"College sports undeniably have their benefits, creating university pride and an identity that no philosophy or classics program will ever match" [3]
Statements similar to the one quoted above are sometimes used to suggest that commercialized college sports have their "up-side." This argument has little merit. Teaching students to take pride in their university because it has recruited athletes who are quicker, faster, stronger and more coordinated than the athletes recruited by other schools is not beneficial to the students. Neither is it beneficial to students' education when they are taught to base their identities on the qualities of others -- certainly not on qualitie4s such as quickness, speed and coordination.
On the other hand, providing students with access to courses (including courses in philosophy and the classics), inspiring them to aspire and teaching them skills that lead to productive and satisfying careers are all beneficial to them and to higher education.
It is the commercialized aspect of Div. I and Div. II sports that makes them undesirable. Intramural sports at all levels and Div. III sports are extremely desirable. Providing a place and a context within which students are encouraged to test and exchange their opinions and ideas with teachers and fellow students in an informal setting is essential to quality higher education.
I admired my (pre-commercialization) football and track coaches and am grateful to my 1950's University of New Hampshire presidents for UNH's then essentially amateur sports programs. I am especially grateful for UNH's intramural sports program. Intramural sports give students opportunities to participate in sports -- as well as to watch them. Students can learn much from each other and from professors while participating in non-commercialized sports and other extra-curricular activities. The dance club, the debating team, the intramural softball league, the school newspaper and many other extra-curricular activities make significant contributions to higher education. On the other hand, the impact of commercialized college sports on higher education is negative.
Division III sports support higher education. Imagine a college with coaches paid no more than professors, with no athletic scholarships, with affordable tuitions and sports events attended largely by students, families of students and faculty. Actually, no imagination is req1uired. We have many such schools. Most of them are private. Many of them are in Div. III. Some of them are totally free. For example, Berea College in Kentucky provides all-expenses-paid education. How does Berea do it? For one thing, it requires students to do most of the work done in other schools by paid employees. For another, it does not support a commercialized sports program.
What to expect from the NCAA
The NCAA could reform college sports by a few strokes of the pen. It could limit bowl eligibility to schools that (1) give only scholarships based on need and academic merit (2) guarantee every student the opportunity to participate in intramural sports and (3) pay their coaches amounts comparable to those paid instructors, assistant professors, associate professors and full professors in their academic departments. This would "accentuate the positive and eliminate the principal negative" aspects of college sports. If it also created a need for more professional sports teams (as it well might), the market would meet this need. However, it is unrealistic to suppose that the NCAA, which profits greatly from present arrangements, will assist in altering these arrangements.
The unionization of students would be a "ray of hope"
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).