Search News


Browse Archives

News

When Football Numbers Don't Add Up

January 24, 2007

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

At Minnesota’s Hibbing Community College, football stats tell a tale but, as surely as looking at rushing yards without passing could slant any analysis, here too are numbers most meaningful when read in formation:

  • The average grade point average for football players at Hibbing over the past five years has been 1.81, compared to the 2.67 average boasted by students on Hibbing’s other six sports teams.
  • 90 percent of Hibbing’s football players enroll in at least one remedial course – while the percentage of students on other teams doing remedial coursework ranges from 6 percent (golf) to 61 percent (men’s basketball).
  • About 90 percent of the 63 football players come from out-of-state – from Michigan, Ohio, Florida, South Carolina, even Texas, the provost said – while by and large, the balance of Hibbing Community College’s 1,200-student population hails from, not surprisingly, the local community.
  • Just 4 to 5 percent of individuals in that northeastern Minnesota community are people of color, said Ken Simberg, the provost – while the football coach estimates that the team’s African-American representation averages around 80 percent.

Hibbing’s administration took a good, hard look at those numbers and drew one obvious conclusion: Although the small college might sacrifice its diversity, and risk a serious hit on its enrollment figures, academics are paramount and football has got to go – at least for awhile. “We’re concerned that the players aren’t benefiting by being here, that academics isn’t a priority,” said Simberg, who explained that the administration has recommended a suspension and expects to make a final decision by next week. Two forums on the subject -- one announcing the deliberations to faculty, and another seeking public input -- were held last Tuesday and Thursday.

But another obvious conclusion that could be drawn is that these football players – largely out-of-state students who lack the grades and scores to get into four-year colleges – come to Hibbing because they see a place to play ball. Given their prior academic records and motivations for coming, their poor classroom performance is not surprising, and arguably for an open-access institution a situation worthy of greater intervention and stricter eligibility standards for athletes, not suspension.

"It sounds like Hibbing is blaming the student athletes for not doing the work as opposed to the system that sounds like it was set up to bring in very marginal students who overwhelmingly require that mediation," said Richard Lapchick, chair of the DeVos Sport Business Management Program at the University of Central Florida and director of the Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport. Suspending the team, Lapchick said, "seems counterproductive to ever having the possibility of having student athletes."

Yet, Hibbing’s administration argues that the status quo, with dozens of students coming to the college for love of the game and distaste for the classroom, has got to stop. Students are coming and going ill-prepared, first bound for Hibbing's classrooms, and then for the world of work, saddled with loans and little academic progress to show for them. And Simberg stressed that the opportunity for these students at Hibbing will always remain – in the academic sphere. “That’s where we want to see the importance placed.”

“I am recommending a suspension because I do think that we need to take the time to look at this from a lot of different angles,” he said. The length, or finality, of a potential suspension hasn't been determined yet. The program, if suspended, may not ever return, he said. Or it may return, at some undetermined point, fundamentally changed: “What changes can we make where we aren’t in the situation where we are now, that situation being that the majority of the students on our football program are not maintaining satisfactory academic progress according to our policy?”

Kurt Zuidmulder, the head football coach, said that students must complete a total of 24 credits with at least a 2.0 average to return to play sophomore year. Although only 5 of 63 players were sophomores this year, he said that’s a down year for a team with a 37 percent retention rate. “Basically, if you look at why these kids come here, yes they want to play football. . .but for one reason or another, possibly a low ACT score, poor grades, it stopped them from going to a four-year school after high school. I feel as a junior college, it’s our job to give those kids a second chance to get those grades and move on.”

“As recently as last year,” he added, “we had 16 of 18 sophomores that were given scholarship opportunities [to transfer to four-year schools] that they wouldn’t have had if they hadn’t come here.” Without football, he said, most of these students wouldn’t be coming to Hibbing at all, and if football is their carrot, so be it. “I believe that football is the avenue and their motivating factor to get an education. Without this opportunity, I don’t see these kids making it a priority to work on their education,” he said. “If, through the positive efforts of not only the football program, but also the tutors, the counselors, and the advisors. . .if they use those avenues and come out of here with an education, that’s great.”

But academics aside, Hibbing’s football team has at times been a controversial presence in small-town Minnesota. When three current players and one former one were arrested in October in connection with the alleged gang rape of an 18-year-old high school senior in a college residence hall, it stirred memories of a town that has at times over the past 15 years been shaken by racial tensions and mistrust, as The Star Tribune reported.  Among the incidents reported by the paper are attacks against black athletes, racist threats and suspicions that players were guilty of rape. The out-of-state recruitment has been a source of tension not just at Hibbing, The Star Tribune reported, but also at nearby Mesabi and Vermillion community colleges.

Simberg stressed that the decision to potentially suspend the team is not a result of the alleged October rape. And while Zuidmulder said he doesn't know if the town’s racial tensions were a factor in setting the stage for the proposed suspension, he thinks the situation needs to be scrutinized.

Hibbing’s mayor, Rick Wolff, said the mostly white, 16,500-person town will suffer a big setback if the football players stop coming, as about 60 to 70 percent of the town’s diversity comes from the college. “If the football team is suspended, something will be lost,” he said. But ultimately, Wolff respects the administration’s responsibility to safeguard the college’s academics. “First and foremost, I think the college is an academic institution,” he said. “The number one concern that they have to have as administrators of that university is the academic performance of students. It’s supported by tax dollars, and if the people who are attending aren’t getting an adequate education, there’s a problem with it being funded by tax dollars.”

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on When Football Numbers Don't Add Up

  • Posted by george Dehne on January 24, 2007 at 9:30am EST
  • From your email alert this a.m.

    it considers killing the team.

    Isn't killing the team a bit extreme. They probably should just cancel the program. It will save on legal bills.

    (just kidding)

  • Another option
  • Posted by Lou Reibling , Retired V/P at Schoolcraft on January 24, 2007 at 10:20am EST
  • Our college had a similar problem in basketball. We established a student Athlete Support System. requiring the faculty each week to comment to the Athletic Director on the athletes academic progress. If progress was not deemed appropriate, the athlete was not to practice or play. Also the coaches of the seven sports were given bonuses based on both their won/loss record but also their teams GPA.

  • Numbers Not Likely to Add Up at Big-Time Schools
  • Posted by Frank G. Splitt , Member at The Drake Group on January 24, 2007 at 12:35pm EST
  • With reference to Elizabeth Redden's "When Football Numbers Don’t Add Up," [http://insidehighered.com/news/2007/01/24/hibbing], Minnesota's Hibbing Community College football records can also tell a tale about big-time college football and men's basketball programs across the nation. Most of these NCAA Div I schools have sports programs that are supported by wealthy boosters (with many sitting on school governing boards). Unlike Hibbling, these colleges and universities are able to invest millions of dollars to provide cover for academic corruption that enables the recruitment and retention of academically unqualified athletes. It's simply a cost of doing business.

    Here, the tax-exempt status of the NCAA cartel is illuminating. The core issue surrounding the NCAA's tax-exempt status (and its so-called ‘student-athletes') is this: lacking tangible and verifiable evidence, the government must presently take the word of school administrators that the athletes working for ‘million-dollar,’ celebrity and other big-time coaches are really students on track to receive a bona fide, rather than a “pretend” college education.

    Course tracks for many athletes that must pretend to be students are usually engineered by academic support center staff members who work at the behest of the school’s athletic department. This is a blatant conflict of interest and a surefire recipe for academic corruption since the primary motivation for the athletic department is not education, but winning and revenue generation. As Walter Byers, who served as NCAA executive director from 1951 to 1987, said when speaking of a college’s reporting on the necessary progress that has been made on the rehabilitation of at-risk high school graduates: “Believe me, there is a course, a grade, and a degree out there for everyone.” What he didn't say is that money can help make football (and men's basketball) academic numbers add up.

    As incredible as it may seem, without transparency, oversight and accountability mechanisms, the government is in a position where it must trust schools that, in many instances, give every appearance of not only being secretive, but untrustworthy as well. Most likely, the direct-study fiasco at Auburn University (exposed by The New York Times' Pete Thamel) is simply representative of what’s going on in big-time college sports – the tip of an iceberg of widespread academic corruption in big-time schools.

    Besides the potential loss of sports revenues and publicity, there is a compelling need for some schools to report very high graduation rates to justify/rationalize their high-profile programs and their extraordinary investments in staff and facilities for alternative education programs for their athletes -- undermining academic standards and corrupting behavior in the school as a whole.

    The above, combined with self assessment and reporting, as well as weak enforcement, and even weaker penalties for infractions, provide an enormous incentive for these and other less conflicted schools to scheme and cheat. After all, the schools apparently believe that it’s only wrong if they get caught. But, who’s going to catch them and what’s to lose if they do get caught?

    Many school officials seem to believe that outcomes assessment is none of the government’s business and are quick to appeal to privacy provisions of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) to avoid disclosure, especially in the case of the academic performance of the athletes in their moneymaking sports programs. However, FERPA’s privacy provisions do not apply so long as individual students are not identified in aggregated data.

    Congress should hold the NCAA (and its member institutions) accountable for the substantial financial support received from America’s taxpayers by conditioning the continuation of the NCAA's tax-exempt status on the NCAA meeting specific requirements aimed at increasing the transparency, accountability and oversight of its operations.

    A big first step in this direction would be disclosure of courses taken by FERPA compliant cohorts representing 50% of their member school’s football and basketball team players with the most playing time, the average grades for the athletes and the average grades for all students in those courses, the names of advisors and professors who teach those courses, and whole-period class attendance records.

    It would come as no surprise to find that such records would bear a striking resemblance to those obtained from Minnesota's Hibbing Community College -- signalling an urgent need to reconnect athletics with the academic objectives of America's institutions of higher education.

  • Posted by Jim on January 24, 2007 at 1:25pm EST
  • I would like to repeat one paragraph from above:

    Yet, Hibbing’s administration argues that the status quo, with dozens of students coming to the college for love of the game and distaste for the classroom, has got to stop. Students are coming and going ill-prepared, first bound for Hibbing’s classrooms, and then for the world of work, saddled with loans and little academic progress to show for them. And Simberg stressed that the opportunity for these students at Hibbing will always remain – in the academic sphere. “That’s where we want to see the importance placed.”

    This isn't just a problem for Hibbing Community College, I believe that this is a problem for any college that admits marginal students, for whatever reason: sports, diversity, equality, etc.

    When you admit a student you are telling that student: You are qualified to be here.
    If you admit a student, a college/university should provide that student with all the tools for success: financial aid to meet need, books to study, tutors if required, remedial courses if necessary,etc,etc,etc.

    If a college/univeristy does the above and a student stills fails, then the problem will be the students not the college or univeristy. As all of our students are adults and have choice, the choice to succeed or fail.

    Far to often, marignal academic students are admitted and then left to flounder, and then true to the prediction, they fail. Today failure is expensive in the forms of poor job/knowledge skills and high student debt, which usually goes unpaid.

    So, is it worth admitting marginal academic students? Is it worth expending all the necessary resources required to make these students successful?

    These are ethical questions, that go way past a sports question. These questions are the "tough" ones that need to be answered, not be admissions, but by the governing boards of any college/univerity. If a marignal acdemic student is admitted, this student should be required to put academic "first" as that is the purpose of college/university.

    Good luck with this.

  • Questions
  • Posted by Tim Lacy on January 24, 2007 at 6:45pm EST
  • This is such a sad situation. Unfortunately, through no fault of Ms. Redden's, her story raises more questions than it answers:

    1. Are the problematic circumstances of Hibbing football players problems similar? In other words, can officials truly generalize from a trend/s?
    2. How thorough is Hibbing's academic support system? Have they done all that can be reasonably expected to help their athletes academically?
    3. Couldn't Hibbing simply raise the academic admissions standards for football players?
    4. Does the team's average gpa problem arise from two nodes of extremes, or are they all consistently low?
    5. Does the team participate in community-outreach activities? Does Hibbing do anything pro-active to fight racism and stereotypes of non-whites?
    6. Is Hibbing's curriculum engaging, are all of its professors and instructors master teachers? What's the average Hibbing graduate look like?
    7. Are there enough adequate extracurricular activities?

    In the final analysis, although students are obviously responsible for their individual behavior, in cases like this I believe the school has to be blamed. Hibbing admitted the students, and probably even recruited many of them. Once they're on campus, it's the school's job to engage them to the maximum. - TL

  • . . . but seriously folks
  • Posted by Dr. F. Gump on January 24, 2007 at 8:01pm EST
  • Mr. Lacy et al.,

    Student athletes generally work 25 - 45 hours per week, especially in football and basketball (chief revenue producers, chief PR teams for the institutions). A few learn to study while on the bus and in the locker room on game day, but most study playbooks until all hours.

    Mandatory training and conditioning sessions, motivational meetings by coaches, viewing previous game tapes/films, the latest play revisions handed out at mandatory "study hall," and a bevy of fans ready to help with homework. Sounds like a recipe for disaster.

    Study the past ten years college basketball and football champions, ask them all to take the GRE or review their MCAT or other professional school pre-entrance exams; nobody here seriously believes that athletes will score in the top 10% - how could they? These top athletes have not really been students - they have been working for the college or university; at slave wages or for a "scholarship" that most couldn't really use.

    Imagine another future: 2095 is the year, Cal State Technical College is facing Houston Community College in the Rose Bowl for the national college championship.

    After three grueling years of auto shop or computer repair, many of these players will soon be drafted into the NFL as top professional athletes (or have to apply to a four year college and settle for a more normal existence).

    No adoring fans, just a shot at teaching or maybe if they're lucky - an 8 to 5 banking job or a boring career in law.

    Some high school athletes may actually skip Jr. College because they recognize that the odds are so low a 2 - 3 year JuCo experience will get them into the pros; and besides, some of them have discovered that they actually like to read, research complex issues, and do math. Ahhhh 2095, perhaps a brave new world?

  • What is really needed ..
  • Posted by C. Bigsby on January 24, 2007 at 8:01pm EST
  • " .. an urgent need to reconnect athletics with the academic objectives of America’s institutions of higher education."

    .. is for The Drake Group, if it thinks it knows so much about running colleges, is to take their pension funds and start their own colleges.

    Since they know so much more than everyone else, their colleges will become wildly successful and bankrupt 'Bama, Texas, Michigan, Georgia, et al.

    Wouldn't that be a better outcome than trying to persuade the beer-soaked to change D-1? Go ahead -- show the great unwashed how to run a college. We can't wait to see this great thing get started.

  • Hibbing - I went there
  • Posted by C. Roenfeldt on January 25, 2007 at 4:30am EST
  • I attended Hibbing and with that in mind, I think the school is correct to can the team. There is too much time spent at "the cabin" with a can of beer in hand! The "team" is probably being "given" the 1.6 gpa at that. Range kids are basically great kids and I believe the "outsiders" are causing lots of the conflict between races. And it is probably the white outsiders (of which I am one) Oh, by the way, I too WAS an "outsider".

  • Open Admission at Minnesota CC's
  • Posted by MeanJoeGreen on January 31, 2007 at 2:30pm EST
  • The state of Minnesota mandates that all community colleges have open admission to any student who has a high school diploma. What I don't understand is, just because a student must, by law, be allowed to attend Hibbing Communitty College, surely all admitted students don't need to be labelled as athletically eligible. Couldn't they at least set a minimum ACT score for Freshman athletic eligibility? Like an ACT score of 15? (Wikipedia says this is the 13th percentile - 87% of ACT test takers score at or above 15 and 13% of ACT test takers score lower than 15) Sounds like most of the students can't manage Sophomore eligibility due to Freshman year grades...