Football team graduation rates should be in the spotlight, and here's a
modest proposal to make that happen.
By Robert B. Archibald and David H.
Feldman Robert B. Archibald and David H. Feldman teach in the economics
department of the College of William & Mary.
December 31,
2004
On Dec. 10, in the middle of finals, our students went
uncharacteristically crazy. The reason was the semifinals of the Division I-AA
football playoffs and the ESPN2 telecast of the game. The College of William
& Mary is not often on the nation's athletic center stage, so everyone was
excited.
Our football team accomplished two notable feats this year.
First, we won 11 games, including two playoff games. Second, according to NCAA
data, our football program is one of two in Division 1 with a 100% graduation
rate (the other school is Duke). We are justly proud of both
accomplishments.
Unfortunately, those watching ESPN2 heard only about the
team's exploits on the football field. The players' sterling performance in the
classroom was never mentioned. This leads to our modest proposal. We think that
the NCAA should require broadcasters of its football games to mention the
football team's graduation rate along with the other statistics.
Other
proposals on this issue would go much further. The John S. and James L. Knight
Foundation recommends that eligibility for football bowl games be reserved for
teams with graduation rates of at least 50%. Using this criterion, nearly half
of the teams in bowls this year would not be eligible to participate. The
colleges and universities whose teams would be excluded would lose a great deal
of money. Last year the 28 college bowls distributed more than $185 million to
NCAA schools.
We would like to see graduation rates added to the formula
for the Bowl Championship Series, or BCS. Depending on the weight given to
academics, differences in graduation rates might change the selection of the
participants in the championship game. This year there were three undefeated
contenders for the two top spots. If graduation rates were added to the mix,
Auburn and USC, both with 59% graduation rates, might be squaring off for the
national title, leaving out Oklahoma, with its 43% graduation rate.
The
Knight Foundation proposal and altering the BCS selection criteria are radical
ideas because they would change the allocation of money. For this reason, we
suspect that neither has much chance of becoming NCAA policy.
Our
proposal for announcing graduation rates does not affect the flow of funds. Each
time the University of Oklahoma's football team appears on TV the audience would
hear about its 43% graduation rate, but Oklahoma would still earn an
undiminished share of the TV revenue. Our approach relies on shame, or its
opposite — public approval — as a powerful motivator. The trick is making the
information public to everyone who matters, which in this case includes the
athletes and their families as well as alumni and contributors.
The
football graduation rate can't be corrupted or tweaked by the schools since it
is calculated using an NCAA formula. And football squads are large enough that
averaging the last two to four years of data gives a reliable picture of the
overall academic standing of the program.
The objective of college
athletics should be success on the playing field and success in the classroom.
At the very least, announcing the graduation rate would provide an interesting
counterpoint to the promotional puff pieces the institutions craft to accompany
televised games.
The NCAA likes to say each of its athletes will become
a professional but that for most of them the profession won't be athletics. That
may be true for the ones who succeed academically. The task is to find a
reasonable mechanism that will ensure that more of them graduate.