud in addition to unethical recruiting practices. If athletes fall under the same standards as nonscholarship or academic scholarship students, then athletes prone to cheating would most likely be rejected at certain schools.
4. Lead to better spending
Only 40 of 325 Division I schools claim to operate on a profit, according to a recent Washington Post article. In addition, NCAA President Myles Brand advised athletic departments to cut spending costs. With most Division I athletic programs operating at a loss or breaking even, the money that would be spent on athletic scholarships can be used toward academic scholarships or to free up cash for academic uses. According to USA Today, athletic programs that increased spending (through practices such as hiring high-profile coaches) did not improve teams’ win-loss records, donations or the academic standards of the school. An athletically high-profile university with more money to spend would not necessarily draw applicants with higher GPAs and higher SAT scores.
Abolishing athletic scholarships will further emphasize the importance of academics. There is no doubt that strong academic programs bring revenue and appeal to universities. However, it would be better if all college applicants were held to the same academic standards, regardless of athletic ability. Academics must be the top priority for student-athletes. With the same academic standards across the board, incidents of cheating by student-athletes will decrease and fiscal reports of athletic departments will yield profits instead of loss.
