Majoring in college sports

Last year, I wrote about a proposal by Sally Jenkins of the Washington Post to allow college athletes to major in their sport, building a (hopefully) rigorous curriculum around participation on the team. Now here is David Pargman, an emeritus professor of educational psychology (and a self-described sports fan) making a similar proposal in Monday's Chronicle of Higher Education (H/T: Deadspin). Like Jenkins, Pargman uses performing arts majors as the analogue. He goes one step further and lays out what the last two years of the program would look like, with the first two years spent in basic studies. The advantage of this, Pargman argues, is honesty--students, coaches, family members, and universities all can openly acknowledge exactly why these young men and women (mostly men) are on campus.

As I wrote last time, this is an interesting idea with some potential, but the devil is in the details. Ultimately, my deepest question is whether this solution addresses the real problem facing college athletics. Pargman argues that not forcing student-athletes to pick a major in which they are not interested--when they really want to study their sport and become a professional athlete--is "integral" to a good portion of the other travesties that surround college sports. But is forcing a football player to major in, say, "Leisure Studies" really integral to all the other problems? Or are the real problems that 1) many of these people have no interest in being in college or studying at all, regardless of what classes they can take or what they can declare as a major, and 2) universities and coaches are making boatloads of money because of the skills of these students and the students are not seeing a dime. Honesty in their major does not change that.

Which is not to reject the proposal out of hand. It is just to emphasize that the problems inherent in college sport go much deeper than this.

The Contractual Implications of Auburn Firing Gene Chizik

As many had predicted over the last few weeks, Auburn University announced on Sunday that it was firing head coach Gene Chizik just two years after he led the Tigers to an undefeated season and BCS national championship.  Because the school decided 17 months ago to give Chizik a contract extension through 2015, Auburn is now on the hook for an expensive buyout of its football coaching staff.  Specifically, Chizik is owed a total of $7.5 million -- to be paid in monthly installments of $208,334 for each of the next 36 months -- pursuant to the early termination clause in his contract.  Had he not been fired, Chizik would have received an additional $3 million over the life of his contract.  However, because many of his assistant coaches were also given guaranteed contracts (in some cases running through June 2014), the total cost of the buyout for Auburn will actually exceed $11 million.

Anticipating Chizik's likely termination, the Columbus (GA) Ledger-Enquirer explored Auburn's contractual commitments to its football coaching staff, as well as the general trends in football coaches' buyout provisions nationally, in a story last week.  Here is an excerpt:

A June 2011 release by Win AD stated of the coaches who were dismissed in 2010 or 2011 with buyout clauses written into their contracts, 70 percent of those buyouts were based on their remaining total or base salary.

The other 30 percent were guaranteed a partial take on their full salary -- either a certain amount of money per month or year remaining on the contract, a percentage of the remaining base salary, or one year's total or base salary.

Read more here: http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/2012/11/21/2285781/auburn-football-a-lot-has-changed.html#storylink=cpy

You can check out the full story (including quotes from myself and Rick Karcher) by clicking here.