THES|S MIC HCISCAN SATET

: HHUUIIHIHWWNW!!!)Milli!!!”MINI/UH“!!!

i, 3101564649886

 

 

 

 

LIBRARY
Mlchigan State
University -

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

A Study Of The Attitudes Of Athletes At The Highest Levels
Of Competition Towards The Issue Of The
Commercialization Of Sports

presented by

Charles A. Wilson, Jr.

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

 

 

P. h. D. degree in Education

Administration

 

Date M

MS U it an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

PLACE N RETURN BOX to remove We Checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before dete due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

. "~ ~. U4 !

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU le An Affirmative Action/Bond Opportunity lnetltuion
Wanna-o.-

 

A.STUDY OF THE.ATTITUDES OF.ATHLETES.AT THE HIGHEST
LEVELS OF COMPETITION TOWARD THE ISSUE OF THE
COMMERCIALIZATION OF SPORTS

BY
Charles A. Wilson Jr.

A.DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Educational Administration

1996

ABSTRACT

A.STUDY OF THE ATTITUDES OF.ATHLETES.AT THE HIGHEST
LEVELS OF COMPETITION TOWARD THE ISSUE OF
THE COMMERCIALIZATION OF SPORTS

BY

Charles A, Wilson

The role, purpose, and mission of intercollegiate
athletics in higher education is a much debated topic. The
debate concerns its purpose in higher education institutions,
and whether or not intercollegiate athletics at its highest
competitive level, National Collegiate Athletic Association
(NCAA) Division I, is amateur athletics or a huge commercial
enterprise. Many suggest that collegiate institutions who
sponsor Division I football and basketball programs, are a
"big business," with their purposes and aims in opposition to
the missions of higher education institutions.

The purpose of this study was to determine the attitudes
of elite athletes toward the commercialization of sports.
Twenty-one current or former professional athletes who
participate in the National Basketball Association, National
Football Association, and the National Hockey League, were

interviewed for this study. These athletes participated in

intercollegiate athletics at the Division I level.

The results of this study suggest that the athletes
believe that many aspects of intercollegiate athletics are a
commercial enterprise. They overwhelmingly believe, college
athletes should be paid by their sponsoring schools, that
college athletics were similar to professional sports, and

there were very few significant differences.

 

Copyright by
Charles A Wilson Jr.
1996

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Special thanks goes to Professor Marvin Grandstaff my
committee chairperson, and director of my dissertation. An
additional thanks to my committee members; Dr. Louis Hekhuis,
Dr. Eugene Pernell Jr., and Dr. Lawerence Sierra. I would like
to give special acknowledgment to my running partner, and
editorial adviser, Professor Jim Hancock, and the support from
Harold Prince, Walter Pett, and Donavan Taylor for keeping me
motivated. The other individual who made this possible, my

wife, LaVerne S. Wilson.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER I Page
Backgound and Statement of Problem .............................. 1
ommercial Status ....................................................... l
NCAA as a Cartel ........................................................ 3
Corporate S nsorship ................................................ 12
Purpose of NCAA ................................................. 15
Purpose of Research .................................................... 16
Significance of Study ................................................... 16
CHAPTER II
Review of the Literature ..................................................... 18
Historical Roots of Amateurism ................................... 18
Development of Commercialism .................................. 20
Deve10pment of Intercollegiate Athletics ...................... 21
Foundin of the NCAA ............................................... 25
Philosop of Division I ............................................... 29
Philosophy of Division II ............................................. 30
Philosophy of Division III ............................................ 31
Economics of Big-Time Athletics ................................. 33
Economic Impact of Penn State Football ..................... 37
CHAPTER III
Methodology ...................................................................... 47
Interview Questions and Purpose ................................. 47-52
Research Data Collection Procedures ........................... 52
Description of Procedures ............................................ 53
CHAPTER IV
Report of Results ......... - ....................................................... 55
Results of Question 1 ................................................... 56-57
Results of Question 2 ................................................... 58-60
Results of Question 3 ................................................... 61-62
Results of Question 4 ................................................... 63
Results of Question 5 ................................................... 64-65
Results of Question 6 ................................................... 66-67
Results of Question 7 ................................................... 68-69
Results of Question 8 ................................................... 70-71
Results of Question 9 ................................................... 72-73
Results of Question 10 ................................................. 74-75
Results of Question 11 ................................................. 76-77
Results of Question 12 ................................................. 78-90
Results of Question 13 ................................................. 80-81

vi

 

 

CHAPTER V Page
Discussion, Findings and Summary ..................................... 82
The Problem ................................................................ 83
Findings of the Study .................................................. 83
Recommendations ....................................................... 84-85
Limitations of the Study .............................................. 86
Implications for Higher Education .............................. 86
APPENDICES.
A UCRIHS and Consent.............; ............................... 87-88
B. Interview Guide ...................................................... 89
C. 1995-96 NCAA Post Season Bowl Games .............. 90
REFERENCES .............................................................................. 91-92

vii

 

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
2.1 Per personper gameexpenditures of persons
who spentb category in the State College
region and percentage of respondents

wrthexpenditures in a category ........................................ 43
2.2 Estimated expenditures per person per game
averaged across all fans .................................................... 44
2.3 Estimated expenditures by category and
economic impacts of football weekends ............................. 45

2.4 Estimated season ' by fans
intherestome ......................................... 46

2.5 NCAA Division l-A certified post-season

football bowl games and coporate sponsors ...................... 90
4.1 Raw data question 1 ......................................................... 56
4.2 Raw data question 2 ......................................................... 58
4.3 Raw data question 3 ......................................................... 61
4.4 Raw data question 4 ......................................................... 63
4.5 Raw data question 5 ......................................................... 64
4.6 Raw data question 6 ......................................................... 66
4.7 Raw data question 7 ......................................................... 68
4.8 Raw data question 8 ........................................................ 70
4.9 Raw data question 9 ......................................................... 72
4.10 Raw data question 10 ....................................................... 74
4.11 Rawdataquestionll ....................................................... 76
4.12 Raw data question 12 ....................................................... 78

viii

LIST OF SYMBOLS, ABBREVIATIONS OR NOMENCLATURE

CEA-College Football Association
Grant-In-AideAthletic Scholarship

JC-Junior College

NAIA-National Intercollegiate Athletic.Association
NEArNational Basketball Association

NCAArNational Collegiate Athletic Association
NFL-National Football League

NHL-National Hockey League

NJCAArNational Junior College Athletic Association

Pros-Professional Athletics

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
1W
The role, purpose, and. mission. of intercollegiate
athletics in higher education, are a much debated topic. The
debate revolves around its purpose in higher education
institutions, and whether or not intercollegiate athletics at
its highest competitive level, National Collegiate Athletic
.Association [NCAA], Division I, is in fact amateur athletics,
or a huge commercial enterprise. Many have stated that
collegiate institutions, who sponsor Division I, football and
basketball programs are a "big-business," with their purpose
and aims in opposition to the missions of higher education

institutions.

Murray Sperber (1991) in W
MW states, "About a

decade ago, I began wondering whether and to what extent
intercollegiate athletics increasing importance compliments or
corrupts the academic missions of their host universities.
After studying these questions intensively for a number of
years, I come to one absolute conclusion: Intercollegiate
athletics has become a College Sport Inc., a huge commercial
entertainment conglomerate, with operating from and mainly
opposed to, the educational aims of the schools that house its
franchises" (p. vii).

Rick Telander (1989) in Ihg_finnd;ed_}ard_Lie, writes,

1

2

”By allowing big-time college football to flourish in its
present form, the nation's universities are shamelessly
exploiting the players and debasing themselves, by
perpetuating the myth of the amateur student-athlete.
Telander, goes on to state: "Big-Time" sport and support for
learning have almost nothing to do with one another" (pp.92-

107) .

The report of the W: "Commission on
Intercollegiate Athletics" (1991) finds:

Intercollegiate athletics programs appear to promise a
quick route to revenue, recognition and renown for the
university. But along that road, big-time athletic
programs often take on a life of their own. Their
intrinsic educational value, easily lost in their use
to promote extra-institutional goals, become engulfed
by the revenue stream they generate and overwhelmed by
accompanying publicity. Now, instead of the
institution alone having a stake in a given team or
sport, the circle of involvement includes the
television networks and local stations that sell
advertising time, the corporations and local business
buying the time, the boosters living vicariously
through the team's success, the local economies'
critically dependent on the big game, and a burgeoning
population of fans who live and die with the team's
fortunes. In this crucible, the program shifts from
providing an exciting avenue of expression and
enjoyment for the athletes and their fans to maximizing
the revenue and institutional prestige that can be
generated by a handful of highly—visible teams. The
athletics director can become a CEO of a fair-sized
corporation with a significant impact on the local
economy. The "power-coach," often enjoying greater
recognition throughout the state than most elected
officials, becomes chief operating officer of a "multi-
million dollar business.” Within the last decade, big-
time programs have taken on all of the trapping of a
major "entertainment enterprise." In the search for
television revenues, traditional rivalries have been
tossed aside in conference realignments, games have

been rescheduled to satisfy broadcast preferences, the.~ '

number of games has multiplied, student-athletes have

3

been put on fields at all hours of the day and night,

and university administrators have fallen to quarreling

among themselves over the division of revenues from

national broadcasting contracts (p. 4).

Intercollegiate athletics has developed a life of their
own. Many programs operate, autonomously. They have
developed their own corporations, responsible for the
financing of their programs. These corporations operate
outside their host universities, and have developed their own
mission statements, charter and board of directors.

Richard Lapchick (1986) in Exagtnzed_£ngns, suggests:
The official public posture of the NCAA, is that it is
organized only for the promotion of "amateur student-athletes”
who participate in sports for the educational, physical,
mental, and social benefits he derived therefrom and to whom
athletics is an evocation. In fact, the NCAA is a I"business
organization" which is part of the entertainment industry
whose product is competitive intercollegiate sports events.
Moreover, it is an organization of independent firms which has
as its aim.some fomm of restrictive or monopolistic influences
on the production and/or sale of a commodity as well as the
control of wages of the labor force (p.46).

Economist James V. Koch (1983) has persuasively argued
that the NCAA is a business cartel composed of university-
firms which have varying desires to restrict competition and
maximize profits in the area of intercollegiate athletics

(p.360). Lapchick (1986) further states: Evidence of the

4

commercial business nature of "big-time" university athletic
programs, standing in much the same relation to commercial
sports entertainment as the National Basketball Association
(NBA), National Football League (NFL), etc., is easy to
document. The NCAA's total revenue comes from money earned
from sports events. Almost 80 percent of the NCAA's total
revenue comes from the staging of commercial sports contests.
The individual firm.in collegiate athletics' is the college or
university (p.47). Lapchick (1986) goes on to suggest, that
perhaps the best sources for an accurate assessment of the
nature of "big-time” collegiate sports are university
presidents, athletic directors and coaches, the persons who
are Closely involved with these programs. By-and-Large, they
have no delusions about the programs. A.report signed by the
University of Southern California's President said that
between 1970 and 1980, there were 330 athletes admitted who
did not meet the schools minimum requirements. He said
decisions were based chiefly on athletic prowess, as judged by
the athletic department, and without normal admission office
review (p.46).

An informal survey performed by students, enrolled in
a course at Michigan State university (MSU) titled: athletics
in higher education, indicates, a majority of MSU's coaches
believed that institutions at the NCAA.Division I level, were
commercial enterprises. Nick Saban, MSU's head football coach

Stated, during an interview for the survey, that "college

5

athletics is a commercial enterprise with too much money
involved." Gary‘VanDam,iMSU's director of football operations
stated, ”Intercollegiate athletics is a commercial enterprise,
it is a "big-money operation" that is driven by money, which
is driven by winning."

The pressure to win, and the monies generated by the
revenue producing sports, has created the win-at-all-costs
philosophy. Before some students-athletes put a foot in the
classroom, they are on the practice fields, and competing in
athletic competitions. For example, often, athletes have been
on campus for weeks, without even knowing where their classes
are.

Sperber (1991) writes:

The main. purpose of college sports is commercial
entertainment. Within most universities with big-time
intercollegiate programs, the athletic department
operates as a separate business and has almost no
connection to educational departments and functions of
the school-even research into and teaching of sports is
done by the physical education deparmment. The reason
elite athletes are in universities has nothing to do
with the educational missions of their schools.
Athletes are the only group of students recruited for
entertainment-not-academic-purposes, and they are the
only students who go through school on grants based not
on educational aptitude, but on their talent and
potential as commercial entertainers. If colleges
searched for and gave scholarships to up-and-coming
rock stars so they could entertain the university
community and earn money for their schools through
concerts and tours, educational authorities and the
public would call this a perversion of academic values.
Yet every year, American institutions of higher
education hand-out over a hundred thousand full or
partial athletic scholarships, worth at least $500
ndllion, for reasons similar to hypothetical grants to
rock performers (p.1).

6

Sperber, perhaps overstates, but one gets the point. The
recruitment of athletic talent at institutions of higher
education is unique to the recruitment of other college
students. Big-time intercollegiate programs, spend thousands
of dollars in the recruitment of a single athlete. Running
into a hundred thousand dollars or more is common for a phone-
bill of a major football, basketball, or hockey program.
There are paid two-day trips to the university for prospective
students. Prospective student-athletes, and their parents or
legal guardians are wined and dinned at the best facilities.
Coaches make numerous home-visits, and spend large sums of
monies, in evaluating athletic talent--similar to the
evaluation performed in the professonal ranks.

The number one criterion for evaluating prospective
student-athletes, is not academic achievement, but
demonstrated athletic ability. Meeting minimum academic
requirements of the university is of secondary importance.
The initial eligibility requirements for students athletes
entering NCAA Division I institutions are: A. minimum
cumulative grade-point average of 2.000 (based on a maximum of
4.000) in a successfully completed core curriculum of at least
13 academic courses, including the following: English 3 years;
mathematics two years; natural or physical science (including
at least one laboratory course, if offered by the high
school); additional courses in English, mathematics or natural

or physical science two years; social science two years;

7

additional academic courses in any of the aforementioned areas
or foreign language, computer science, philosophy or
nondoctrinal religion (e.g., comparative religion) courses two
years; a minimum 700 combined score on the SAT verbal and math
sections, or a minimum.composite score of 17 on the ACT (NCAA,
1995). lMoSt higher education institutions’ admissions'
standards by-far, exceed the minimum.qualifying standards for
initial eligibility, especially AAU institutions. However,
many student-athletes can bypass the regular admissions

requirements, because of athletic talent.

Anneuswgek_gn_Campns (1985) article titled: "Do you have

to cheat to win,” outlines the admissions problem. The
article explains:

College admissions officers are the presumed gate
keeper; their job is to admit students who can be
expected to do well at their schools and who fulfill
the schools' needs. ”Fulfilling the schools need is
the loophole, which is sometimes wide enough for a
defensive tackle to slip through." Admissions officers
routinely categorize scholarship athletes as special-
interest-group candidates, like gifted violinist or a
computer prodigy or a minority student who might be
admitted in the cause of ethnic diversity. But
athletes are different especially "franchise" players
who can almost single-handedly change a university's
competitive fortunes. “If we're talking about one of
the finest athletes in the nation, that certainly adds
to the admissions folder,” understates John Blackburn
of the university Virginia. .A lesser player, Blackburn
admits, "wouldn't have as much to contribute to the
University." The tug of war over athletic admissions
can be gentle and friendly, or it can be extremely
fierce. ”There are institutions where the head coaches
have the ability to simply designate people and tell
the university they're going to be admitted" says the
College Board's Hargadon, "At some colleges, if the
admissions office decides someone isn't eligible and
the coach still wants him, the coach can take it to the

president and the president might overrule the
admissions office." Ed Wall, dean of admission and
financial aid at the University of Southern California
from 1982-84, confirms the end-around play. At USC,
Wall claims, the president can. make special
dispensation for alumni or trustee children, kids who
might represent heavy financial contributions or
athletes. Wall says he recalls about eight
"presidential admits" in his first year at USC and
about 15 in his second, perhaps half of them with GPAis
below 2.0 (p.10).
How important are athletic recruits to the revenue, of
a programs-very important! This importance is exemplified in
an article by Newsweek. This article describes Wayman
Tisdale, a basketball player at the University of Oklahoma,
importance to the program. The article states, Tisdale's
success need not be measured only in games won and postseason
awards. In 1981—82, just before ”Mr. T" arrived, the school
grossed $278,000 in ticket sales on a average of 7,466
spectators per game. Last seasons gross was $762,000; the
average crowd was 11,510--in a arena that seats only 10,000
(p.49). Lorenzo White, changed the fortunes of Michigan State
University's football program when he carried it to the
Rosebowl in 1987. The new state-of-the-art multipurpose
Breslin Arena, on MSU's campus is known as the house that
Magic Johnson built. Magic was the driving force in MSU's
1979 NCAA national basketball championship title. One can
easily see why recruiting, and the admission process is so

very important in athletics. One can also see, why there is

.so much cheating and abuse revolving around the recruitment

9

and admissions process. Athletes are critical to produce
winning programs. Winning programs generate income,
recognition, spectator interest, and the all important
television revenues and exposure.

In the pursuit of increased revenues for athletic
programs, colleges and universities began to challenge the
NCAA's control of television, and the number of times an
institution could appear on television.

According to Sperber (1991):

The University of Pennsylvania, in 1940's had some

outstanding football teams and televised all of its

home games. When other schools started doing the same,
some college sports officials worried about the effect
of TV on game attendance. In 1951, a majority of the

NCAA membership, convinced that televising college

football had to be limited, passed the NCAA's first TV

rule; one national game a week on television and for
only seven Saturdays in any one region. Penn
challenged the new ruling: the NCAA declared the school

a member in "bad standing,“ and four visiting opponents

for 1951 refused to come. Penn capitulated and the

NCAA monopoly on television with intercollegiate

football began (p.49).

The NCAA's monopoly on television would be tested. The
major football powers realized that they could increase
revenue and exposure for their programs, if the limits imposed
by the NCAA were lifted, and they were free to negotiate their
own TV deals, and contracts. According to Sperber (1991), in
1976, sixty-one of the major football powers formed the
College Football Association (CFA) and immediately started
lobbying within the NCAA for a TV contract that favored them,

as well as greater control over player eligibility, and terms

10

of athletic scholarships. In 1981, the CEA began negotiating
a separate TV deal with NBC-television, a direct challenge to
the NCAAfs monopoly. Some educators saw the CEA‘s moves as a
part of a widened plan to expand big-time college sports, and
they warned that "the prospect of huge television
revenues....puts too much pressure on the institution and the
coaches to win at all costs, even if it means paying athletes,
doctoring their academic transcripts, or violating rules in
other ways" (p.50) They finally took this to court. The
university of Georgia and the University of Oklahoma with the
CFA's support, challenged the NCAA in court, and won. The
court ruled; the NCAA. was in violation of the Sherman
[antitrust] Act. The NCAA appealed before the Supreme Court
in March 1984, and lost again. Justice John Paul Stevens
wrote for the majority of the Supreme Court: "There can be no
doubt that the challenged practices of the NCAA constitute a
restraint of trade in the sense that they limit members'
freedom to negotiate and enter into their own television
contracts.”r

This decision basically opened the door for individual
schools and conferences to negotiate their own TV contracts,
and appearances, and act more openly as a corporate entity.
Initially, there was a drop in the TV monies, because of over-
exposure. However, things have recently changed, and not
always to the benefit of the student-athlete. In the quest for

exposure and increased revenues, schools have changed

11

competitive schedules, play athletic contests on any day or
night, catering to the whims of TV executives. This put
college student-athletes in tough academic positions, because
of lost class time, due to team travel and late night
scheduling of games, to accommodate TV.

Television is very important to big-time intercollegiate
athletic programs. Television exposure means money and
prestige. Historically, even in the 19th century,
institutions of higher education wanted winning athletic teams
for institutional visibility and public support, even when
there were no TV sets. Television has become important because
football, baseball, basketball, and hockey facilities, can
only accommodate so many spectators. They can only raise
ticket prices so often, and only to certain levels. Because
of this, and many other reasons, college athletics has
developed many alternatives to finance its programs, TV is a
major means.

To secure TV exposure and maximize income, you must win
and be deemed marketable. Winning means post-season bowl
games, and NCAA tournament appearances. CBS will pay the NCAA
and its member institutions one-billion dollars over a seven-
year period for the rights to broadcast the NCAA Division I
basketball championships. The 1995-96 NCAA certified
football bowl games, will pay almost one-hundred million

dollars, to participating teams (see appendix-c) .

The W1 (1995) reported; Notre Dame

12

faced an eight million-dollar showdown in its contest with
Army. The article states: "The money, literally, is on the
table Saturday for Notre Dame. WCuld you believe an eight
mdllion game?" The article further states, “that it could be
at Air Force. If the Irish beat the Falcons, they'll most
likely finish in the top 10 in the polls. That means a bowl
alliance bid in the Fiesta, Sugar or Orange. Minimum.payout:
$8 million, and being the independent, the Irish won't have to
share the loot with anyone” (p.5c).

The commercial status of big—time college athletics is
further exemplified, by using corporate sponsorships.
Corporate sponsorships have become the second and. most
important means of financing college athletic programs. A June
16, 1993-article by Michael Hiestand in HSA_IQday states,

Sponsors make sports bigger, richer and more telegenic

as they wage the priciest competition in sports (p.c1).

.According to DSA_Igday, corporations paid 22 billion

dollars for corporate sponsorships; 6.7 billion for

sports-related corporate overhead, sales promotion,
public relations and event signs; 6.2 billion corporate

entertainment at sports events (skyboxes, tickets,
hospitality, etc.,); 3.4 billion ad spending on

TV/radio; 3.3 billion ad spending on
newspaper/magazine; and sponsorship fees 2.4 billion
(p.c2).

Sperber (1991) explains;

corporate sponsorship, with all its gleaming
manufactured.images and big bucks, is what contemporary
athletic directors seek most. It started in the mid-
1980's when a number bowl games and such hybrids as the
John Hancock Sun Bowl and the Sea World Holiday Bowl
appeared on TV to perplex New Year's viewers. Then the
venerable Sugar Bowl became the USF&G Sugar Bowl. The
bowl committees--and corporations--at first worried that
the public would not like the new situation: the public

13

relations director of the Sea. World Holiday' Bowl

commented, ”People are slow to accept some kinds of

change, and I think tradition gets in the way," but, he
predicted, "corporate Sponsorships of college sports

was here to stay" (p.62).

Sperber (1991) goes on to suggest: “College Sport Inc.,
pursuit. of’ corporate sponsorships raises serious ethical
questions for' higher educationm Since their inception,
colleges and universities have tried to protect the integrity
of the academy from outside encroachments and blandishments.
Schools have never sold their integrity to business interests.
However, athletic departments, as commercial entertainment
ventures, see nothing wrong in corporate or any kind of
sponsors.“' Sperber, believes the 'practice of corporate
sponsorship 'undermines one of the fundamental tenets of
American colleges and universities, their independence (p.65).
Sperber, presents a valid point. One has to wonder if the
University of Michigan, selling its name to Nike, is any
different from the deal that the Dallas Cowboys struck with
the same sports apparel giant.

Another ethical concern for higher education
institutions and their athletic departments, is the sale of
player trading-cards. Universities and college athletic
departments, devised a plan, whereby they would produce player
trading-cards, of its current student-athletes, and sell these
cards to the general public, for profit. This was done

without their student-athletes consent. There was a general

outcry among students-athletes, and the public realized that

14

this was hypocrisy and commercialism in its highest form.
Because of the negative publicity institutions received from
this scheme, in 1994 the NCAA banned this practice. NCAA
bylaw 12.5.1.2 adopted 1-11-94, states: “A.member institution
or recognized entity thereof (e.g., fraternity, sorority or
student government organization, a. member conference or
noninstitutional charitable, educational or a nonprofit agency
may distribute but may not sell player/trading cards that bear
a student-athlete's name or picture (p.77).”

The NCAA never allows student-athletes to use their
athletic reputation for compensation or employment purposes.
However, they do allow institutions to use its athlete's name
and reputation for promotional, revenue, and commercial
interests. A.classic example, is the sale of its top-player
jerseys to local businesses and bookstores, its use of player
names and pictures on institutional posters and schedule
cards, also the direct use of student-athletes' names via a
variety of media outlets, in the promotion of its athletic
competitions, no different from professional sports. Is this
amateur athletics?

The NCAA defines a ”professional athlete” as one who
receives any kind of payment, directly of indirectly, for
athletics participation, except as they permit under their
legislation. The NCAA defines their own circumstances and can
define and create their own rules of the game. How they

define professional or amateur, may not be the case. They

15

develop definitions and rules that benefit their association.
Often the rules, regulations and policies have nothing to do
with reality. An example, is the NCAA's definition of pay.
They define pay as the receipt of funds, awards or benefits
not permitted by their governing legislation for participation
in athletics. NCAA legislation, permits student-athletes to
be professional in one sport, be eligible, and to be able to
participate in a different sport, and still be called an
amateur. One can be a participant in the NFL and still play
college basketball. How can this be? The NCAA, and its member
institutions define amateurism, commercialism, and
professionalism, in their own terms and circumstances. This
seems to conflict with the goals of higher education.
.According to the NCAA.competitive athletic programs of
member institutions are designed to be a vital part of the
educational system. Also, the PEEES§EQ£MtheNCAA is to
maintain intercollegiate athletics as an "integral" part of
the educational program and the athlete as integral part of
the student body and, by so doing, retain a clear line of
demarcation between intercollegiate athletics and professional
sports (NCAA, 1995, p.1). Furthermore, one of the guiding
principles of the NCAA is amateurism. NCAA policy states:
"Student-athletes shall be amateurs in an intercollegiate
sport and their participation should be motivated primarily by
educational and by the physical, mental and social benefits to

be derived. Students' participation in intercollegiate

16

athletics is an advocation, and student-athletes should be
protected from exploitation by professional and commercial
enterprise" (NCAA 1995 p.4).

Therein lies the question, is the line of demarcation
between. higher education's intercollegiate athletics and
professional sports really clear. It appears that college
athletics is in many regards, as much as an entertainment
commercial enterprise, as professional sports. It appears as
if college athletic programs have their own missions, many may
not be congruent with the aims and purpose of higher
education.

This research investigates, the concept of
commercialism in big-time college athletic programs. It will
determine whether they are, in fact, meeting institutional
missions, as suggested by the philosophy statements of the
NCAA. This study will help determine whether or not they are
really a highly commercialized entertainment business, hiding
behind the disguise of higher education and its eleemosynary
principles. The significance of this study, is that it will
help to detect the real nature and purpose of big-time
intercollegiate athletics. It will also help determine, if
college athletics at the Division I level, needs significant
reform, and the magnitude of the reform necessary, in order
for these ancillary programs to comply with the mission of
higher education. In an era of accountability,

intercollegiate athletic programs, must also be accountable

17

for meeting institutional goals and objectives. If athletic
programs cannot or will not be accountable, they should be
called what they are--commercial entertainment. This research
investigates, issues related to the purpose of intercollegiate

athletics in higher education..

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
To understand how and why intercollegiate athletic
programs got to the position it is in today, one must look at
their historical roots, and the development of amateurism.
Many contemporary athletic administrators, and coaches believe
the concept of amateurism in college athletics. However,

research does not support this position. According to David

c. Young (1984) in W
Athletics;

Ancient amateurism is a myth. Ancient athletes
regularly competed for valuable prizes in other games
before they reached the Olympics, and they openly
profited from athletics whenever they could. Yet the
public still imagines an idealistically motivated Greek
athlete who never competed for more than an olive crown
and some glory. Young goes on to state: ”I can find no
mention of amateurism in Greek sources, no reference to
amateur athletes--no evidence that the concept
"amateur” was even known in antiquity. The truth is
that ”amateur” is one thing for which the ancient
Greeks never even had a word" (P.15). Young, (1984)
finds: Our conviction that there were amateur athletes
of some kind at some time in antiquity does not come
from ancient texts; it comes from works published in
the past century, written by men who were promoting a
modern cause and a modern idea. They wished to
represent Greece as an ancient precedent for the
athletic system which they themselves preferred (p.15) .

This notion sounds similar to the philosophy of the National
Collegiate Athletic Association, (NCAA).
Young (1984) finds that amateurism is a strictly modern

concept born in England not much more than a century ago. It

18

19

began as the ideological means to justify an elitist athletic
system that sought to bar the working class from.competition.
Most people nowadays think that amateurism was somehow the
original state of our own organized sports, and that
professional sports encroached on an earlier amateur system
(p.10).

The first amateur athletic organization in history, the
Amateur Athletic Club, was formed by university men in London
in 1866. Young suggests that its expressed purpose was to
enable "Gentleman. Amateurs the means of practicing and
competing versus one another without being compelled to mix
with professional runners." But "professional" did not mean
to those men what it means to us. Those who coined the term
“amateur athlete" did not define it, as we do now, strictly in
terms of money or athletic profit. For them.it was primarily
a question of social class (P.19).

In reality, there was never such thing as the amateur
in athletic competition and nor does it exist today, even in
the development of American intercollegiate athletic programs.

The Oxford-Cambridge cricket match at Lord's Grounds in
London in 1827 started the development of intercollegiate
athletics. Harvard and 'Yale led. American colleges into
organized intercollegiate athletics in the mid-nineteenth
century. Ronald Smith (1988) in spgrt§_and_£reedomi_11he_fiise
Wins," finds:

From.the first contest, intercollegiate sport has been

20

a commercial enterprise, and professionalism followed
closely on its heels. The process of rationalizing
athletics to create efficiency and victories was well
developed before the NCAA was created. In other words
the push for excellence and winning had evolved at an
extremely early time. The stage for imitating Harvard
and Yale was set in the nineteenth century” (p.ix).
Smith finds: "In the years between and the initial
meeting of the National Collegiate Athletic Association
in 1905, the basis for the highly commercial and}
professional sports in colleges was established. Huge
crowds in enormous stadiums with large gate receipts,
highly paid coaches in control of recruited athletes
receiving handsome financial rewards, and the media
telling the story and promoting the events were all in
evidence. There were also those who regretted that
Yale and Harvard had given commercialized sport to
American colleges and the leaders of the most highly
visible part of the non-academic aspect of colleges
into the twentieth century (p.4).

Smith further states, ”Despite the dampening effect on
sport of religious orthodoxy and the belief that college
authorities should act on behalf of students' parents, the
rapid growth of colleges gave rise to the competitive spirit
among institutions of higher learning. The religiously
motivated rivalry and the freedom to purse different religious
and educational aims would eventually lead colleges to use the
publicity value of sport to promote growth, both financial and
enrollment. The competitive nature was there almost from.the
beginning” (p.10).

In documenting the history of commercialism in
intercollegiate athletics, Smith writes:

Nearly ten years after a group of Yale students formed

a rowing club, Yale met Harvard in the first American

intercollegiate contest, a boat race in New Hampshire.

A New York newspaper predicted that intercollegiate
sport would "make little stir in a busy world." The

21

offer by a railroad superintendent to transport and

house the crews of the two most prestigious colleges to

a vacation spot over a hundred miles from.the Cambridge

campus and nearly twice that distance from New Haven

was the beginning of commercialized intercollegiate
athletics in America. The railroad official believed
that there was enough interest in colleges and in an
athletic contest to produce a profit in his commercial
venture even after paying all expenses for an eight-day
trip for Harvard and Yale crews. Businessmen, in
addition to the rail superintendent James Elkins, saw
the commercial possibilities in the race. The quiet
summer resort at Center Harbor on Lake Winnipesaukee
became "full of life and excitement" and added
revenues to the local hotel and the steamer on the lake

during late July when crew arrived (p.27).

This excitement and entrepreneurial spirit sounds all
too familiar to the atmosphere surrounding collegiate
athletics today.

Smith (1988) further suggests: ”It seems clear that
within less than a decade, several factors not commonly
attributed to early intercollegiate athletics had crept into
their contests. The prestige, obtained from winning, the
honor brought to the college, and the interest of the public
in the physical prowess of the educational elites were all in
existence. In addition, the value of sponsoring the contests
for commercial gain and the concern for the outcome by bettors
contributed to the growth" (p.33).

American intercollegiate athletics rapidly continued in
their development. Crew teams developed better training
facilities, financing and training methods to increase their
chances of producing a winner. .A significant development in

college sport was the addition of the "professional" coach. In

22

their quest for winning, Yale figured it needed to improve
their training methods, therefore they hired a coach, which
forever changed the methods of training, and increased the
need to win.

The interest in crew eventually waned however, baseball
picked-up where crew left-off. Baseball was the dominant
intercollegiate sport of the 18003, and well into the
twentieth century. The important thing to note about early
baseball, is that there was really not any noticeable
difference between the professionals and the collegians.

Many students competed in both the professional ranks
and intercollegiate competitions. Eligibility problems were
a major concern, and as a result, colleges tried to establish
some fonmal rules of eligibility, but they did not work very
well, as the teams and coaches just ignored them.

As the Presidents Commission of the NCAA is trying to
do today, the president of Clark University, G. Stanley Hall,
tried in the 19005, to end the problems of professionalism,
commercialism and. hypocrisy in baseball. However, the
interest in competition was only beginning in intercollegiate
sports. The grandaddy of college sports would rise to the
occasion, "college football." ’

College football was the fourth intercollegiate sport
in America, following crew, baseball, and cricket (Smith,
p.69). Rutger's contest against Princeton was the first

intercollegiate football contest in 1869. Then football grew

23

and grew. The biggest of the events were the Thanksgiving
games in the late 18003 and they were festivals of
commercialismt Said President Warfield of Lafayette College in
Pennsylvania: ”The Thanksgiving game in football for a big
thme team brings in revenue greater than the total expenditure‘
of the trustees supporting 25 professors and educating 300
men" (Smith, 1988, p.69). More than any-other sport, football
was the most controversial, because of the attraction and the
brutality of the sport.

Smith: in W
W, writes: “Governing board in the late
nineteenth century, like presidents spoke for America when
they endorsed football and other sports on the college campus.
Boards more and.more were drawn from.the business elite to set
policy in American colleges and universities. They began to
set athletic policy as well, condoning the commercial and
business aspects of athletics (p.81). ZMany other sports began
to be developed on college campuses. Intercollegiate athletics
became entrenched in higher education institutions, and they
were highly commercial nonamateur ventures.

As one can see from the historical review, there were
never amateur intercollegiate sports. One may ask the
question, how did we get this idea of amateurism in college
athletics? Society made it up, like Santa Claus!

.Most do - not understand. the concept of

amateurism/commercialism.in intercollegiate athletics. Many in

24

the field of intercollegiate athletics, feel that college
athletics are strictly an amateur, noncommercialized activity,
or continue to debate this subject. Smith, explains why this
debate continues and how this myth has persisted over time.
Smith states,

To conduct athletics in a professional mode while
calling them amateur was both a self-contradiction and
an hypocrisy; a pretense at virtuous character without
possessing virtue. To call collegiate sport amateur
was in fact playacting, the ancient Greek definition of
the term hypocrisy. Intercollegiate athletics, which
had many virtues according to numerous individuals, was
acting the part of amateur sport while playing like
professionals athletics. Thus, the amateur-
professional athletic dilemma developed. If a college
had truly amateur sport, it would lose contests and
thus prestige. If college acknowledged outright
professional sport, the college would lose
respectability as a middle-class or higher class
institution. Be amateur and lose athletically to those
who were less amateur; be outright professional and
lose social esteem. The solution to the dilemma, then
was to claim amateurism to the world while in fact
accepting professionalism. The solution worked
amazingly well, but it was not honest intellectually,
thus the dilemma (p.98).

This dilemma continues today.

An in-depth review of intercollegiate athletics is
necessary, to determine if the commercial-professional status
has changed in higher education institutions. Three main
organizations control college athletics; the National
Intercollegiate Athletic Association (NAIA), the National
JUnior College Athletic Association (NJCAA), and the National

Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). The NAIA, governs

intercollegiate athletic programs of smaller colleges and

25

universities. The NAIA has two competitive levels, sponsors
national championships, and awards athletic grants-in-aid to
their student-athletes. The NJCAA is an athletic association
that provides intercollegiate athletic opportunities for
students attending a junior or a community college. Many
junior colleges (JC) sponsor low-key athletic competitions and
some sponsor high powered programs, that offer athletic
scholarships. Many of their student-athletes transfer to four-
year institutions, to continue athletic careers. Some of
these JC programs are feeder systems for the high powered
four-year institutions. The largest and most powerful of the
governing bodies of athletic programs in higher education
institutions, is the NCAA. The NCAA has approximately twelve-i
hundred institutions as members. Many of these institutions
are small, but a significant number are large with very high
powered athletic programs. The NCAA contains within its
structure, the highest level of intercollegiate competition
possible.

The NCAA. was founded in 1905 largely' because of
problems, and the brutality of football, in college
institutions. The main concerns of the NCAA during this
period, were controlling and establishing viable rules for
football. The NCAA was initially a very weak-loose
organization. According to Smith: "The importance of the
founding of the NCAA.was that it gave a national focus to the

numerous problems facing intercollegiate athletics. The NCAA

26

was not able to solve the problems, except for producing
unifomm playing rules for various sports, but it was a vehicle
for discussing them. The NCAA also produced guidelines for
institutions who wanted to achieve faculty control of
athletics. If a college wanted to limit recruiting and the
granting of athletic scholarships, the NCAA guidelines could
be used. If a single school or league wanted to eliminate
professional athletes or those who played summer baseball for
pay, the NCAA studies and recommendations would be helpful.
The early years of the NCAA were, then, a time when a slow
process took place, moving from individualism of institutions
to collective control for the good of intercollegiate
athletics (p.171).

A close scrutiny of the NCAA.will determine what impact
it had on athletics in higher educations institutions and it's
perception of amateurism. The purposes of the NCAA as
outlined by their Manual are:

1. To initiate, stimulate and improve intercollegiate
programs for student-athletes and to promote and
develop educational leadership, physical fitness,
athletics excellence and athletics participation
as a recreational pursuit;

2. To uphold the principle of institutional control
of, and responsibility for, all intercollegiate
sports in conformity with the constitution and
bylaws of this Association;

3. To encourage its members to adopt eligibility
rules to comply with satisfactory standards of

scholarship, sportsmanship and amateurism;

4. To formulate, copyright and publish rules of play
governing intercollegiate athletics;

27

5. To preserve intercollegiate athletic records;

6. To supervise the conduct of, and to establish
eligibility standards for, regional and national
athletics events under the auspices of this
.Association;

7. To cooperate with other amateur athletics
organizations in promoting and conducting national
and international athletic events;

8. To legislate, through bylaws or by resolutions of
a Convention, upon any subject of general concern
to the members related to the administration of
intercollegiate athletics; and

9. To study in general all phases of competitive
intercollegiate athletics and establish standards
whereby the colleges and universities of the
United States can maintain their athletics
programs on a high level (NCAA, p.361).

Under their fundamental policy, the NCAA describes its basic
purpose: The competitive athletic programs of member
institutions are designed to be a vital part of the
educational system. .A.basic purpose of the Association is to
maintain intercollegiate athletics as an integral part of the
educational program.and the athlete as an integral part of the
student body and, by so doing, retain a clear line of
demarcation between intercollegiate athletics and professional
sports.

Before the commercial aspects of the NCAA and its member
institutions can be discussed, the formal structure of the
NCAA must be described. The NCAA is a voluntary organization,
which sets policy, guidelines, rules and regulations for its

member institutions. The NCAA, also has within its

28

organizational structure, compliance and enforcement
divisions, these components ensure that its members meet the
many rules. Many rules are not enforceable or impossible to
monitor, on a consistent basis. The policies, rules,
regulations and legislation of the NCAA, is set by its member
institutions, during its annual convention, usually held in
January. Each active member, and each conference, is entitled
to one vote, on the variety' of rules, regulations and
guidelines presented at its convention.

The NCAA is structured into divisions, one, two and
three. Division I, is further subdivided for the sport of
football into divisions IeA and I-AA. Under specified
circumstances, some of its members are allowed to be
multidivision. The membership in each division is determined
by; minimum sports sponsorship requirements, minimum
scheduling requirements and minimum game-attendance
requirements.

NCAA division 12A is the highest level of competitive
intercollegiate athletics, and is the subject of this study.
The NCAA as a whole, is structured as a commercial enterprise
but, the scope of this study will be limited to an in-depth
review of its most commercialized and publicized Division I-Ai
The question may be posed, how is division I-A.any different
from Division II and Division III, other than the criterion
previously stated?‘ One can clearly define the differences, in

the NCAA's "philosophy of statement" for each division. An

29

analysis of the NCAA.philosophy statements gives evidence of

the commercial nature of intercollegiate athletics by its

member institutions.

In defining the purpose of each division the NCAAQMannal

states for Division I:

a.

b.

Subscribes to high standards of academic quality,
as well breadth of academic opportunity;

Strives in its athletics program for regional and
national excellence and prominence. Accordingly,
its recruitment of student-athletes and its
emphasis on and support of its athletics programs
are, in most cases, regional and national in
scope;

Recognizes the dual objective in its athletics
program of serving both the university or college
community (participants, student body, faculty-
staff, alumni) and the general public (community,
area, state, nation);

Believes in offering extensive opportunities for
participation in varsity intercollegiate athletics
for both men and women;

Sponsors at the highest feasible level of
intercollegiate competition one or both of the
traditional spectator-oriented, income-producing
sports of football and basketball. In doing so,
members of Division I recognize the differences in
institutional objectives in support of football;
therefore, the division provides competition in
that sport in Division I-A.and Division I-AA;

Believes in scheduling its athletics contests
primarily with other members of Division I,
especially in the emphasized, spectator-oriented
sports, as a reflection of its goal of maintaining
an appropriate competitive level in its sports
program;

Strives to finance its athletics program insofar
as possible from revenues generated by the program
itself.‘ All funds supporting athletics should be
controlled by the institution; and

3O

Understands, respects and supports the programs
and philosophies of other divisions. Occasionally,
institutions from other divisions or athletics
associations will seek membership in Division I.
In such cases, the applicants should be required
to meet over a period of time prescribed criteria
for Division membership should be in order to
assure that such institutions agree and comply
with the principles and program objectives
embodied in this statement (NCAA, p.370).

In the philosophy statement of Division II, the NCAA

states: That athletic programs be based on sound educational

principles and practices, is a proper part of the educational

mission of a university or college and that the educational

welfare of the participating student-athlete is of primary

concern (NCAA, p. 370). .Also, the statement of philosophy of

Division II, are:

a.

Believes in offering a maximum amount of
intercollegiate athletics participation to as many
of its students as possible, whether or not these
students are athletically recruited or financially
assisted;

Believes in striving for broad participation and
competitive excellence, encouraging sportsmanship,
and developing positive societal attitudes in all
of its athletics endeavors;

Believes in scheduling the majority of its
athletics competition with other members of
Division II, insofar as geographical location and
traditional or conference scheduling patterns
permit;

Recognizes the dual objectives in its athletics
program.af serving both the campus (participating,
student. body, faculty) and. the general public
(community, area, state);

Believes in permitting athletically related
financial aid for its student-athletes, but on a
more modest basis than that permitted in Division

31

I; and

Believes that all members of Division, including
those institutions aspiring to membership in some
other division or unable to subscribe to all of
the aspects of the Division II philosophy, should
commit themselves to that philosophy and to the
regulations and. programs of Division II(NCAA,
p.374).

Finally, the philosophy statements of Division III are:

a.

Place special importance on the impact of
athletics on the participants rather than on the
spectators and place greater emphasis on the
internal constituency(students, alumni,
institutional personnel) than on the general
public and its entertainment needs;

Award no athletically related financial aid to any
student;

Encourage the development of sportsmanship and
positive societal attitudes in all constituents,
including students-athletes,coaches,
administrative personnel and spectators;

Encourage participation by maximizing the number
and variety of athletics opportunities for their
students;

.Assure that athletics participants are not treated
differently from other members of the student
body;

.Assure the athletics jprograms support the
institution's educational mission by financing,
staffing and controlling the programs through the
same general procedures as other departments of
the institution;

.Assure that the actions of coaches and
administrators exhibit fairness, openness and
honesty in their relationships with student-
athletes;

Provide equitable athletics opportunities for
males and females and give equal emphasis to men's
and women's sports;

32

1. Give primary emphasis to regional in-season
competition and conference championships; and

j. Support student-athletes in their efforts to reach
high levels of athletics performance, which may
include opportunities for participation in
national championships, by providing all teams
with adequate facilities, competent coaching and
appropriate competitive opportunities (NCAA,
p.374).

A.careful review of each of these philosophy statements show
some major differences. Key in the difference, is that in
Division I, there is no reference to their programs support of
the educational mission. .Also, the differing statements show,
emphasis on the commercialism and the entertainment value,
placed in Division I, institutions.

Adso fundamental to the NCAA, are its false notions of
amateurism and noncommercialism, as evidenced in their two
policy statements: (1) The competitive athletics of member
institutions be a part of the educational system, and retain
a clear line between professional sports and college
athletics; (2) student participation in intercollegiate
athletics and students-athletes be protected from.exploitation
by professional and commercial enterprises (NCAA, pp. 1-2).
Again, a review of current literature does not support these
principles and philosophy.

Murray Sperber (1991) in W

Wrens: states,

There is a myth that college sports are part of the
educational mission of American colleges and
universities. He says: “The main purpose of college

33

sports is commercial entertainment. Within most
universities with big-time intercollegiate programs,
the athletic department operates as a separate business
and functions of the school-~even research into
teaching of sports is done by the physical education
department (p.1). Sperber (1991) further suggests, the
reason elite athletes are in universities has nothing
to do with the educational missions of their schools.
Athletes are the only group of students recruited for
entertainment-not academic—purposes, and they are the
only students who go though school on grants based not
on educational aptitude, but on their talent and
potential as commercial entertainers(p.l)

James‘V. Koch (1971) in a study titled: "The_Egganigs
Ware—Athletics," describes the
intercollegiate athletic market as being dominated by a
national cartel which is frequently administered and modified
on a regional or local basis. Koch states; The national
cartel, the NCAA, typifies the usual cartel in that it: (1)
sets input prices for student-athlete inputs; (2) regulates
the duration and intensity of usage of those inputs and their
subsequent mobility during their careers as collegiate
athletes; (3) regulates the type and particularly the quantity
of output of games; (4) seeks to pool and divide portions of
the cartel's profits (for example, television receipts); (5)
makes information available to cartel members concerning
transactions, market conditions, and business and accounting
techniques; (6) attempts to police the behavior of the members
of the cartel; and, (7) levies penalties against cartel

members for infractions of the cartel's rules (p.249).

11 H l' 1 C 1] . | Eli] I' E . l' . E SI 1

34

in_£artel_BehaxiQr, describes the difference in professional
sports and big-time intercollegiate athletics. The writers
state; The difference with professional sports lies mainly in
the form that net revenues take on the balance sheet. Instead
of being clearly listed as dividends to stockholders or
retained earnings, NCAA member surpluses end up in expense
items such as salaries, equipment, buildings, or even transfer
to the general fund. Similarly, college athletes do not
produce revenues for which they receive an in-kind payment
from schools. Additionally, they provide implicit value to
schools even if this value gets allocated to some other
budgetary unit. The researchers conclusively state: The
question of whether or not college sports are a business is no
longer relevant; the question is only the order of magnitude
(Fleisher, Goff, Tollison, 1992, p.14).

One of the most commercialized practices by NCAA.member
institutions, was the selling of player trading-cards for
profit, without the students receiving any financial
remuneration. This practice was highlighted by an article, in
the Detroit_flews (1993); “Player Decries NCAA Slavery”. The
article describes a basketball player at Cincinnati, who is
threatening to sue, over of the player trading-card situation.
The player, Terry Nelson said: "College players are glorified
slaves. The NCAA is nothing more than a system of
institutional slavery. It's a disgrace the way athletes are

used. It's sick. I'm.going to try and do something about it”

35

(p.9b). Basketball player, Chris Webber from the University
of Michigan also complained about the practice. It was one of
the few occasions where student-athletes voiced displeasure,
over the commercialized aspect of intercollegiate athletics.
They voiced displeasure because they could clearly see, the
direct connection between their participation in college
athletics, and the use of their name, for a commercial
venture. The payment of professional athletes for the
commercial use of their names, heightened their awareness.
Because of the outcries from the student-athletes, the NCAA
member institutions became embarrassed, and finally legislated

against this practice in January 1994.

The report of the mmmmnww

MW," finds: Within the last decade,
big-time athletics programs have taken on all of the trappings

of a major entertainment enterprise. In the search for
television revenues, traditional rivalries have been tossed
aside in conference realignments, games have been rescheduled
to satisfy broadcast preferences, the number of games has
multiplied, student-athletes have been put on the field at all
hours of the day and night, and university administrators have
fallen to quarreling among themselves over the division of
revenues from national broadcasting contracts (p.5).

Why would Michigan State University, play the
University of Wisconsin in Tokyo, Japan, on December 3, 1993?

The reason was money. This was a scheduled home contest for

36

the University of Wisconsin. However, the University of
Wisconsin was not winning in football, and revenues from gate
receipts were down because football attendance was poor.
Wisconsin realized it could generate more income by playing in
Japan. Michigan State realized because it was a road game they
could also generate extra revenues by playing in the ”Coca-
Cola" sponsored Japan Bowl. It did not seem to matter that
the student-athletes had to miss a week of classes at the end
of the semester, it was all about money. Wisconsin was
guaranteed four-hundred thousand dollars from Coca-Cola, and
MSU, two-hundred thousand dollars. Officials at both schools
admitted that the revenue distribution would have been the
same, if it had been a home contest for Wisconsin. However,
the distribution was contingent upon the attendance at
Wisconsin which was low in previous seasons. During the
preliminary planning discussions for this game, Wisconsin was
not drawing well, and it was not anticipated they would be
able to generate similar revenues from their gate.

This game became very controversial. If Wisconsin won
this game, they would win the Big Ten championship, and
represent the Conference in the Rose Bowl, and their fans
could not even attend the MSU game. Even the legislature from
the State of Wisconsin questioned, why was this game in Japan.
Athletic Administrators at Wisconsin, had to explain; the game
was scheduled a year in advance, for revenue purposes. At

that time no one believed the University of Wisconsin's

37

football team would challenge for the Big Ten Conference
football title. In this instance, the quest for dollars
backfired.

The study, W
W, typifies big-business and

commercialism of intercollegiate athletics. The purpose of
this study was to quantify, in dollar terms, the economic
impact of football-related expenditures on the economy of the
region surrounding the University Park Campus. It was also
the purpose of this study to concentrate on the nonlocal fans
to determine the true economic benefits to the region. The
study concluded:

The impact of Penn State football weekends on the State
College was enormous. The nearly 54,000 fans who
traveled more than 25 mules to attend each of the seven
home games during the 1986 season spent more than $20.4
million locally. This direct spending was multiplied as
it was spent and respent in the regional economy to
generate a total direct and indirect spending of $40.3
million or nearly 45.8 million per game. Table-2.1
Shows the per person game expenditures of persons who
spent by category in the State College region and the
percentage of respondents with expenditures in a
category. Table-2.2 shows the estimated expenditures
per person per game averaged across all fans (within 25
miles of State College). Table-2.3 shows the estimated
expenditures by category and economic impacts of
football weekends (spending within 25 miles of State
College by' nonresidents), and. table-2.4 shows the
estimated season expenditures by fans in the rest of
Pennsylvania (more than 25 miles from State College),
(Anderson, Erickson, Goodbey, Graefe & Gudagnolo,
1987).

This huge impact on the local economy is what the report

of the Knight Commission is describing, when it states, the

38

local economies are dependent upon big-time intercollegiate
athletics. This report does not account for the economic
impact of institutions that sponsor big-time basketball,
baseball and hockey programs. The expenditures could double
or triple, in some cases.

In today's big-time intercollegiate athletic programs,
one of the major commercialized ventures, is marketing and
promotion. The acquisition of television contracts, the
corporate sponsorships, and the sale of athletic apparel are
tremendous. Athletic departments have resorted to all types
of marketing strategies to commercialize their product. Speber
(1991) in CQllBa2_SDQ£L_lnC._Ih&.Ath£IiC_DBDAILmBnLEXSi_IhB
University; writes: “Corporate sponsorship, with all its
gleaming manufactured images and big bucks, is what
contemporary athletic directors seek the most. It started in
the mid-19803 when a number of companies began sponsoring bowl
games and such hybrids as the John Hancock Sun Bowl and the
Sea World Holiday Bowl appeared on TV to perplex New Year's
viewers. Then the venerable Sugar Bowl became the USFaG Sugar
Bowl". Today, practically all the major bowl games involve
some form of major corporate sponsorship and the payout have
become enormous, much to the delight of athletic
administrators, (see table-2.5), (p.62).

Sperber, further states, Corporate tie—ins to College
Sport Inc. seem inevitable, not only to bowls but also to the

athletic programs of individual schools. San Diego State

39

University has been a leader in the scramble for this new fonm
of revenue. The school sells each home football game to a
different business, including, in 1988, Texaco, Sea World, El
Cajon Ford, and Smith Barney, and it also has three full-
season sponsors, one of which, Agua Caliente Race Track, has
a very problematic ownership history (p.62).

The largest ever corporate sponsorship deal was
promulgated by the University of Michigan and Nike Inc., in
1994. The University of Michigan sold its name to Nike. In
return, the University and Nike agreed to a seven-year, $7-
million-plus endorsement contract. The deal was in addition to
the $300,000-plus cash and goods Nike already pays 17 Michigan
coaches, trainers and athletic administrators for endorsing
its products. Essentially, Nike can use the University of
Michigan's name for the commercial and promotional interests.
According to Sperber (1991) this type of corporate sponsorship
raises serious ethical questions for higher education. He
writes:

Since their inception, colleges and universities have

tried to protect the integrity of the academy from

outside encroachments and blandishments, schools have
never sold their names and, by implication, their
integrity to business interests. However, athletic
departments, as commercial ventures, see nothing wrong
in peddling themselves, wrapped in their host
universities' names, to corporate or any other kind of
sponsors. Sperber believes, this practice undermines

one of the fundamental tenets of American colleges and
universities--their independence (p. 65).

Television has become a large source of revenue,

40

commercialism, and the promotion of the entertainment value of
college athletics. Until 1984, when the Supreme Court of the
United States, National Athletic Association V. Board of
Regents of the University of Oklahoma at al., upheld a lower-
court ruling, which said, that the NCAA was in violation of
Section one of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The NCAA, handled
all contract negotiations, and restricted television
appearances for its member institutions. The NCAA, argued
that their Television Plan promoted the noncommercial
undertaking of the organization, such as amateurism, keeping
a competitive balance, stabilizing paid attendance at football
events, and increasing cooperation among schools (Fleisher,
1992, p.59). The courts did not agree with the NCAAs'
defense, they ruled, the NCAA was just another "classic
cartel." This opened the flood gate for college institutions
to negotiate their own television contracts and appearances.
Today a variety of methods are used to promote the commercial
and entertainment interests of college athletics via,
television; the individual institutions negotiate their own
contracts, in addition; the conferences negotiate contracts;
and the NCAA also negotiates contracts. NCAA member
institutions found they could negotiate for more money, if
they banned together collectively, rather than go at it alone.
This is why the NCAA and conferences are still involved in
television plans.-

In 1994, the NCAA Television Committee reported that

41

they had reached an agreement with CBS Sports and ESPN. The
agreement included: an extension of their current contract
through the year 2002; the agreement with ESPN is extended for
three years, with ESPN having an option to continue through
the year 2002. The rights fee from.CBS totals $1.725 billion
for eight years (1995 through 2002), resulting in average
rights fees of $215,652,000 per year. This is a 50.8 percent
increase over the annual average rights fees of $143 million
under the current contract. The total new rights fee provides
an additional $95 million for the three years of the current
contract including a $50 million payment to be made in 1996 as
an advance against the rights fees in the last five years of
the new agreement (NCAA Register 1995, p.1). As one can
clearly see, television is big money and big business. CBS and
ESPN, are not paying all these funds for nothing, they
understand the commercial and the entertainment value of
intercollegiate athletics. Now we have ABC, ESPN, ESPN II,
Pay-Per-View, Direct TV, TBS, and many local networks all
cashing in on the entertainment value of college athletics.

The review of the status on big-time intercollegiate
athletics shows, an increase in the patterns of commercialism.
A.review of the literature, clearly indicates these patterns
of operation, has caused. problems for higher education
institutions. Questions concerning the purpose of these
programs in higher education institutions appear to be valid.

.Further investigation will determine, what those who are most

42

affected, have to say about commercialism in college
athletics, and the effects it has on the so-called amateur
games. Charlie Vincent, in an article for the Detroit_flgus
says: "College athletics is show-biz and big-biz”.

The review of the literature indicates questions need
to be asked, concerning the real purpose of intercollegiate
athletics. Many questions that the review of the literature
revealed must be addressed in the future. Futher

investigation and research will help answer these questions.

43

Table 2. 1

Per Person Per Game Expenditures of Persons Who Spent by Category m the State

College Region and the Percentage of Respondents with rnaCategory
(Within 25 miles of State College)
Per Person Per Percentage of
Game Expenditures Respondents
Of Persons Who Spent indicating an
In Category m the e in
State College Region the Category
Category
Stadium Expenditures 3 21.95 100
Restaurants 9.74 74
Food and Bev
in R ' Stores 4.08 37
Admission Fees 2.68 10
Bars, Night Clubs, and 5.81 35
Clothing and Equipment for Games 4.07 50
Other Retail Shopping 7.12 67
Lodging Expenses 19.56 28
Personal and Health Expenses 3.69 3
Private Auto Expenses 4.64 58
Commercial Transportation 26.49 3
Sitter Fees 4.42 2
Equrpment Rentals 7.75 l
Donations 3.54 8
Other Expenses 80.88 6

Source: Pennsylvania Economic Studies

44

Table 2.2
Estimated Expenditures Per Person Per Game Averaged Across All Fans
(within 25 miles of State College)
Average Per Person Per
Game Erfrendrtures m
State Co ege Area
Across All Fans
Stadium Expenditures 3 21.95
Restaurants 7.14
Food and Beverages
in Retail Stores 1.56
Admission Fees 0.27
gar, ,Nightmglubs, and Lognges 1.97
othing Equipment or games 2.13
Other Retail Shopping 4.75
Lodging Expenditures 5.60
Personal and Health Expenditures 0.11
Private Auto Expenditures 2.61
Commercial Transportation 0.66
Baby Sitter Fees 0.70
Equipment Rentals 0.05
Donations 0.28
Other Expenditures 4.72

Source: Pennsylvania Economic Studies

45

Table 2.3
Estimated Expenditures by Categgzm
Football W
(Spending within 25 miles of State College by nonresidents)
Category Expenditure
Estimate
Stadium Expenditures 8 8,283,600
Restaurants 2,693,100
Food and Beverages m Retail Stores 588,100
Admission Fees 103,400
Bars, Night Clubs, and 743,200
Clothing and Equipment fores 801,700
Other Retail Shopping 1,793,500
Lodging Expenses 2,075,100
Personal Health Expenditures 41,300
Private Auto Expenditures 984,800
Commercial Transportation 247,800
Baby Sitter Fees 25,100
Equipment Rentals 17,900
Donations 105,100
Other Expenditures 1,944,900
Total Direct Nonresident Expenditures S 20,448,600
Multiplier for State College Region 1.97
Total Spending Generated for Season 8 40,283,700
3 5,754,800

Average Total Spending Generated Per Game

Source: Pennsylvania: Econonn'c Studies

and Economic Impacts of

46

Table 2.4
Estimated Season Expenditures by Fans in the Rest of Pennsylvania
(More than 25 miles from State College)

Category Estimated Expenditures
Restaurants 8 1,430,700
Food and Beverages in Retail Stores 1,472,800
Admission Fees 37,000
Bars, Night Clubs, and 140,500
Clothing and Equipment for Games 618,400
Other Retail Shopping 202,000
Lodging 389,600
Personal and Health Expenditures 43,500
Private Auto Expenditures 1,300,000
Commercial Transportation 135,000
Baby Sitter Fees 58,000
Eqmpment Rentals 12,600
Donations 46,600
Other Expenditures 130,400
Total 3 6,026,100

Source: Pennsylvania Economic Studies

CHAPTER III
DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

The methodology that will be used for this study is the
interview. An interview guide was prepared for the structured
interview with each subject. The reason the interview is
structured, is to be able to get comparable data from each of
the responses, and to be able to tabulate and code responses
in categories. The questions were organized and developed so
that common themes could be clearly identified from the data
and responses received. They are organized primarily to
determine whether the respondent reported that
intercollegiate athletics is a commercial business enterprise,
is not a commercial enterprise, or did not have a definitive
response. Each interview was recorded on a form, or taped.

The questions that were asked, and their purpose were as
follows:

1. How many years did you participate in college
athletics at the Division I level? The purpose of
this question was to determine if the respondent
participated at the Division I level and to
determine the number years of experience at this

level. .If the respondent did not participate at

47

48

Division I, responses cannot be considered useful
for this study. The number of years of college
participation may reflect an individual’s knowledge

and experience.

Why did you choose a particular college
institution? This question was to determine the
reasons student-athletes choose a particular
college institution, whether it was for an
outstanding academic reputation, weather, size,
athletic reputation, increased opportunity to make
the professional ranks, television exposure,

winning athletic program, etc.

Did you graduate from college? The specific
purpose of this question was to determine if those
who graduated from college, have different
attitudes from those that did not, and if they view
college athletics differently; or the question may
determine that there is no significant difference

between the two groups.

How many years have you participated at the
professional level? .Again, this question
determines the experience at the professional

level, and if the subject has had sufficient

49

experience to compare and contrast intercollegiate
athletics with the professional sports. The
investigator believes at least six months of
professional experience, or one season of

professional competition is sufficient.

Is there pressure to win at the college level; if
so, how would you compare it with professional
sports? This question is to determine what kinds
and how much pressure there is in college
athletics, and whether the pressures to win and
perform are as intense/similar as it is in the
professional ranks. This information was used to
compare the pressures on the participants at both

levels.

Is there enough time to carry-out the necessary
activities to be successful academically in
college, with your athletic activities? The
primary reason students come to college is for a
higher education. An aim of higher education is to
provide students with the opportunity to learn.
The question determined if student-athletes
realistically have enough time to learn and
successfully complete their studies, and/or whether

education and studying are just a necessary evil to

8.

50

participate athletically. This question determined
whether student-athletes must spend too much time
in athletically related activities to perform well
academically, or whether there is really enough

time.

If you had to change anything about your experience
as a college student-athlete, what would you
change? This question was to draw out some
problems in college athletics as perceived by its
participants, problems that might not occur to the
investigator. It determined what athletes think
about college athletics and whether or not they
see the commercial aspects without them. being

directly asked.

What do you believe are the similarities between
"big-time" college athletics and professional
sports? This question was intended to find-out
[what the subject thinks are the similarities
between college and professional sports and to
decide whether they are essentially alike. Again,
this question identified points that might not have

occurred to the investigator.

What are the important differences .between

10.

11.

51

professional sports and college athletics? This
question detected the significant differences if
any, between college and professional sports. It
helped to decide if colleges are in the

entertainment business.

Do you believe "big-time" college athletics are in
the money making business, or are they primarily in
the education business? This question was to help
determine how college athletes really feel about
college. It determined if they believe education is
a primary concern of athletic officials and college
administrators; and if they perceive that athletics
is operating within the mission of higher

education.

If you could change anything about college
athletics, what would you change? This question
was to discover what changes former 'college
athletes think athletics needs to make, to improve
the conditions for its participants; or whether
colleges should treat college athletics as a
business, and athletes as employees of the
business; or whether they believe the balance is

okay and nothing needs to be changed.

. ‘J'F'

 

52

12. Should college athletes be paid, why or why not?
This question determined if college athletes
believe collegiate athletics is a job like any
other job; if they should, or should not receive
direct renumeration for services rendered; whether
they feel athletic grant-in-aid is all they need;
and if intercollegiate athletics is not like any

other business in this regard.

13. .Are there any other comments you would like to make
concerning these issues? This question was
intended to solicit any other information not
received through previous questions and/or whether
the respondents feel there are other issues
concerning the commercialization of college

athletics, which was relevant to the study.

This information has been gathered from former college
student-athletes who participated in "big—time”
intercollegiate athletic programs at the NCAA Division I
level. This group was current or former professional
athletes, who participated in the National Football League
(NFL), National Basketball League (NBA), and the National
Hockey League (NHL). The reason this group was selected is
because they have perceptions and experiences that no other

group can provide. These subjects have experience at both the

53

"professional" and "amateur" level, and provided insights that
no amount of observation would reveal. They also provided
insights into processes, sensitized the researcher to value
dilemmas, and helped the researcher see the implications of
specific findings. There was an attempt made to get a broad
span of experience among the subjects, in an attempt to decide
if things have significantly changed in college athletics over
a period of years.

The question may be asked, why not solicit information
from coaches or administrators? The reason is, that these
individuals may be biased, one way or another, which could
lead to inaccurate results. College coaches and
administrators have the tendency to espouse the prevailing
philosophy of their national organizations; and/or the NCAA,
or institutional philosophy. The groups of athletes selected
for the study, had no particular reasons to be biased or
untruthful. There is no pressure on them to comply with any
institutional or organizational philosophy. In addition, they
have experience in participating at both levels, something
that coaches and/or administrators may not have.

The selection of the sample was difficult, because of the
nature of the defined group, and the difficulty of contacting
each respondent. The researcher knew of several individuals
in the defined group. The researcher asked these known
individuals to participate in the study, and then asked them.

to identify other individuals, who fit the sample group

54

profile to participate. The investigator also contacted
athletes who are competing on local professional teams, and
asked them to participate in the study.

The size of the sample is twenty-one, seven from
football, seven basketball, and seven from hockey. These
subjects were selected randomly as to where they went to
college, their teams and their income. The interview guide
was pretested on seven subjects to decide if it was useful in

obtaining the necessary information for the study.

CHAPTER IV

REPORT OF THE RESULTS

The results of the study’ are organized. around. the
relevant questions presented to each subject. Each question
is introduced and the results represented in tables. The
overall responses to each question are presented as
percentages for each group, the average percentage across the
total cohort, along with the actual numbers. After each table
is presented, a written interpretation is provided, further
explaining the contents of the tables and drawing attention to
noteworthy findings. It should be noted that the results and
findings are structured to reflect the intent of the study;
testing the researcher's hypothesis that intercollegiate
athletics at the NCAA Division I level is a commercial
entertainment enterprise.

The individual, specific comments are summarized here,
along with, a general representation of the beliefs of the
group. No attempt is made to include all comments, as many
were restatements of previous comments by' participating
individuals.

The questions, comments, and resulting themes, are as

follows:

55

56

How many years did you participate in college athletics at the

Division I level?

question (1) # surveyed ave. yrs. of

participation
3.9

FOOTBALL 7 - 3 . 9,

2.8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4.1

Question No 1, revealed that the average number of years
of college athletic participation for football and basketball
was 3.9 with a range of 3-4 years, for hockey it was 2.8. The
range for hockey was 1-4 years. This was a straightforward
question to determine if the respondent, had enough experience
at this level of competition, to compare and contrast
intercollegiate athletics with professional sports. The
results show, an average of 3.5 years of intercollegiate
competition, an average that satisfies the needs of this
study. The NCAA. only' permits four years of athletic
competition within a five-year window (from their initial date
of full-time matriculation).

Hockey had the lowest average years of participation,
probably because of the nature of the sport. Hockey, is a

sport where many of its participants are drafted into the

57

professional ranks out of high school. Many participants tend
to leave college early to enter the National Hockey League.
Hockey, also has a highly organized minor league farm.system,
which allows individuals to gain the necessary skills to
compete at the professional level. The NFL and the NBA do not
have such minor league systems. Because of this, there is a
tendency for football and basketball players to remain in
college longer, to gain the necessary skills in order to
compete at the next level and gain physical maturity. This
finding is also confirmed in the range of years of
participation, football and basketball had simdlar ranges 3-4,
while hockey had a low of one year.

There were no significant additional comments related to
this question. The respondents answered in a straightforward

manner with no additional commentary.

58

Why did you choose a particular college institution?

. estion (2)
ATHLETIC

 

REPUTATION
TV EXPOSURE

 

 

PROFESSIONAL

OPPORTUNITIES
COACH

 

 

WEATHER
PARENTS
LOCATION
ACADEMIC

 

 

 

RE PUTATvI ON

OTHER REASONS
Table 4.2

 

 

 

 

 

Question No 2, revealed that thirteen individuals chose
a particular college institution because of its athletic
reputation. Nobody indicated they chose a particular
institution because of television exposure. Two responded they
chose a institution because of professional sport
opportunities; seven because of a particular coach; one
because of their parents; three because of location of the

<institution; seven because of the academic reputation of the

59

institution; and eight for other reasons. Respondents were
allowed to chose more that one particular reason for selection
of a college institution.

This question revealed some unexpected results. The
process confirmed the widespread belief that many prospective
student-athletes choose college institutions because of its
athletic reputation. This finding leads one to believe idea
that the emphasis on athletics over academics begins early,
possibly during the recruitment process. It was interesting
to find, however, that the second reason student-athletes
chose a college institution was, academic reputation, which
presents an encouraging trend. The coach of a particular
sport was reported as the third most important factor in the
selection of the college institution. Generally, the findings
confirmed the early emphasis on athletics and its importance
in ”big-time” programs. 0n the positive side, many college
institutions are pushing importance of academic programs as a
criterion for selection.

Television exposures, professional opportunities, and
weather did not receive many responses as to the reason
prospective students-athletes chose a particular college
institution. However, the television exposure it receives
probably enhances the athletic reputation of an institution.
There may be a relationship between them.

They gave seVeral other reasons for choosing a college

Ainstitution. One football player commented, “I did not have

60

many choices, when I went to college, there were not many
options in the South for Black athletes.” Another football
player commented, "I chose my college institution because of
the Black population of students on campus, and the
opportunity to play at the top level immediately.” A
basketball player commented, "The only reason I chose my
college institution, my father was the coach, otherwise I
would have never gone there." Another basketball player
responded, "It was the only school to offer me a basketball

scholarship."

61

Did you graduate from college?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

questionr number percent lapercentrnot,i overall

(3) :7 .’ graduated jdgraduated_ Tigraduation
BASKETBALL 7 57% (4) 43% (3) 57%
FOOTBALL 7 86% (6) 14% (1) 86%
HOCKEY 7 43% (3) 57% (4) 43%
TOTALS 21 62%(13) 38% (8) 62%
Table 4.3 "' (“INDICATES ACTUAL NUMBERS

Question No 3, found, 57% of the basketball players
graduated, 43% did not. For football 86% graduated, 14% did
not. The results for hockey showed that 43% graduated while
57% did not. The average graduation rate for the group was
62%. This question was asked to detect if the responses and
comments from those that graduated from college, differed from
those that did not. The average graduation rate across the
cohort was 62%. Football was high, with an 86% rate. As
expected, hockey was low with a 43% rate. It is important to
note, that the low graduation rate for hockey positively
correlates with the average numbers of years of participation.

They, more so than basketball and football players, tend to

62

leave school early for professional opportunities, and as a
result, their professional careers probably last longer.
A.comparison of the responses of those who graduated with
those who did not, did not reveal any significant difference.
In an item by item analysis of the answers and responses to
each question, there was no identifiable pattern, that could
be considered a deviation. Based on these findings,
graduation or nongraduation had no effect on the responses and
did not affect the attitudes of athletes toward the
commercialization of sport. It is important to note, that the
study cohort exceeded the NCAA graduation rate. The 1987-88
graduation rate as reported by the NCAA, for Division I was
58% for men-all students, 48% for men basketball players, 55%
for men football players, and 62% for other men sports. The
NCAA does not subdivide hockey player graduation rates.
However, hockey is included in the NCAA’s graduation rate for

men-all students.

63

How many years have you participated at the professional

level?

question ave. # of yrs.
(4) of

partiCipation

 

BASKETBALL l g 4.2
FOOTBALL 6.2
10.1
6.9

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4 . 4

Question No 4, revealed that the average number of years
of professional participation for basketball was 4.2, with a
range from 1-9 years; football was 6.2, with a range from 1.5-
9 years; hockey 10.07 with a range from 3-16.5 years. The
average number of years of professional participation for the
total group was 6.9 years. The low was one year for a
basketball player and a high of 16.5 for a hockey player. This
question determined whether or not the individuals had enough
experience to draw useful conclusions, and comparisons between
the entertainment aspects of professional, and college sports.
The range included 1-16.5 years. Hockey, had the highest
average number of years of participation, football had the
lowest. The group exceeded expectations regarding
professional experience. It can be summarized that their

,comments and attitudes were useful for this study.

64

Is there pressure to win at the college level. If so, how

would you compare it with professional sports?

no similar less more no

pressure

pressure

,pressure

,pressure

response

 

14%(1)

86%(6)

0

0

0

 

86%(6)

14%(1)

 

100%(7)

0

 

 

 

 

91%(19)

14%(1)

 

 

 

Table 4.5

Question NO 5, reveals some interesting results, 86% of

the basketball players believed that the pressure to win in
college was similar to the pressures in professional sports,
14% indicated there was no pressure. Football players also
indicated at a rate of 86% that the pressures to win in
college was similar to the professionals, 14% indicated their
was less pressure. All hockey players believed that the
pressure to win was similar. The great majority of the

athletes (91%) believed the pressures to win in college

athletics was similar to professional sports. The reports
suggest, that "big-time" programs are more like professional
sports, with the emphasis on winning. This emphasis trickles

.down to the athletes. The athletes report, this pressure is

65

no different from. the pressure to win in professional
commercial entertainment.

.A couple of comments on question No 5, were, a football
player, "Yes, the pressure to win in college is basically the
same as the professional ranks.”. A.hockey player, "Yes, there
is pressure to win, pressure from the program and pressure
from college coaches." One basketball player comments, ”There
is pressure in college based upon the win and loss record. It

carries over to the players, and is similar to the pros."

66

Was there enough time to carry-out the necessary activities to
be successful academically in college, with your athletic

activities?

question (6) percentage percentage

stating_yes . statingno
71%(5) 29%(2)
FOOTBALL 71%(5) 29%(2)
100%(7) 0
TOTAL 81%(17) 19%(4)

 

 

 

 

PERCENTAGE
Table 4.6

 

 

 

The results of question 6, indicates 71% of the
basketball players believed that there was enough time to be
successfully academically with their participation
responsibilities, while 29% did not. For football, the
results were the same, as 71% believed there was enough time,
while 29% indicated there was not enough time. All of the
hockey participants, believed there was sufficient time to
carry-out the necessary activities to be successful
academically in college.

These results indicate that college football, basketball,
and hockey players feel they are provided with enough time to
be academically successful. Based upon the results from these
cohorts, it is a fallacy to believe that all college athletes
do not have time to study. However, many individuals

commented, that you had to be very disciplined to be

67

successful; you had too prioritized your time and sacrifice
social activities. FOr example, a football player, comments,
"Yes, there was enough time to carry out my studies, but it
was tough to finish in four years. You really need a fifth
year to be on par with the average student.” A.basketball
player commented, "Yes, there was enough time. You must budget
and have priorities.” Another basketball player commented,
"Yes there was enough time, but it depends upon the individual
and the major." One football player who believed there was
not enough time stated: "NO, there was not enough time. You
have to practice too much, there are too many football related
activities and I automatically' needed a fifth year to
graduate.” This athlete did not graduate from college.

However, he is still competing in professional football.

68

If you had to change anything about your college experience

what would you change?

percentage percentage percentage

indicating indicating a indicating

nothing few things mapy thinos
57%(4) 43%(3)
43%(3) 57%(4)
57%(4) 43%(3)
AVERAGE 52%(11) 48%(10)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PERCENTAGE
Table 4.7

Question No 7, revealed that 57% of the basketball
players would not change anything about their college
experience, while 43% indicated they would change a few
things. FOotball players indicated at a rate of 43% that they
would change nothing and 57% indicated they would change a few
things. The hockey respondents stated at a rate of 57% that
they would change nothing, and 48% indicated they would change
a few things. None of the groups interviewed indicated that
they would change more than one or two items about their
college experience. This question uncovered that,
approximately half of the three groups would change nothing
about their college experience, and approximately half (48%)
indicated they would change a few things. None of the

.individuals suggested they would make wholesale changes.

69

The specific responses to this question provided some
interesting commentary on the state of college athletics at
the Division I level. An eight-year veteran of the NFL, who
played on three Superbowl championship teams commented, ”If I
had to change anything about my college experience, it would
be awareness of the total environment. I did not really
understand the athletic and academic environment." Another
basketball player commented, "I would change the whole
atmosphere. We were sheltered too much. I would have more
Black students on campus." One football player stated, “he

would change some NCAA rules."

70

What do you believe are the similarities between ”big-time"

college athletics and professional sports?

percentage percentage no response
)

identifying identifying or did not
basic basic know

‘similarities dissimilarity
BASKETBALL 109%(7)
FOOTBALL 100%(7)
HOCKEY 100%(7)
AVERAGE 100%(21)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PERCENTAGE
Table 4.8

 

Question NO 8, produced unanimous results, all three
groups believed that intercollegiate athletics at the division
I level, and professional sports were similar in nature. This
was probably one of the most important questions asked in the
interview, and a key question in determining whether or not
college athletics at the Division I level is similar to
professional sports. Their report supports the belief that
intercollegiate athletics at the highest competitive level is
a commercial enterprise. The lack of disagreement on this
point was hard to ignore.

The specific comments further supported the belief that
there is a conflict between amaturism and professionalism.

-One football player stated, "What is similar are the large

71

amounts of money being made off Of athletes.” Another
football player suggested, "Both college athletics and the
pros are financially driven especially in football and
basketball.” A. basketball player who is a current
professional coach, three-time college All-American, and four
time NBA All- Star stated, "The similarities are the emphasis
on winning, and the pressure to win is exactly the same.”
This coach, also has a son participating in college basketball
at the Division I level. Another basketball player commented:
"The media/press watch what you do, in both professional and
college revenue sports." One basketball player who seemed
very disturbed about the operations of "big-time” college
programs stated, "It is all about money for the university and

they don't care about the players”.

72

What are the most important differences between professional

sports and college athletics?

percentage percentage percentage

identifying identifying identifying

major minor no

differences differences difference
0 0 100%(7)

0 43%(3) 57%(4)

0 57%(4) 43%(3)

0 33%(7) 67%(14)

 

 

FOOTBALL

 

 

AVERAGE

 

 

 

PERCENTAGE
Table 4.9

 

Question No 9, revealed that 100% of the basketball
respondents believed there were no differences between
professional sports and college athletics. The football
players believed at a rate of 43% that there were minor
differences and 57% believed there were no differences.
Hockey players believed in 33% of the cases there were minor
differences and at a rate of 43% that there were no
differences. The average percent for minor differences was 33%
and no differences was 67%. None of the individuals believed
there were major differences. Again, this question was
designed to find the differences between in college, and
professional sports, as perceived by the persons interviewed

for the study. The findings suggested that college athletics

73

in the "big-time" programs are more like professional sports
than different. A.strong majority, 67% of the total indicated
there is not significant difference between professional
sports, and Division I football, basketball and hockey
programs. Where there were indications of differences, they
only reported them at a rate of 33%, and this rate included
only minor differences. Only one person, indicated major
differences between "big-time" programs and. professional
sports. This suggests that ”big-time" college programs are as
much a business as the professional teams.

The minor differences revolved around the following
comments: One hockey player stated, ”There is a lot more
teaching and coaching in college, more education, and no
babysitting in the pros." A basketball player commented,
”There is more freedom in the NBA, in college there is to many
restrictions with the NCAA rules." Another basketball player
commented, "The only difference between the pros and college
is that you are not being paid." Most of the comments
concerning the minor difference revolved around more
individual freedom, money, and the pros if you do not perform
you lose your job-~your livelihood. In college, it does not
matter if you do not perform, you just lose games not your

job.

74

Do you believe "big-time" college athletics are in the money

making business,

business?

Money
and

percentage

education

and

percentage

or are they primarily in the education

no

response

 

71%(5)

0

29%(2)

 

FOOTBALL

86%(6)

14%(1)

 

71%(5)

14.5%(1)

14.5%(1)

 

AVERAGE

PERCENTAGE
Table 4.10

 

76%(16)

 

 

19.2%(4)

 

4.8%(1)

 

Question No 10, showed that 71% of the basketball players
believed that "big-time" college athletic programs were in the
money making business, while 29% believed they were concerned
about both.

The football players indicated at a rate of 86%, that
the athletic programs were primarily in the money making
business, and 14% indicated that they were concerned about
both. Hockey participants believed at a rate of 76%, that

"big-time" intercollegiate athletic programs were primarily in

75

the money making business, while 19.2% believed that they were
involved in both enterprises. The hockey players also
indicated at a rate of 14.5% that they did not know or were
unsure. The average percent across all groups that believed
"big-time" college athletic programs were primarily in the
money making business was 76%. The average for those who
believed they were equally involved in both was 19.2%, and
those who did not know or were unsure was 4.8%.

None Of the individuals in the respective groups
indicated they believed athletic programs were primarily
concerned about the educational process. The majority (76%)
of the individuals, believed that "big-time" college athletic
programs were in the money making business. Football players
had the strongest attitudes toward this issue, 86%. Many in
the group indicated that college athletics was both in the
education business and the money business. However, this
attitude consisted of only 19.2% of the total cohort. These
results give direct indication that college athletics is a
commercial business.

A sample of comments from question NO 10, a football
player states, "Colleges are in it for the money, there is not
enough emphasis on the academics.” A.hockey player comments,
"Colleges are in it for both, money, and education, in big
sports--it is a big business.” Finally, a basketball player
stated, "The bottom line is money, but they say along the way

it is an educational process.”

76

If you could change anything about college athletics,

what would you change and why?

PERCENTAGE PERCENTAGE PERCENTAGE
INDICATING INDICATING INDICATING
:MANY SOME CHANGE NO CHANGE

CHANGES
43%(3) 43%(3) 14%(1)
57%(4) 43%(3) 0

 

 

 

 

HOCKEY 57%(4) 0‘ 43%(3)
AVERAGE 52%(11) 29%(6) 19%(4l

 

 

 

PERCENTAGE
Table 4.11

 

Question No 11, found that 43% of the basketball players
believed that college athletics needed many Changes, 43%
indicated some minor Changes, and 14% indicated no change.

The football players indicated at a rate of 57% that
college athletics needed many changes, 43% indicated a few
Changes and 14% believed no significant Changes were
necessary.

The hockey respondents, similar to the football players,
believed at a rate of 57% that college athletics needed.many
Changes, none indicated some minor changes, and 43% indicated
no Change.

.Across the three groups, 52% of the total believed that

77

there needs to be many Changes, 29% indicated some change, was
warranted and 19% believed no change was necessary. This
question was developed to find-out if the respondents believed
something about college athletics needed to be changed, and to
discover what area of college athletics is affected by such
attitudes. One must conclude, based upon these results, that
college athletics needs some ongoing review, and
restructuring.

Selected comments on question No 11, a basketball player
says, "I would change the impact of television on determining
where a student should go to school." Another basketball
player commented, "College athletes should be paid some
expenses." Yet, another basketball player responded, "I would
change the emphases on business." Finally, one football player

stated, "College athletes need to be rewarded."

78

Should college athletes be paid?

PERCENTAGE PERCENTAGE PERCENTAGE
STATING STATING NO UNCERTAIN

YES
100%(7) ‘0
71%(5) 29%(2)

 

 

 

71%(5) 29%(2)
AVERAGE 81%(17) 19%(4)

 

PERCENTAGE
Table 4.12

 

 

 

 

Question No 12, revealed that 100% of the basketball
players believed that college athletes should be paid.

The percentage of football players that believed college
athletes should be paid was 71%, and the percent that did not
agree that college athletes should be paid was 29%.

Hockey participants responses were similar to football.
They believed at a rate of 71% that college athletes should be
paid, and 29% indicated that they should not be paid.

The average for the three groups showed, that 81%
believed college athletes should be paid, while 19% indicated
they should not be paid. This was a very emotional issue for
the interviewees. The attitude of the group was strongly in
favor of college athletes being paid, 81%. Those who did not

believe athletes should be paid felt colleges should give some

79

sort Of stipend. Even those who were opposed to payment, felt
needy students should receive something extra above and beyond
'a athletic scholarship. The results of this questioning
indicates that college athletes need some form of renumeration
beyond the full athletic scholarship, which includes: room
and board, tuition, and books. Many athletes felt they were
being used by the commercial ventures of the institution, some
believed, the institutions were making so much money, and not
giving it back. Some felt coaches were reaping the fruits of
their labor.

Some significant comments as it relates to this issue
include: A hockey player, "Athletes should be paid something,
athletic scholarship is just not enough.” A basketball player
commented, "Athletes should be paid, because colleges are
using them for a commercial venture. One football player
commented, "Some institutions believe athletic scholarship is
enough, the universities generate too much money. Athletes
should be paid ten fold the worth of their athletic
scholarships." One respondent who did not think athletes
should be paid suggested, 'NO, athletes should not be paid
because scholarship is enough however, athletes should be
allowed to work during the school year.” Currently, the NCAA
does not permit athletes on full scholarship to work during
the regular academic year. This attitude by the football
player was in the'minority, as there were many more strong

attitudes in favor of athletes being paid because of the

80

commercial factor.

The final question of the interview was meant to be open.
It allowed the subjects to expound on any area or topic
related to the issue of commercialism of sport. iMany comments
were related to changes they felt needed to be made in college
athletics. Changes such as, NCAA rules and regulations and
the restrictions imposed on college athletes. Some expanded on
the topic of athletes being exploited by the institutions for
commercial entrepreneurial ventures, and the institutions not
giving back to the individual. Based upon the interview
results, and the literature survey, many of these responses
appear to be valid.

Summary of the comments: A football player, "Players
should have the opportunity to comeback to schools and work in
athletic administration, have job searches, and career
opportunities, colleges need do more in this area." Another
football player responded, “Athletes are used and abused. Too
much money is being made by the institution, and not enough
given back." A.basketball player commented, “College athletes
most definitely need to be paid and colleges need to provide
much more for the student." .A hockey player states, "I would
like to experience being a student without the concerns of
hockey.” Another hockey player responded, "Colleges need to
keep everything in perspective--it is hard to make to pros."
Finally, another comment from a hockey player, "There is a

lot more commercialism the last few years, commercialism.is

81

increasing. Athletes whose names and reputations that are
being used by the institution should receive direct

renumeration.”

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION, SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS

This is a study of the attitudes of elite athletes toward
the commercial aspects of sport, specifically college
athletics at the Division I level. As stated in Chapter one,
the role, purpose, and mission of intercollegiate athletics in
higher education, is a much debated topic. The debate
revolves around its purpose in higher education institutions,
and whether or not intercollegiate athletics at its highest
competitive level, National Collegiate Athletic Association
(NCAA), Division I, is in fact amateur athletics, or a huge
commercial enterprise. Many have stated that intercollegiate
athletics is a "big business,” with their purpose and aims in
opposition to the missions of higher education institutions.

This summary, describes the results of interviews with
twenty-one former college athletes who also participated or
are currently competing' in the National Basketball
Association, National Football League, and National Hockey
League. The subjects were selected because they had
experience at both levels, the nearby location of their
professional teams, which provided access to the investigator,
and some were known to the primary researcher due to previous
contacts.

The researcher contacted, and asked each individual to

82

83

consent and participate in the study. Each participant was
asked a series of questions related to the commercialism of
sport. Each person was presented with the same questions from
a standard interview guide, and allowed the freedom to
expound on each question or topic. Each question and topic
was designed to identify a common theme. Each response was
analyzed to identify those common themes.

In summary, the results of interviews with the selected
group of former college athletes who formally, or are
currently participating in the NBA, NFL, and the NHL, provides
documentation of their reported feelings about the nature and
purpose of "big-time" college athletics. Their attitudes
Clearly show many aspects of these programs are a commercial
enterprise. Many athletes, indicated that changes and reform
are needed. They overwhelmingly believe, college athletes
should be paid, and a few indicated some type of stipend is
warranted. .Most of the subjects believed that colleges were
in the money business, but education was still important.
Most athletes were happy with their overall college
experience, and were provided enough time to produce
academically. They were very concerned about the pressures
and money in intercollegiate athletics. The attitude
expressed was that college athletics was similar to
professional sports, and there were very few significant
differences. An in-depth analysis of the responses leads one

to believe that the respondents are very concerned about the

84

commercialization of intercollegiate athletics. They are not
upset at the profit but, they feel that they should receive a
slice of the revenues generated. These athletes see coaches
in the “big-time” programs receiving handsome salaries and
“perks," while they struggle. This has caused an attitude
problem among those interviewed. This attitude was detected in
face-to-face interviews and commentary.

The athletes interviewed for this study did not feel
tuition, room and board, books and an educational opportunity
was enough for their competitive efforts. Many of the
respondents did not fully understand the financing of the
intercollegiate athletic programs. None of the athletes
interviewed. conveyed. the idea that the income generated
through their participation helped to finance other nonrevenue
sports and the education of other student-athletes. When this
thought was presented, some of the athletes did not care.
They felt they generated the income, so funds should be given
back to them.

Based upon the result of this study, the following are
recommendations for higher education institutions that sponsor

“big-time" athletic programs:

1) Provide athletes with a stipend over and above a
full athletic grant-in-aid.

2) Allow student-athletes on full athletic grants to

3)

4)

5)

7)

8)

9)

85

work during the academic year.

Provide student-athletes input into the decision—
making process, especially when devising plans for

practice and playing seasons.

Provide trust funds for athletes after they
graduate. These funds can be generated from bowl

games and NCAA Championship events.

Explain the financing Of intercollegiate athletics

to student-athletes.

Limit endorsements deals for coaches who use
student-athletes for financial gain, e.g., shoe

contracts and sports apparel deals.

Make athletes a part of the athletics program and

seek their input in developing NCAA legislation.

Make college administrators understand what the
pressure to compete in “big-time” athletics is
like. Have these administrators and officials make
an effort to understand the psychological impact
that highly pressured and commercialized

intercollegiate athletics has on the participants.

86

This study reflects the reported attitudes of only those
athletes interviewed, and it does not necessarily represent
all the college athletes that participate in NCAA Division I.
There are limits to which broad generalizations can be made
from this study, do to the small sample. However, the
results do show some further study and examination of the
commercialization of college athletics is in warranted. The
athletes showed some strong and unanimous attitudes on a
number of issues. These attitudes should not be dismissed.
This study is important because it portrays what some athletes
think about the commercialization of intercollegiate
athletics. Its major significance is that it gives
institutions of higher education that support "big-time
college athletics a reference point, to begin further study
into to areas of commercialism. The NCAA and its member
institutions have the resources to carry-out further study.
Results received from. this study' indicates further
investigation is indeed warranted. Higher education
institutions stand to gain from further research in this area.
Further research can result in improvement in college athletic
programs, it can point out problem areas, and produce

interventions for continuous quality improvement.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

APPROVAL LETTER FROM THE UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH
INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS
CONSENT FORM

 

IIIUDCnnflInss

b”
M)

IlsunSIIuncnu
lflllwnnflnhflwn
h I.“ W
4snewe
marina)

Fm srmmm

hflhm
“swarm
”to“

 
 
  

87

MICHIGANSTATE
UNIVERSITY

April 10. 1995

: Charles Wilson
To 109 Brody

RI: 123.: 96-300
7L8: TUDY 0! TH! ATTITUDES OF ASIILITIS AT THE
TI ‘ r'nns'r mans OF mansion roams m ISSUE

I!
OF THE COMMERCIALIIATION OF SPORTS
IlVIBION IIOUISTID: KIA .

. l-C
APPROVAL DATE: 04/10/95
The University Connittss on Research Involving m Iubjscts' (UCRhIES)

rsvisw ofd this re set is conplsts.1 am leased to advise
rights and wsl 1fp jo fths hm subjects agpsar to be adequately

thods t obt in informed consent are r r
T§:§:gg:s,% -. mtgprov5d this projectm misggns“ listed
Illllhh UCIIII roval is valid for one calendar inni with
t the appggeal date sm Wabovs. Invostigatg::rp1::ging ng

continue a project bszznd one year must use the green grenewal
form (enclosedj with t original a roval letter or whens
project is renewed) to sea update certification. There is a
anxious of four such expedite renewals ssibls. Investigators
wi to continue a projectw Wtha tins need to submit it
again or complete rev“

IlVIlICll: UCRIHS mt rsviswm changes in procedures inn lving human
subjects, prior to initiation of change If this is done at
a. ti as o renewal please use the ogreen renewal form. To
rsviss an approved protocol at an her tins during the year
sand yourn ttsn request to the ”Chair, requesting yrevised
:gproval and referencin the project's ran 8 and title. Include
ur rsqusst a dsscr ption of the change and any rsvissd
ins rumsnts, consent forms or advertisements that are applicable.

sacsxnts/

CIAICII: Should either of the fell arise during the course of the
work, investigators must noti y UCRIHS l.Itroraptly: (1) roblcms
(unexpected s ds affects, comp aints. c )1involving uman
subjects or (2) changes in the research snvi ronmsnt or new
information indicating greater risk to the human sub scts than
existed when the protocol was previously reviewed an approved.

If we can be of any future help, please do not hesitate to contact us

at (517)355-2180 or FAX (517)4 2- 171.

scrum

cc: Marvin Grandstaff

 

88

INFORMED CONSENT

The purpose of this study and interview is to compare and
contrast intercollegiate athletic programs with professional
sports. Its goal is to determine if college athletics are
similar to professional sports in terms of the commercial
entertainment business. You name will be kept confidential
and only known to the person interviewing you. Your name will
not appear in any publication, only responses. Any records
that identify you by name will be kept in a locked file by the
primary researcher. Your participation is voluntary and you

may decide to discontinue participation at any time.

SIGNATURE

 

INVESTIGATOR

 

APPENDIX B

DITERVIEW GUIDE

89

INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE

The purpose of this interview is to compare and contrast intercollegiate athletic programs
withpmfisaiomlspofls. Itsgoalistodetamineifcollegeathleticsaresimilartoprofessional
sportsintetmsofthecommemialentertainmembusiness.

9155”.”

10.

ll.

12.
13.

Howmanyyeusdidyouparficipateincoflegeathleticsatthedivisionllevel?
Whydidyouchooaeaparticular college institution?

Did you graduate fi’om college?
Howmanyyemhaveyouparticipatedattheptofessiomllevel?

Isthmpreswretowinatthecollegelevel,ifso,howwouldyoucompareitwith
professionalsports?

Wasthereenoughtimetocany-mntheneceswyactivities tobesuccessful
academically in college, with your athletic activities?

Ifyou had to change anything about your expaience as a college student-athlete,
what would you change?

Whatdoyoubdievearethesinfiluifiesbetweenfig-fime”coflegeathleficsand
professionalsports?

Kuhnme’themoatimponantdifi‘ermcesbetweenprofeseional sponsandcollege
encs.

Do U. . . w. .m . .
«{3ny mm. VWWM?“ WWW“

wmdchangemydnngabGncoflegeathleficawhatwmfldyouchmgemd

Shmfldwflegenhlaesbepaidwhyorwhynot?
Arethereanyothetcommansyouwmldfiketomakeconcerningtheeeismes?

APPENDIX C

1995-96 NCAA DIVISION I-A POST-SEASON CERTIFIED

BOWL GAMES

90

 

 

 

GEE-8'8. ce—rn

 

xuueu 5?.

 

 

gktghi i"

 

£39530 ‘2

 

 

 

» 8....

(a: 83
iii-£6 82
his-oat: 8%5
21858.. 88
£2.81
«82.8 8omw

 

same-.358“. “amen
inflIoSwosam Solo"

3; Gen—KN

 

 

-nn[vmo;v~oo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8330 36m .3900“. connowéwou usEtoQ
<.. c0335 ((02 09.39.

rem e30...

 

 

91

REFERENCES

Anderson, W.D., Erickson, R..A., Godbey, G. C., Graefe, A,
R. ., & Guadagnolo, F. B., (1984). The Economic Impact of
Penn State Football in the State College Region.

22W Pennsylvania State

University.

Baker. W.J. (1982). W. Totowa, NJ.

. . . . - - -
.s. s s q-e-s s s‘ s v- ‘ s O, -seu. . s

. 182. 546 F.
Supp. 1276 (ND-OK).

Bruno, M., Coppola, V., Huthchison, S., Pigott, C., &
Williams, D. A", (1985). Do You Have To Cheat To Win.

W. September 10. pp- 8-14-

Cairns, J., Jennet, N., & Sloane, P. J. (1986). The Economics
of Professional Team Sports. A.Survey of Theory and

Evidence. We 13: 1- 80

Coughlin, C. C., & Erekson, Homer, 0. (1984). An Examination
of Contributions to Support Intercollegiate Athletics.

W 51. 180- --95

Fleisher, At A”, Groff, B. L., Shughart, W. F., & Tollison,
R. D. (1988). Crime or Punishment? Enforcement of the

NCAA Football Cartel WW
atomization 10. 435- 51

Fleisher, A,.A., Groff, B. L., & Tollison, R. D. (1992). The

W
Cartel_flehaxigr. Chicago, IL: university of Chicago
Press.

Freeman, Mt, (1993). Player Decries NCAA ‘Slavery‘. Detroit
£zeg_2zgss, March 27, p. 9b.

Hiestand, My, (1993). Sponsorship The Name of Game. HSA
Today. June 16, pp. lc-9c.

Koch, J. V}, (1973). A Troubled Cartel: The NCAA" Lau_and
W 38 (winter/spring). pp- 36-69-

Koch, J.‘V., 1983. Intercollegiate Athletics: An Economic
Explanation. WW 64. 360-374.

. (1991). Keeping Faith with the
Student-Athlete: A New Model for Intercollegiate
Athletics. Charlotte: Knight Foundation.

92

Lapchick, R., (1986). Eteetnted_fieene. Boston, MA: Heath &

Co.

Lapchick, R., & Slaughter, J. B., (1989). Ihe_Bnles_Q£_the
W New York, NY: Macmillian
Co.

Lopresti, M., (1995) Notre Dame Faces $8 Million Showdown.
Wm. November 13. p- 56-

Mckenzie, R. B., & Sullivan, T. E., (1985). Does the NCAA
Exploit College Athletes? An Economic and Legal
Reinterpretation. Antittnet_nnl1etin 37, 373- 99

National Collegiate Athletic Association. (1995) NCAA
Register. January 25, Mission, KS: National Collegiate
Athletic .Association.

National Collegiate Athletic Association. (1995). 1995-96
NCAAtuannel, Mission, KS: National Collegiate Athletic
Association.

Smith R. A., (1988). Sports and Freedom: The Rise at Big-
Tim-2W. New York. NY: Oxford Press.

Sperber, M. (1991).
. New York: Holt & Co.

Telander. R. (1989). W. Sports
Illustrated, October 2, pp. 92-107.

Young. D. C” (1984). WW2:
Athletics. Chicago, IL:.Ares Inc.