Education First, Athletics Second

The Time for a National Discussion is Upon Us

Q&A
The Big Ten has distributed a paper designed to initiate a national discussion regarding the centrality of
education within the collegiate model of athletics. The paper highlights an imbalance observed in the
student-athlete equation in the two most popular and commercially successful sportsfootball and
mens basketball. The paper is not a proposal, but it does explore requiring a year of readiness in those
sportswhere freshmen could practice and receive athletics aid but not competeas one idea worth
exploring as we begin the process of identifying solutions for ensuring that education is prioritized over
athletics in all sports within the collegiate model. The paper has been shared with a broad cross-section
of individuals both internal and external to intercollegiate athletics who have also been invited to offer
reactions, suggestions, and alternative solutions. The questions and answers below provide additional
context to the contents of the paper as well as its purpose.
Q: What problem are we attempting to solve?
A: The sustainability of intercollegiate athletics depends on the extent to which the model can be
defended as not just educationally based but educationally sound. In football and mens basketball we
have observed an imbalance to the student-athlete equation, where the athlete side seems to be
prioritized over the student side. Evidence of an imbalance importantly comes in the gap that exists
within academic performance data between football and mens basketball and all other sports.
Evidence also exists in how student-athletes in football and mens basketballas compared to other
sportsspend large amounts of time on their sport (approximately 40 hours per week), have incredibly
unrealistic assessments of the likelihood of playing professionally, transfer at high rates (particularly in
basketball), and are even represented in a disproportionately large share of infractions cases involving
academic fraud. The problem we are attempting to solve is ensuring unequivocally that education is
prioritized over athletics in our two highest-profile sports, and by doing so, enhance the long-term
sustainability of the collegiate model as a whole.
Q: Why a year of readiness?
A: As referenced above, there are a number of factors that when taken together suggest a radical shift
is necessary to demonstrate that education is prioritized above athletics in all sports within the
collegiate model. A year of readiness would serve numerous objectives. It would signal to prospective
student-athletes that choosing to participate in intercollegiate athletics is choosing a path for which
education is the essential component, not a secondary consideration. Further, a year of readiness,
when coupled with appropriate restrictions on required athletic activities, would allow a student-athlete
to acclimate to college life, receive academic remediation if needed, and otherwise establish a solid
academic foundation in the first year of enrollment, which is critical to the long-term success of college
students.
Q: Would the Big Ten implement a year of readiness on its own?
A: We believe the notion of prioritizing education over athletics within the collegiate model is a national
issue that will require a national response to ensure the sustainability of intercollegiate athleticsit is
not something we would do on our own.

Q: What would the timeline be for any possible change?

A: We are hopeful that the discussion started now will culminate in an in-person forum at the 2016
NCAA Convention. Any related legislation that would be developed, adopted, and implemented as a
result of such discussions would likely be a multi-year proposition.
Q: Is this about the one-and-done issue in mens basketball?
A: Statistically speaking, the number of mens basketball student-athletes who turn professional after
one year of college is minisculethe paper is not in response to that issue. Nevertheless, the paper
refers to two clear paths and a choice that should be available for every talented athlete leaving high
schoola professional path, where the sport is a vocation and development in the sport is the primary
objective, and an educational path, where athletics is an integral part of a broader educational
experience. To the extent a professional path does not exist in a given sport, it is the responsibility of
the relevant professional league(s) to provide those opportunities. Intercollegiate athletics is not and
should not be a minor league for any professional sport.
Q: Why just football and mens basketball?
A: Several years ago, when college baseball was faced with myriad problems that could be described as
academic, cultural, and generally inconsistent with the educational mission of intercollegiate athletics,
we adopted a series of legislative changes designed specifically to bring the sport of baseball back into
proper alignment. As with baseball, football and mens basketball face issues unique to those two
sports. Importantly, there is a gap between the academic performance of football and mens basketball
and every other sport. In addition to the academic performance data, characteristics such as high levels
of time demands, unrealistic expectations of competing in the sport professionally, high transfer rates
(in basketball in particular) and even a disproportionately high share of infractions cases involving
academic fraud all combine to set football and mens basketball apart from other sports.
Q: Why would academic high achievers be required to fulfill a year of readiness?
A: There certainly are examples of individual student-athletes and teams that are academic high
achievers in the sports of football and mens basketball. However, the data suggest that such high
achievers are exceptions within the context of those two sports as demonstrated by the gap in academic
performance data between football and mens basketball and every other sport. The impact any
remedial measures would have on academic high achievers will be an important component of the
discussion.
Q: Where is the data that suggests a year of readiness would result in better academic outcomes?
A: There is ample data to support the notion that performance during the first year of enrollment is
critical to the long-term academic success of college students (i.e., the ability to graduate). However,
there is limited data available that would demonstrate conclusively that a year of readiness would result
in better academic outcomesit has been over 40 years since freshmen were not eligible to participate
on varsity teams and the decision at that time to allow freshmen to be eligible was due to financial
considerations rather than data-driven academic considerations. The NCAA research staff has compiled
academic data on redshirts in football, finding that GPAs were slightly higher but credits earned were

slightly lower, but that data is not a perfect proxy for a year of readiness because the student-athletes
would not have been subjected to any corresponding restrictions on required athletic activities.
Q: Are there other ideas besides a year of readiness?
A: The paper suggests that the issues facing football and mens basketball are systemic in nature and
therefore will require systemic solutions. A year of readiness is offered as an idea because it could
address a few objectives at once. Nevertheless, the paper acknowledges that a year of readiness may
not be the answer. The importance of having a national discussion across a broad cross-section of
stakeholders and interested observers is to ensure that all related issuesfrom underlying problems, to
possible causes, to potential solutionscan be examined as we move forward. All options are on the
table at this point.
Q: Why not wait until there has been time to evaluate the impact of the increased initial eligibility
standards that are set to take effect in 2016?
A: A lot of work and research went into the establishment of the new rules and we hope there will be a
positive impact on academic performance. However, we do not believe the adjustment to initialeligibility standards replaces the need for a national discussion on the centrality of education within
intercollegiate athletics. Initial eligibility standards may be a very important piece, but the issues related
to prioritizing education over athletics within the collegiate model extend beyond initial eligibility
standards.
Q: Why a year of readiness if student-athletes perform better academically while in season as
compared to their out-of-season performance?
A: Conventional wisdom seems to be that student-athletes perform better academically while in
season, presumably due to the notion that a busier schedule results in more organized study habits. The
data, however, suggest otherwise. The NCAA research staff published a paper in 2008 with findings that
in-season performance was worse than out-of-season performance, a disparity that was exacerbated
with student-athletes who were less prepared academically upon enrollment.
Q: Would requiring a year of readiness reduce opportunities?
A: No. First of all, the idea contemplated in the paper would maintain four seasons of competition and
five years of athletics aid. Further, the paper suggests providing additional opportunities in both
football and mens basketball to allow for effective roster management due to the reduction in the
number of available student-athletes if freshmen were to be ineligible. These additional opportunities
would in turn necessitate corresponding additional opportunities for women. The paper offers the
possibility of using television revenues as a source of funding for any additional opportunities.
Q: What is the difference between a year of readiness and freshman ineligibility?
A: Regardless of what it is called, the idea contemplated would not allow freshmen to compete as
varsity athletes during the freshman year. That said, the paper refers to a year of readiness because the
concept is much broader than simply not allowing freshmen to competethe phrase captures the
general purpose such a measure would serve, which is to provide student-athletes with a year to
acclimate to college life, remediate if needed, and otherwise establish a solid academic foundation in
the critical first year of enrollment.