Arguments for intercollegiate athletics program success in higher education

¶ … Intercollegiate Athletics Program Guarantee the Success of a College?

Intercollegiate athletics programs are a common feature in most colleges, and many of these programs have been shown to contribute to the education and development of the young people who participate in them. Moreover, intercollegiate athletics programs, especially men's football and basketball, are major revenue generators through ticket sales for many educational institutions. In many cases, colleges that feature high-profile intercollegiate athletics programs enjoy the benefits of these programs through increased revenues and publicity. Even the best intercollegiate athletics program, though, cannot guarantee the success of a college for the reasons identified through a review of the relevant peer-reviewed and scholarly literature which is provided below, followed by a summary of the research and important findings in the conclusion.

Review and Discussion

Intercollegiate athletics programs in the United States are divided into various divisions (i.e., Division 1A and 1AA), with the revenues from these respective programs being an important source of income for many colleges (Enoch and Glenn 656). Colleges that compete at the Division 1A level appear to enjoy a competitive advantage in terms of the revenues that are possible. In fact, Losco and Fife (2000) emphasize that, "Division IAA institutions on average have a loss of almost $1 million. While some distribution about this mean is likely, the Division IAA distribution appears to be less skewed by a few outliers than the Division IA average. Thus, it would appear that most Division IAA schools lose money on athletics" (142). Although most Division IAA schools may lose money on their intercollegiate athletics programs, not all of them do, a fact that compelled Fizel and Fort (2004) to examine the basic differences between those programs that were profitable and those that were not. According to these researchers, "The essential difference between the one colleges-make-money-on-intercollegiate-athletics study and the others is that it placed more weight on the ability of an intercollegiate athletics program to draw additional students" (Fizel and Fort 94). Consequently, although the success of a college cannot be guaranteed by an intercollegiate athletics program, it appears that college sports teams that are successful on the field or court represent a valuable asset in contributing to the level of success experienced by colleges in terms of the numbers of students that it attracts and retains (Fizel and Fort 94). This point is also made by Jones (2009) who emphasizes that:

A high-profile intercollegiate athletics program increases media attention received by a university. A top-ranked football team, for example, receives increased media attention from local and national news outlets such as ESPN, USA Today, and CNN. Such increased media exposure results in the name - and often the trademarked logo - of an institution being mentioned or shown repeatedly. (11)

Despite these generalizations, though, an important point made by Losco and Fife (2000) is the lack of analysis concerning the role of athletics in collegiate settings in contributing to the overall success of the institution. According to these researchers, "This is true even in documents like the report from the Knight Foundation Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics which emphasizes principles like the educational values, practices and missions of this institution determine the standards by which we conduct our intercollegiate athletics program" (155). Notwithstanding the emphasis on "educational values and practices," though, Losco and Fife make the point that there remains a lack of alignment between athletics programs and colleges' larger mission to educate. In this regard, Losco and Fife note that, "There is virtually no reflection on how the intercollegiate athletics program contributes to the educational values, practices and missions of the institution" (Losco and Fife 155).

Other critics of intercollegiate athletics programs point to the lack of transparency involved in how these programs are funded and administered. In this regard, Nelson and Watt (1999) emphasize that, "Activity fees constitute a steady source of income for athletic departments regardless of the success of the football team. The distribution of such monies on many campuses is hidden from students, that they do not often know what exactly they are paying for, and that they would be reluctant to fork over the money so readily if they did" (39). To be truly successful from the perspective of all stakeholders over the long-term, Nelson and Watt (1999) maintain that the invisible hand should dictate what college students want from their athletics programs, if anything at all. For instance, Nelson and Watt suggest that a superior approach would be to, "Let student-consumers decide which is more important to their college experience, lecture series or football. Some might decide that they would rather support women's lacrosse or a foreign film series than the football team" (39).

Beyond the foregoing issues, there are some significant expenses involved in implementing and administering an intercollegiate athletics program as well. For example, Mitten (2002) reports that in recent years, there has been an enormous increase in litigation over intercollegiate athletics. According to Mitten, "Because of the increasing economic benefits of playing sports, such as college scholarships or multi-million dollar professional contracts, injured athletes have a strong incentive to seek compensation for harm caused by negligent sports medicine care rendered by team physicians, athletic trainers, and others" (5). In addition, college athletes frequently experience enormous peer pressure as well that can contribute to the incidence and severity of litigable injuries. In this regard, Mitten adds that, "Athletes often encounter significant psychological, societal, and economic pressure from coaches and other team officials to play a sport despite an injury or illness. Injured athletes have sought recovery against their teams and team officials for requiring them to 'play hurt' or for other tortious conduct causing or aggravating athletic injuries" (6).