There has been an abundance of confusion regarding the recent ruling by the Supreme Court in the case against the NCAA. This ruling has often been conflated with the “Names Image and Likeness” (NIL) legislation that now allows student-athletes to profit from the use of their notoriety as athletes. But what the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) case dealt with is something different.
What the SCOTUS ruling did was eliminate existing NCAA limitations that restricted the EDUCATIONALLY-RELATED benefits that student-athletes can receive from member universities. Those limits essentially limited those benefits to providing waivers of tuition and room and board charges, along with reimbursement for books and supplies, while the student-athlete was eligible to compete in athletics.
In response to the SCOTUS ruling, Penn State should:
Grant all scholarship student-athletes an additional two years of scholarship (full cost waivers for tuition and room and board) for all student-athletes, which they can use AFTER they have exhausted their athletic eligibility.
The positives of such a policy are many, including that it is simply the right thing to do for the student-athletes, and the academic integrity of college athletics. It would also allow Penn State Athletics to reignite the oft-chanted mantras of The Grand Experiment.
But let’s first take a closer look at that SCOTUS ruling, and the current status of Penn State’s athletics program.
Perhaps even more important than the ruling itself was the manner in which the SCOTUS issued the ruling. The SCOTUS made it clear that they felt that the NCAA and its member institutions have been acting with greed and self-interest with respect to College Sports revenues – and that the SCOTUS may look favorably on future cases regarding the ability of student-athletes to receive a bigger share of the sports revenue pie (future actions which could drastically alter collegiate athletics as we have known them).
So, the ruling created TWO large concerns for the NCAA, and universities like Penn State:
1) How to deal with the lifting of educationally-related benefits restrictions
2) How to defend the long-standing argument that university athletic programs are operated for the benefit of the student-athletes – as opposed to operating for the benefit of Administrators and Coaches. An argument that the SCOTUS essentially “Laughed out of Court”, with Justice Kavanaugh, in his written opinion, stating:
“Enormous sums of money flow to seemingly everyone except the student athletes.”
Penn State can move toward satisfying both of those goals by aggressively and proactively implementing changes that shift college athletics – and college athletics revenue – back in the direction of supporting student-athletes, and their educational pursuits.
Kavanaugh might very easily have been reading Penn State Athletics’ financial statements before writing his opinion. Currently, Penn State Athletics generates over $170 million per fiscal year – largely on the labors of student-athletes, and the TV contracts and Ticket Sales their performances provide.
And yet, at Penn State, less than 13% of all athletics revenue is spent on funding scholarships and educational opportunities for those student-athletes.
And, at that, those expenses are not actually even “real” outflows of funds from the University. Those expenses are ledger transfers from one portion of the University – the Athletic Department – to another portion of the University – the General Fund – as a means of having the Athletic Department “pay for” the scholarships. In actual fact, the true expenses incurred by the University for the benefit of the student-athletes is far less than the 13% figure from the financial statements.
Instead, Penn State has used the revenue windfalls from TV contracts and Seat License Fees to engorge administrative staff and swell coaching contracts (expenses wherein the dollars ARE actually leaving the University – and into the pocketbooks of administrators, staff, and coaches – and not simply moving from one university ledger to another). Penn State spends nearly 50% of total Athletics revenues on salaries for administrators, staff, and coaches. Those expenditures – particularly for Administrative Staff – have exploded in recent years (Administration Salary Increases 157%, Coaches Salary Increases 130%).
It is critical to understand the current situation, not only to understand the righteousness of a plan to provide more robust educational benefits to the student athletes, but also to understand just how easy such a plan would be to implement.
Simply re-directing as little as 10% of current administrative, staff, and coaching expenses would fully fund the total costs of such a program (keeping in mind, we are talking about just a 10% reduction from salary levels that have increased by over 140% in recent years). It would NOT require any funds to be redirected from outside of the Athletics department, nor would it require fans and boosters to pay higher costs for tickets and other purchases.
What would the benefits of a more robust educational benefit be?
From the standpoint of the student-athlete it would provide an enhanced opportunity to undertake rigorous and rewarding academic pursuits – in-line with those of the student body as a whole. While some student-athletes, usually in non-revenue sports, currently manage to pursue rigorous degree programs – while participating in demanding and time-consuming athletics activities – most do not (particularly in the largest sports program, college football).
The three largest colleges at Penn State, with enhanced GPA academic requirements, are the Colleges of Engineering, Science, and Business (and those three colleges enroll over 1/2 of all Penn State undergraduate students). Over the last ten years, Penn State Football has recruited and enrolled over 200 scholarship football athletes – none of them have earned a degree in Engineering. NONE, Nor have any earned a degree in the College of Science – and only three have earned degrees in the College of Business.
To be clear, this is not an issue unique to Penn State. Even some of the most prestigious universities in the nation – including Stanford and Michigan – created entirely new colleges and curriculums designed to house student-athletes, in order to keep them academically eligible while competing in demanding “pre-professional” sports programs.
Higher, and more rigorous, academic requirements would appear to be largely incompatible with the simultaneous heavy, year-round time demands of revenue generating athletic competition.
Allowing former student-athletes to pursue their academic goals – without having to balance those academic pursuits with the extensive demands of NCAA athletic competition and training – is simply the right thing to do. A significant investment to benefit all true student-athletes, in return for their efforts in generating the revenue, is a much fairer allocation of the revenue their efforts produce.
In addition, such a program – should Penn State choose to be a Leader – would present clear and meaningful benefits for Penn State Athletic programs. A meaningful academic benefit would serve as an enticement for prospective student-athletes to select Penn State as their school of choice. This would be particularly attractive for those prospective student-athletes who place great value in the benefits of a higher education – the types of student-athletes that Penn State claims to value. A benefit with far more value, to the “discerning” prospect, then would be a few dollars earned by promoting local restaurants and signing autographs through a NIL agreement.
Also, especially in light of the NCAA’s recent regulatory changes which have made transferring from one university to another more attractive to the student-athlete (and has led to Penn State having one of the highest “transfer-out” rates of any of the Power 5 athletic programs), such a program would incentivize student-athletes to remain committed to their studies, their athletic program, and their teammates at Penn State. By rewarding those student-athletes who remain at Penn State throughout their academic/athletic careers with an additional two years of fully-paid scholarship, both the student-athlete and the athletic program benefit.
It is time for Penn State, and all major university athletic programs, to put up or shut up with regard to the oft-spoken narratives about the importance of the “student” part of the student-athlete experience. If Penn State, or any other major university, wishes to walk the walk with regard to the voluminous talk they give to the importance of the educational aspect of “student-athlete-ism”, a meaningful commitment to providing greater access to a robust educational experience should be Priority #1.