NCAA proposal would hurt more Division I schools than help them: Opinion

monmouth-sports.jpg

King Rice, head coach of Monmouth University's men's basketball team, speaks to players at the end of a practice session.

(Andrew Mills/The Star-Ledger)

By Paul R. Brown

New results from the Monmouth University Polling Institute indicate that two in three Americans believe universities with big-time sports programs place too much emphasis on athletics over academics. Three in four think the attention received by these mega-programs creates pressure on mid-size universities like my own to put more emphasis than they should on their own sports programs. If the NCAA and the universities with semi-professional sports programs get their way, the situation will worsen.

And as Ohio State defeated Oregon in the first “Super Bowl” for college football this week, the crusade to eliminate the amateur sports model in the name of big-time football recently took a dramatic step forward. The Big Five conference autonomy group – the 65-member schools that comprise the five largest sports conferences in the NCAA – put forth a set of proposals that will decimate athletic opportunities for future student-athletes at the 287 “other” Division I institutions.

The most significant proposal, a stealthy amendment related to covering the "full cost-of-attendance" for student-athletes, is actually an over-the-top recruiting tool disguised as a means to pay student-athletes.

It would calculate a student-athlete’s full cost of attendance by using a combination of an existing federally mandated methodology and school-established policy (i.e., whatever the institution decides). That means that institutions with the financial resources will be able to reach deep into their pockets to secure a high-profile recruit.

What comes next? Should travel costs incurred by parents to attend games be part of the costs of attendance? What about insurance premiums or countless other perks?

It’s hard to imagine that the 65 schools (and the 30 or so others desperate to join this group) will stop there. It’s the underlying reason why, for example, the University of Alabama-Birmingham recently announced it is eliminating football. I commend President Watts for making this tough decision. But as a result, there will now be 100 or so fewer opportunities for student-athletes wishing to play Division I football.

Unfortunately, it’s easy to extrapolate from this state of affairs. The vast majority of Division I schools will be forced to decide: shall we divert money into our football or basketball programs in order to keep up with the Big Five, and if so, which Olympic sports programs must we eliminate? Alternately, should we simply cast off our football and basketball teams?

Either way, with this scenario occurring all over the country, the pace in which sports programs are eliminated will accelerate significantly. Current examples include Rutgers, California, Maryland and Temple, among others.

We are being led down a slippery slope that is not only wrong, but also financially unsustainable for many institutions, including my own. This new reality is directly at odds with the NCAA's stated core values of equitable participation for student-athletes, and its commitment to a supporting role for intercollegiate athletics in the overall mission of higher education.

As the president of a university that highly values the contribution of our students-athletes to the fabric of our campus, I don't accept the notion that some students are more equal than others. Our student-athletes are first and foremost students, just as those who participate in the arts, clubs, Greek life, student government and other opportunities for learning and leadership. I have a responsibility to prepare each student for a productive life after graduation, and this entails balancing my budget without skewing toward one student population over another.

The system in its current form is broken, and we need to look more realistically at our oversight of college athletics. Otherwise we risk a massive elimination of opportunities for student-athletes and the many benefits of amateur athletics.

I applaud the Knight Commission for its exploration of alternative Division I competition models, and I look forward to being part of the conversation toward productive solutions. Without them, I fear that the Big Five’s recent set of proposals will dramatically hasten the demise of the amateur sports model for the vast majority of Division I schools. And if that happens, all of us will be among the losers.

Paul R. Brown, Ph.D., is president of Monmouth University.

FOLLOW STAR-LEDGER OPINION: TWITTER • FACEBOOK

If you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy.