Monday, December 14, 2009
Division III Schools Look at the Academic Performance of Their Athletes
Unlike the other divisions in NCAA competition, Division 3 schools like Washington University and the University of Chicago, two schools with excellent economics programs, do not offer athletic scholarships. Because of this, the NCAA can't threaten the loss of scholarships in D3 when programs go rogue (no Sarah Palin pun intended). Moreover, like most players in all divisions, most D3 players have no chance to play professionally.
Despite these facts, athletes still they still have incentives to spend a lot of their time on their sports at the expense of their classes. Now some D3 schools are concerned that athletics, to too much of an extent, are trumping academics:
Update: TSE comments are usually thoughtful and enlightening, but IMHO there are especially great comments to this post. Dennis Coates makes a great point about the athlete's behavior being utility-maximizing. Since there are no athletic scholarships and the D3 students attend school on their own dime, why should schools be so vigilant about how they spend their time? If I attend a D3 school and I particularly like the History of Western Civ, is it bad for the college if I spend more time studying my Western Civ at the expense of, say, Money and Banking when I'm footing my own bill? Similarly, if I particularly like playing football, is it bad for the college if I spend more time studying my playbook than I do studying my Chemistry?
Update 2: It's been argued that a well-rounded education is one of mind as well as body. Taken at face value, if a student decides that his/her best use of time is to focus on fitness of body at the expense of "fitness of mind", is this a bad thing in all cases?
Despite these facts, athletes still they still have incentives to spend a lot of their time on their sports at the expense of their classes. Now some D3 schools are concerned that athletics, to too much of an extent, are trumping academics:
They play for the love of the game, not with the hope of landing a pro contract. Without athletic scholarships, many even pay their own way to school.What's a little ironic is that the University of Chicago famously dropped its football program back in the 1930's because of fears that athletics would trump academics. But even at the D3 level, student-athletes, coaches, and administrators feel the pressure to win. Just because the spotlight is dimmer in D3 doesn't mean those incentives aren't very real.The notion of student-athletes as students first is integral to Division III, the NCAA's largest classification. But a growing body of research shows a considerable gap in classroom performance between Division III athletes and their counterparts in the overall student body.
Update: TSE comments are usually thoughtful and enlightening, but IMHO there are especially great comments to this post. Dennis Coates makes a great point about the athlete's behavior being utility-maximizing. Since there are no athletic scholarships and the D3 students attend school on their own dime, why should schools be so vigilant about how they spend their time? If I attend a D3 school and I particularly like the History of Western Civ, is it bad for the college if I spend more time studying my Western Civ at the expense of, say, Money and Banking when I'm footing my own bill? Similarly, if I particularly like playing football, is it bad for the college if I spend more time studying my playbook than I do studying my Chemistry?
Update 2: It's been argued that a well-rounded education is one of mind as well as body. Taken at face value, if a student decides that his/her best use of time is to focus on fitness of body at the expense of "fitness of mind", is this a bad thing in all cases?
Labels: Division 3, intercollegiate athletic success, NCAA; college sports
Sunday, March 16, 2008
The Madness Grows
Selection Sunday has arrived. By nightfall the field of 65 teams that will participate in the spectacle known as the NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball Tournament will be revealed. The much-discussed “bubble” will burst.
In the olden days, those left out of the field of 65 would skulk off to the National Invitational Tournament (NIT) for a couple of additional home games and, if they shake off the disappointment of missing the Big Dance and play well, a potential trip to Madison Square Garden for the NIT finals. Those days are gone. The 2007-2008 college basketball season features a new entrant into the post-season men’s basketball tournament market, the College Basketball Invitational, a sixteen team elimination tournament sponsored by the Gazelle Group, a sport consulting firm that organizes several early-season college basketball tournaments like the College Hoops Classic in November.
The College Basketball Invitational has a television contract, albeit with Fox College Sports which is available on cable television providers that have roughly 46 million subscribers (I have no idea if the Fox Sports Channel is part of the basic cable package on these providers). The games will be played at on-campus sites, and the championship “series” consists of three games in a home-away-home format to be played on March 31st, April 2nd and April 4th (if necessary). The addition of the College Basketball Invitational means that 113 Division I men’s basketball teams will participate in some sort of postseason tournament this season.
The existence of a new entrant in this market raises some interesting economic questions. This tournament is in direct competition for teams with the NIT, and it will be interesting to see if it is able to induce any teams to defect from the NIT field in the first year. I have no idea what sort of payouts are made by the NIT to participating schools, but they are likely larger than those offered by this start-up tourney. The winner of the College Basketball Invitational could host up to five additional post-season basketball games which could generate substantial additional revenues, if there is demand for tickets. The long-run viability of any new entrant into a sports market is inevitably tied to television revenues, so the value of the television contract with Fox College Sports will likely have a large impact on the long-run viability of the College Basketball Invitational. It will be interesting to see if it can survive. Anyone interested in joining a CBI pool?
In the olden days, those left out of the field of 65 would skulk off to the National Invitational Tournament (NIT) for a couple of additional home games and, if they shake off the disappointment of missing the Big Dance and play well, a potential trip to Madison Square Garden for the NIT finals. Those days are gone. The 2007-2008 college basketball season features a new entrant into the post-season men’s basketball tournament market, the College Basketball Invitational, a sixteen team elimination tournament sponsored by the Gazelle Group, a sport consulting firm that organizes several early-season college basketball tournaments like the College Hoops Classic in November.
The College Basketball Invitational has a television contract, albeit with Fox College Sports which is available on cable television providers that have roughly 46 million subscribers (I have no idea if the Fox Sports Channel is part of the basic cable package on these providers). The games will be played at on-campus sites, and the championship “series” consists of three games in a home-away-home format to be played on March 31st, April 2nd and April 4th (if necessary). The addition of the College Basketball Invitational means that 113 Division I men’s basketball teams will participate in some sort of postseason tournament this season.
The existence of a new entrant in this market raises some interesting economic questions. This tournament is in direct competition for teams with the NIT, and it will be interesting to see if it is able to induce any teams to defect from the NIT field in the first year. I have no idea what sort of payouts are made by the NIT to participating schools, but they are likely larger than those offered by this start-up tourney. The winner of the College Basketball Invitational could host up to five additional post-season basketball games which could generate substantial additional revenues, if there is demand for tickets. The long-run viability of any new entrant into a sports market is inevitably tied to television revenues, so the value of the television contract with Fox College Sports will likely have a large impact on the long-run viability of the College Basketball Invitational. It will be interesting to see if it can survive. Anyone interested in joining a CBI pool?
Labels: college sports, intercollegiate athletic success, television
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Intercollegiate athletic success & student interest
The effect of a winning football team on applications and donations to a university has been extensively studied in the literature. But sometimes there are exceptional circumstances which provide data to complement more elaborate statistical analyses. Rutgers' recent 10-2 season - a significant departure from past history - and an apparent commitment to continued success may provide one such anecdote.
Here are some pieces of evidence.
Here are some pieces of evidence.
Excitement about New Jersey's 50,000-student university became palpable after the Scarlet Knights' defeat of then-No. 3-ranked Louisville in November, McAnuff said. His office was flooded with requests for campus visits, prompting him to add 3,600 seats on the fall bus tours, on top of the 5,600 slots already planned. The university's admissions Web page also experienced a 33 percent jump in visitors over the previous fall semester.On the same note, Phil Miller noted the impact of George Mason's run to the final four last year. I wonder, how many of the 300 to 400 additional freshman admits at GMU want to transfer to Rutgers?
...Applications for admission to Rutgers by first-year and transfer students for the fall 2007 semester increased from 28,983 to 30,429, and hundreds more are still pouring in, McAnuff said. That's on top of a similar increase last year, when the football team reversed a perennial losing record and went to a bowl game.
...Carol Herring, president of the Rutgers Foundation, said football frenzy likely factored into a 35 percent increase in overall giving to the university compared to the same period as last year.
Labels: intercollegiate athletic success
