NCAA Doles Out Penalties

There have been a number of spins taken after the release of the latest Academic Performance Rate (APR) rankings by the NCAA. Along with the rankings came a boatload of penalties handed down to universities, in the form of lost scholarships.

So what's the NCAA using APR to judge? The APR is intended to quantify how successful the relationship between student and university is, in terms of graduation rate. The measurements boil down to requiring that universities see 60% of their incoming freshman class complete a degree program.

Coach Dick Tomey, San Jose State, asserts that the NCAA is exerting class warfare. What? His premise is based on assuming that BCS schools have more money to throw at "problems" than non-BCS schools.

In other words, if a college football player is struggling with academics, but performing well on the gridiron, he should have special assistance that comes with an additional price tag. Tutoring.

Coach Tomey would have us believe that the only reason college football players struggle with their academics is that they don't have enough assistance outside the classroom. You can only do that if you buy into his class warfare scenario.

Of the sixteen universities sanctioned by the NCAA with lost scholarships, only a couple (Kansas and Washington State) are BCS schools.

In terms of revenue generated by ticket sales, there seems to be a direct correlation. Only Kansas and Washington State average more than 30,000 fans in attendance for their home games.

Sorry, but Coach Tomey's outrage doesn't make the case.

The young men who attend university and play football are a special brand of student. At the college level, their primary responsibility is that of a student. All sixteen of the university football programs penalized by the NCAA already have programs in place to assist all students experiencing difficulties in the classroom. Some of those students served don't play football, rendering them less "special", but the programs can and do work.

It's a matter of responsibility, plain and simple. Student athletes make the choice to play a sport and attend classes simultaneously. They make the choice. They are also responsible for the choice of prioritizing. If student athletes are struggling in the classroom, that's where they must focus their time. For example, two excellent football players at Washington State didn't participate in spring football so they could concentrate on their academics. The school didn't have to throw money at their "problem". Both students took responsibility for improving their academic standing. Yes, they will be playing football this fall.

Perhaps the real problem is drawing the line between helping a student and coddling an athlete.

Perhaps there is a correlation between sports revenues and the level of special attention offered student athletes.

Perhaps we, faculty, students, staff, alumni and fans have lost sight of the purpose universities serve.

Education. That's what college is about. It's not the minor leagues for professional athletes.

Or is it?