CHEATED: Our Response To The UNC Scandal And Beyond, Part 2

This article is is a continuation from a post last week. The original article can be found here.

 

Suppose we change the eligibility rules for college athletes in the moneyed sports.  Instead of having not had the current entry requirements (minimum SATS, courses etc.) and the ongoing GPA and academic progress requirements, we offered a different form of eligibility.  It could look like what is described below (with changes to be sure) and it would be designed and implemented by the institutions themselves; the NCAA would barely play a role for the reasons that will soon be obvious and that role would be non-substantive.

Campuses would have to agree that all the requirements for their athletes would be met for those individuals to be eligible to play a collegiate sport and get a scholarship if DI and DII (and not necessarily a degree – more on that momentarily).  Here are the requirements to which student-athletes would be required to agree:

1) Show a valid diploma showing high school graduation or a GED or for foreign students, the equivalent.

2) Commit to abiding by the rules and requirements contained in the applicable student handbook and the athletic handbook, subject to what is described below.

3) Meet with a qualified non-athletic Academic Advisor at their chosen institution (in person; via phone or SKYE) to register for the usual number of classes taken by non-athletes during a semester to be considered “full-time students.”  Yes, summers could be used too if needed.

4) Select classes that are consistent with institutional graduation requirements and also appeal to the student-athletes’ personal interests;

5) Take a strength inventory test shortly upon arrival on campus to develop a fuller and more informed understanding of what careers would benefit each of these student-athletes (post-college) and where their talents and interests lie;

6) Attend all classes in person (with monitors if needed for verification), with the only permitted absences being those allowed for death, illness and out of town games due to travel distance;

7) Participate in mandatory study halls and work set number of hours with academic support staff to aid student-athletes in understanding the course material and completing the necessary assignments;

8) Review their academic progress with their Academic Advisor every semester;

9) Attend a prescribed number of academic/student life but non-course related events sponsored by the campus: lectures; theatrical performances; musical performances; poetry readings; meditation sessions; library events; student speeches; rallies. There could be a menu of options that could differ from year to year and institution to institution

10) Participate in one student club that is not geared primarily to athletics of the athlete’s own choosing (cooking; yoga; drama; art; diversity….); and

11) Perform a minimum number of community service hours that are real and not “no show” jobs, with needed monitoring and an accompanying discussion on these jobs and what one can learn from them.

Then, here is what would happen.  Student athletes who met all eleven requirements would be eligible to play collegiate sports. Ponder this – the requirements list could be 8 or 15; the above is just an exemple and a starting point for further discussion.  Failure to meet these requirements would make them athletically ineligible.  

Now, and this is the key point that turns things on their heads: student-athletes could choose from two main options: they could elect to have their transcript reflect “audit” in their classes or they could elect to be graded on the same standards as every other student in the same class, athlete or not.  Or, they could pick some classes to audit and some in which to get credit.  The choices would not affect their scholarships.



At the end of the four years of athletic ability, student athletes would get a certificate if they audited a certain number of courses – pick your number (25?).  If they elected to get credits, they would be progressing towards a degree and perhaps even graduating.  Either way, they would be learning.

The point of this approach is at one level simple: student-athletes can benefit from being student-athletes. Period. Full stop.  Even through “just” auditing classes and the other requirements listed, they can grow and mature. And, the choice is theirs as to what to learn, when they want to be graded (and hence ramp up the work effort), and how long they want to remain in school.

From athletics’ perspective, Ads, coaches and teams get the players they want – they just need to make sure they meet the above listed (or some similar set) of requirements that would have to be consistent across institutions to insure parity and fairness.  No cheating required.

From an academic and student life perspective, this is also a win-win.  Courses are not dumbed down, students are not put in bogus courses that do not interest them and grading standards can be maintained.

In short, we have at least a quadruple win here: (1) student-athletes to play their sports and engage in the college environs, taking in all that it has to offer in addition to athletics (and who knows, we might find a goodly number of real academic stars in the mix were I guessing, in part because the pressure is off); (2) ADs, coaches/teams get athletic success and don’t have to create artificial strategies to get students and keep students enrolled; (3) faculty and staff maintain their usual programming and support programs, benefitting from the presence that athletes bring to the table in class if they are prepared; (4) institutions win because they can put a quality product on the court and field, without sacrificing their integrity or their revenue; and (5) the communities near and far benefit from student-athletes who have osmosed at least some of what higher education offers.

I can picture coaches competing for athletes based on how these programs work and how many of their students actually get a degree.  I can see Notre Dame operating differently than Florida State in terms of recruiting.  I can see faculty becoming bigger and better sports fans.  And, I can see the opportunity for young men and women to grow and flourish and contribute meaningful to society when their athletic career in college is over.