NCAA’s Future Depends on Embracing Critics of Its Past
Today’s guest columnist is B. David Ridpath, professor of sports business at Ohio University.
The NCAA as an organization is as fragile as it’s ever been. There’s general skepticism from reformers like myself over the organization’s ability to evolve, combined with swirling rumors of further conference realignment, a Power 5 football breakaway and more compensation for college athletes.
More from Sportico.com
Why Athlete-Conference Revenue Sharing Needs an Actual Union
Aussie Rules: Gender Equity in Pro Sports Finds a Haven Down Under
Fanatics, Alabama Ink Company's Most Comprehensive College Deal
Many people, including myself, have been critical of the organization for decades, specifically for its inability to consistently enforce its rules and adapt with the changing college sports marketplace. Instead, it hangs onto outdated and virtually non-existent concepts of amateurism and the so-called collegiate model. And recently, the NCAA has not helped itself in its ongoing efforts to review its policies and practices, attempting to ostensibly reform and reframe itself as the primary intercollegiate athletics governing body in the country.
The reason I am skeptical is because when it comes to making change, the NCAA has a history of leaning on people who I would call insiders or those more friendly to preserving the status quo rather than really disrupting things and truly affecting positive change. It is time the NCAA embraces outsiders for advice, debate and true rigorous reform that may or may not even involve the NCAA as it currently stands.
Take, for example, the ongoing Division I transformation committee charged with commitments, regulations and membership obligations that directly respond to the set of issues that continually challenge the division. While it has been advertised that this committee will turn college sports upside down in attacking this mission, I have my doubts, even with an impressive membership that includes Greg Sankey, the SEC commissioner, and Julie Cromer, my own outstanding athletic director at Ohio University.
Our friends at the NCAA seem to use committees such as the transformation committee as a way to make it seem like they did something, which mirrors the past historical approach of continuing business as usual.
A related, and personal, NCAA committee sleight of hand: I was invited to participate in a review of the NCAA’s much-maligned Academic Progress Rate (APR) committee and asked to speak to the Division I Committee on Academics Task Force and share my thoughts and opinions on the APR. However, after vetting participants, the NCAA legal office recommended against my participation, and my invitation was rescinded.
There are several issues with this. First, the NCAA should know to vet potential speakers before extending an invitation. Second, if you truly want to hear good and bad, why wouldn’t you invite people who have not only been critical of the APR but also have empirical data and research to back up any claims? Just because someone disagrees does not mean they are wrong.
It is important to mention the real issue here: the inadequacy of the APR and other NCAA academic metrics such as the Graduation Success Rate (GSR). These metrics are simply public relations “smokescreens.” They hide widespread exploitation of academically underprepared athletes and academic fraud by institutions chasing the priority of winning and financial success in Division I athletics.
While there is not a perfect solution to this failure of academic standards, the APR is clearly not the best we can do. So how do we better change academic metrics for college sports? As a member of The Drake Group’s Board of Directors and its former president, I have commented on this issue extensively and the Group has issued a position paper with recommendations.
First, we suggest the NCAA discontinue its use of the GSR, APR and Coaches Academic Success rate calculations. They are fundamentally flawed metrics that don’t permit comparison with non-athlete students and don’t recognize institutional differences in mission, classroom competitiveness and student quality or the effect of these factors on underprepared college athletes. Additionally, they invite academic fraud when mismatched recruits are denied appropriate remediation through academic support services and serve as way to justify exorbitant academic bonuses for coaches and administrators when the connection to academic efficacy is virtually non-existent.
We proposed eight academic reforms that would hold NCAA member schools and coaches accountable for recruiting athletes capable of graduating and for remedying academic deficiencies that might otherwise make graduation unlikely. In short, we want college sports to be about education first and not eligibility maintenance so fans can be entertained on athletic landscapes. College sports are supposed to be about education after all.
This position paper was compiled by some of the leading experts in NCAA academics and compliance. The NCAA should want to hear all voices—even those who comment publicly to the media, Congress and the courts about the organization’s unfairness and deficiencies. It seems counterintuitive for an organization that allegedly is committed to change not to include diverse perspectives.
I am not sure the NCAA can find useful paths of change from people who have not been critical. If the NCAA truly wants to remain relevant and strives to be the main governing body for intercollegiate athletics in America, it needs to alter the culture and listen to dissenting voices who may have a better approach or plan. The NCAA reviewing the APR for potential modification is another example of the organization acting like it’s doing something, rather than actually taking the bold action needed for change.
Prior to his career in academia, during which he has authored two books, more than 30 journal articles and 10 academic book chapters, Ridpath worked for over 15 years in intercollegiate athletics administration and coaching.
