Student half of student-athlete

It is that time of year again. As March Madness descends, college basketball is once again in the spotlight. Indeed, the NCAA basketball tournament has become a staple of popular culture and a financial juggernaut, bringing in billions of dollars in revenue each year. But it is not alone. NCAA Division I football is just as lucrative, if not more so. It is no secret that, at many universities, including Duke, the basketball and football programs provide the funding for all of the other athletic programs combined. But, at what price? Nationwide, basketball and football are the only sports whose athletes have graduation rates lower than 75 percent. Concerned by the apparent lack of academic maturity among men's basketball and football players, the Big Ten has proposed a policy whereby men's basketball and football players would be prevented from participating in game competition during their freshman year.

At Duke, however, athletes posted a graduation success rate at 15 percentage points higher than the national average, according to the 2014 NCAA annual graduation report. Men's basketball posted a perfect 100 percent GSR, and football reached 92 percent.

The root issue that the Big Ten proposal seeks to remedy—poor academic performance among men's basketball and football student-athletes—is troubling. Basketball and football players make up less than 18 percent of the Division I student-athlete population, yet account for an astounding 80 percent of all the academic infractions. It is unacceptable that basketball and football players, upon whose backs the NCAA is built, suffer from poor academic performance. The trend raises questions about the relationship between the “student” and “athlete” roles of these players and the efforts to help them find balance.

The reasons for academic underperformance may be rooted prior to student-athletes' arrival on campus and are only exacerbated after their arrival. On one hand, some men's basketball and football players may be recruited under circumstances in which education may not be emphasized. In this case, the athletes are already behind before they even set foot on campus. Yet, even more at issue is the environment in which these student-athletes find themselves once on campus. Thrust into a paternalistic atmosphere in which many athletic departments prioritize performance on the field, student-athletes may feel encouraged to avoid course loads that would interfere with their sport. Moreover, some athletes are encouraged to avoid other fulfilling aspects of university social and academic life in favor of athletics. At Duke, for example, new rules prevent women on some varsity teams from joining sororities until their sophomore year. These institutional pressures, along with the need to accommodate rigorous practice and travel schedules, form a potent recipe for academic underperformance.

Measures must be put in place to help student-athletes balance the demands of their studies and athletics—yet paternalistic measures that prohibit students from taking classes or joining organizations are a misguided solution. Instead, there needs to be a cultural perspective shift where coaches at colleges across the country are more dedicated to helping their athletes succeed academically. That is, emphasizing the student half of student-athlete. Moreover, excessive travel for competition disrupts academics and poses immense burden on student-athletes. Working to minimize travel time where possible should be a priority. Finally, universities like Duke should consider adopting an explicit system to balance academic achievement for incoming recruits. The Ivy League uses the Academic Index—which summarizes a prospective recruit's high school GPA and standardized test scores along a sliding scale—to make sure that its incoming athletes as a whole stay above an average academic standard. Employing such a standard within every conference—including the ACC—would help ensure that admitted student-athletes have every opportunity to succeed academically.