Our View: Colleges, not NFL, fumble in educating athletes

When a federal court cleared the way last week for college freshmen, sophomores and juniors to jump straight to the National Football League, college officials bemoaned the decision's adverse impact on athletes' educations. NCAA President Myles Brand said the ruling would be a setback for student-athletes "who leave without degrees."

Yes, Ohio State sophomore running back Maurice Clarett, who challenged the NFL restriction, and a few other gifted college football players now could seize the opportunity to play in the NFL. But the amount of education being lost is debatable.

For years, big-time college sports programs have posted a losing record on the academic field by failing to stress education. Only 54% of scholarship football players who arrived as freshmen in 1996 graduated at the 117 colleges with the largest football programs — and that's over a six-year period, according to figures released last fall.

If colleges competitive on the gridiron were honest about their real concerns, they would complain that the ruling could cost their sports programs talent and the millions in revenue generated by winning football teams — not diplomas.

Colleges could embrace reforms to prove they are serious about raising educational standards for athletes. Yet, the majority of coaches, athletic directors and presidents who make up the NCAA have ignored, rejected or weakened many of the most promising ideas.

Among them:

Limiting schedules. A commission set up in 1989 to reform college sports suggested that schools reduce game schedules to give athletes "a realistic opportunity to complete their degrees." Instead, colleges expanded their regular football season from 11 to 12 games for the past two years. They also have added weeknight contests to get more TV exposure, even though these schedules rob athletes of time in class.

Upping academic standards. In 2003, the NCAA set tougher standards to ensure more athletes get a degree. Yet, it has not adopted tough penalties to make colleges fall in line. While it plans to vote in April on steps such as cutting football scholarships and banning post-season play, efforts already are underway to water down penalties.

Freshmen ineligibility. Academic reforms in basketball, the other big-money college sport, have lagged as well. In response to abysmal graduation rates in the late 1990s, an NCAA panel revived a sensible old idea — barring basketball recruits from play until sophomore year. But coaches and athletic directors complained that the plan would encourage high school hot shots to jump to the pros, and the panel dropped the idea. Before 1972, freshmen were barred from playing varsity football and basketball.

The NCAA says it has worked to raise athletes' academic standards, and it faults the court ruling for exacerbating the problem.

Casting blame elsewhere has been a typical response of college sports when the poor academic records of athletes are highlighted. But pointing to a federal court decision doesn't wash when fewer than 2% of college football and basketball players make the pros.

Ensuring that the rest of those athletes get a decent education is an obligation that colleges shirked long before the judge made it easier for underclassmen to play in the NFL.

Opposing View: Athletes have much to lose
By Grant Teaff
The American Football Coaches Association was very disappointed by the ruling handed down by the federal judge in the Maurice Clarett case.
Our coaches long have held the belief that drafting underclassmen is not in the best interest of the vast majority of the student-athletes. The majority of underclassmen declaring for the draft would be neither psychologically nor physically prepared to play in the National Football League.

As a result of the Clarett ruling, underclassmen and even players still in high school can make a declaration of their intention to enter the NFL draft by March 1. Football coaches nationwide will make the best interests of our athletes the focal point of all discussions. The underclassmen must be aware that — by declaring for the NFL draft — they will lose their NCAA eligibility. They also could pay a huge cost in the loss of the opportunity to continue to play college football and increase their draft status through the development of their skills, size, strength and speed.

More important, however, they would lose the opportunity to continue their education and pursue a college degree, which, in the long run, can be the difference in a successful and productive life.

For several years now, the NFL has provided to college football an advisory committee that assists the student-athletes and their coaches and parents in assessing their potential draft status. Unfortunately, some student-athletes receive bad information from outside sources that indicates they will be extremely high draft choices when, in fact, they will not.

The American Football Coaches Association will continue to work to protect student-athletes from those who might give them misinformation and to rely on the tools that are available to help our underclassmen make the right decision. We are convinced that the NFL will appeal vigorously and to the fullest extent of the law this ruling related to underclassmen.

I think it is important for all of us to stay the course and remain calm, as we are thoroughly convinced that the legal system will recognize the uniqueness of football and an appeal will overturn this unfortunate ruling.

Grant Teaff is executive director of the American Football Coaches Association, which represents college and high school coaches.