SHARE

Diversifying Through Football

January 11, 2008

You'd be hard pressed to find a college or university now that has not made the ethnic and socioeconomic diversification of its student body a high priority. Institutions have stepped up their recruitment efforts, reaching out more aggressively to students from underrepresented racial and other groups, expanding their financial aid offerings to low-income students, and bolstering as well their strategies for retaining academically underprepared students. Gone, presumably, are the days when the primary way an African American male could catch the eye of a college was with a sweet jump shot or throwing a football 60 yards.

Right? Not so fast.

Data drawn from the National Collegiate Athletic Association's annual survey of graduation rates, analyzed by Inside Higher Ed, show that scholarship athletes make up at least 20 percent of the full-time black male undergraduates at 96 of the nearly 330 colleges that play sports in Division I, the NCAA's top competitive level. At 46 of those colleges, according to the data, which are from 2005-6, at least a third of the black male population play a sport. And at 31 one of them, football players alone make up at least a quarter of the black undergraduate men.

All told, male athletes make up about 3 percent of full-time male students at Division I institutions.

The trend is most evident at two types of institutions. The first is public universities in states with relatively small black populations, where the institutions recruit more or less locally or regionally for their general student bodies, but participate in the national recruitment system that has grown up around big-time sports over decades. So state universities like Boise State University (where 34 of the 92 full-time black male undergraduates in 2005-6 were athletes), Montana State University (35 of 40), and Western Carolina University (77 of 211) jump out. Yet the proportions can also be surprisingly high at major public universities in states with sizable black populations, such as the University of Georgia, (21 percent), and the University of Colorado at Boulder (28 percent).

The other category of colleges where the proportions of black athletes are highest is private institutions, mostly those that have selective admission standards and are small compared to other sports powers, yet still try to compete with the big boys. This includes institutions like Northwestern University (where 43 of the 163 full-time black male undergraduates are athletes), Lehigh (31 of 78), Rice (47 of 99) and Wake Forest (69 of 128) Universities, and the University of Tulsa (68 of 95), among others. (One other group of selective private institutions that competes in Division I -- those in the Ivy League -- are excluded from the data below because the NCAA collects information only about scholarship athletes, and the Ivies do not award sports scholarships. The same is true of the U.S. military academies.)

The question of what it means for these colleges (and for their students) if their ratios of black male athletes to black male students are high is a complex and contested one. Officials at many of the institutions where the proportions are high said almost to a one that they would like their proportions (of athletes to students) to be lower and that they were working hard to step up their recruitment and retention of black (and other minority) students generally -- in some cases mirroring strategies athletics departments have perfected.

Some argue that their institutions should be judged not on the relative number of black athletes and other students they are bringing to their campuses, but on how successfully they are educating and graduating those students -- and most, not surprisingly, said they are doing a good job.

But some advocates for minority students are troubled when they look at the numbers, which they say suggest that some colleges are more interested in recruiting black men with exceptional athletic talent than they are mere hard-working students. "It's absolutely shameful that these institutions obviously could do such a great job of expending the effort to recruit black male athletes but can't seem to get their arms around the recruitment of other black male students," says Shaun R. Harper, an assistant professor in the University of Pennsylvania's Graduate School of Education.

"At a lot of institutions," he says, "there's a very limited expenditure of effort" toward recruiting black students generally, there's no strategy, there are no real goals that are written down. Yet when it comes to the recruitment of black male athletes, all those things are in place. It's hard not to think that that's because they're interested in winning, so they're going to put forth the effort to recruit students who will enable them to win."

Adds Kevin Carey, research and policy manager at Education Sector, an education think tank: "If a very large percentage of your students of color are athletes, what that suggests is that you’re using your athletics program as a proxy for achieving your diversity goals. That's different from an institution that both pursues its athletics goals and also tries to recruit and retain significant numbers of students of color who are aren’t athletes."

*****

Data showing low enrollments of black male students are unlikely to shock anyone who's been paying attention in higher education; the most recent national data, from 2004, show African Americans making up 11.7 percent of all undergraduates in American colleges and about 9.5 percent of undergraduate men, slightly less than their representation in the U.S. population generally. Black students are disproportionately overrepresented, as well, at historically black universities and community colleges. So given that context, the fact that the latest NCAA statistics show that 9.4 percent of male students at Division I campuses are black is not surprising.

But when the data are unpacked by individual college, and contrasted to the number and proportion of black athletes on those campuses, the results can be eye-popping and raise some interesting issues, for athletics departments, for specific colleges, and for higher education as a whole. Some of the issues differ depending on the type of institutions. At public universities where the numbers are starkest -- where many or even most of the black male students are athletes -- the situation arises in part because the institutions recruit nationally for athletes, but draw students generally almost entirely from their states, which may have relatively few minority citizens.

At the University of Nevada at Reno, for example, 63 of the 99 full-time black male undergraduates on the campus in 2005-6 were athletes, and 57 of them were football players. Officials there note that the undergraduate student body is representative of the black population in the northern Nevada region that the university serves. The local county high school district from which Reno draws 50 percent of its enrollment graduated all of 70 black students (of a total of 2,800 graduates) in 2005, says Melisa Choroszy, associate vice president for enrollment services at Nevada. And only 35-40 percent of them meet the university's admissions standards, she says.

Between half and two-thirds of the university's scholarship athletes, on the other hand, are from out of state, says Sandie Niedergall, director of compliance services in Nevada's athletics department.

"One of the great things that athletics is able to do is to seek out talent in a geographic way across the country that we don't have as much of an option to do because of financial constraints," says Choroszy. "Athletics is able to help us with the greater diversity picture we strive for."

The University of Oregon faces a similar situation. The state's African American population hovers in the 2 percent range, as does the black proportion of the undergraduate student body at the university. Of the 137 black undergrads on the campus in 2005-6, 48 (or 35 percent) were scholarship athletes and 38 played football on Oregon's team, which this year ranked among the nation's best.

"From the data, it seems obvious that lots of African-American male students see athletics as a major pathway to college," says Charles Martinez, vice provost for institutional equity and diversity at Oregon. The challenge, he says, "is not to have a reliance on a single pathway" for first generation, low-income, or minority students. "Higher education is just coming around to the realization that for effective outreach [to underrepresented students], we can’t start in high school. That's something that athletics [departments] figured out a long time ago."

The Picture at Private Colleges

At the selective private universities that try to compete in football and basketball in the stratosphere of Division I, the issues are slightly different. Most of them have significantly smaller student bodies than their public university peers, so if they sponsor football teams, and recruit meaningful numbers of black athletes to populate them, the black players will tend to skew their overall black enrollment numbers more than would be true at a larger institution.

In addition, the admission standards at many of the selective private institutions are such that the pools of African American students who qualify academically are relatively small, especially if the institutions lean significantly on standardized test scores. Most selective colleges and universities tend to bend their admissions standards more (proportionally) for athletes than they do for other categories of students, though officials at the colleges steadfastly reject the notion that they are doing a disservice to the athletes, or to their institutions, by opening their doors to them -- far from it.

"In our case, black male student athletes graduate at a higher rate than our black male students," said David Shi, president of Furman University, where 46 of the 77 full-time black male undergraduates in 2005-6 were athletes, and fully half played football. "We have never had a problem with the academic performance of our football players in general, much less our African-American football players. We've had the good fortune of being able to recruit some very high performing student athletes and not feel worried that somehow we’re compromising the integrity of the institution."

Shi bristles at the assertion that athletes make up a large proportion of Furman's black male students creates equity or other issues, not only because they succeed academically but because they are so well incorporated into the campus. "We do not have distinctively different cultures, there is no separate athletic dorm, so the fact that an African American student is here on a football scholarship does not in any way diminish their contribution to the institution. They are terrific role models not only as athletes but as students and as citizens."

Other college officials and most experts on campus diversity agree that one important part of the equation in assessing the relative representation of black athletes and other students is how well they fare academically and otherwise. "I would want to look at this as an opportunity -- these students have excelled at something that gave them an opportunity to go to college," says Ross Wiener, who heads the policy team at Education Trust, which promotes educational equity for low-income and minority students.

"The key question is whether that promise is kept -- whether they are just supported as athletes, or whether they also get supported as students. That probably varies from place to place. If the athletic achievement has opened up doors to these whole other world for these students, that's great. But if not, if the universities use them as athletes or ignore them as students, that's a different story."

That picture will vary by institution, but the NCAA's aggregate data show that black male athletes in Division I graduate at a higher rate than do all black male students at Division I colleges (48 percent to 37 percent in the association's most recent report). "At the end of the day, the goal of higher education is to provide a degree to as many students as possible," says Charlotte Westerhaus, vice president for diversity and inclusion at the NCAA. "The reason I am not troubled by these numbers is that these student athletes are graduating at a very high rate."

(Comparisons of graduation rates for scholarship athletes and for all other students, regardless of race, must take into account two facts: that athletes are generally shielded from the financial difficulties that force many normal students -- especially those from underrepresented groups -- off track for graduation, and that athletes tend to benefit from exceptional levels of academic support from their athletics departments.)

Some campus administrators say they recognize the possibility that having a large number of their black male students be athletes can diminish the experience for black students, especially if the athletes aren't integrated into campus life. At Nevada, "we make tremendous efforts to make sure that the student athletes are part and parcel of the population on campus," says Reginald Chhen Stewart, director of the Center for Student Cultural Diversity there. "The coaches gave them release time from [team meetings] to attend the [Black Student Organization] meetings so that they were integrated," for example.

Stewart acknowledges, though, that having many or most of an institution's black men be athletes can add to a stereotype that has long plagued black men on college campuses. "It's just one of the ills of higher education that people assume if you're a black man on campus that you're an athlete," he says.

He and other campus officials say that, ironically, colleges may begin to break down that perception by borrowing some of the tactics that athletics departments have long embraced and using them to bolster their recruitment of black and other minority students who aren't athletes.

"Coaches have been doing it a long time, and we might learn from them," says Paul Orehovec, vice president for enrollment management and continuing studies at the University of Miami, where athletes make up 26 percent of the university's black male undergrads. "I see my role and my staff's role as beating the bushes in any way we can to recruit good black students, and we've begun walking the halls of some of the predominantly black schools" like coaches have been doing for years.

The university has begun working with the principal and other top officials at Miami's inner-city Northwestern High School -- whose football team was ranked among the nation's best by USA Today -- to recruit students, not athletes. Miami hosts a dinner on its campus for the school's top-ranked students, and has been driving home the message that "if they meet the academic qualifications, there will be financial aid available to them."

Harper, the Penn professor who last year studied the state of black male students at public flagship universities for the Dellums Commission, agrees that there are possibilities for university admissions officers to learn from sports recruiters. "They should be saying, Wow, you guys seem to be particularly good at recruiting this particular population that is otherwise missing from the campus. Is there something we can learn from your approach." Coaches "go to a kid's house, sit in his living room with his parents, and the parents get excited and the kids get excited." He wonders if campus recruiters couldn't do the same, though he acknowledges that such an approach would only work if the black male non-athletes had "advocates" with as much sway in the admissions office as top coaches tend to have.

But Harper believes that colleges and universities need to do much more to prove that they are as willing and able to recruit, enroll and graduate black male students who can't dunk a basketball. More aggressive outreach, recruitment and financial aid efforts aimed at black male students are a must, but he would go further.

In his paper last year, he wrote that the the "NCAA should consider a policy requiring that racial representation on any sports team should minimally correspond to a certain percentage of undergraduate student enrollments at the institution. For example, if black males comprise four percent of the undergraduate students on a campus, their representation on an intercollegiate sports team should not be permitted to exceed a certain percentage (e.g., 20 percent, which would be five times more than black men in the general student population). The introduction of this policy will surely compel university admissions officers to more aggressively recruit black male students who are not brought to the institution to play sports."

While such a policy is a long shot, even some campus officials who say they're doing everything they can to bolster their minority enrollments admit that data like the ones below can prove a useful stimulant.

"Numbers like this just keep us honest," says Stewart of at Nevada-Reno. "It's all part of the business of education. Sometimes the numbers look really outstanding, and sometimes they show you what you need to work on."

Numbers and Proportions of Black Male Students and Athletes at Division I Colleges, 2005-6

 

Institution Number of Male Students Number of Black Male Students % of Male Students Who Are Black Number of Black Male Athletes % of Black Male Students Who Are Athletes Number of Black Male Football Players Number of Male Athletes
Alabama A&M U       1,984            1,904            96%            122            6%            72            139      
Alabama State U       1,598            1,556            97%            129            8%            64            144      
Alcorn State U       1,029            951            92%            121            13%            71            144      
American U       2,114            102            5%            8            8%            0            72      
Appalachian State U       6,131            219            4%            63            29%            36            200      
Arizona State U       23,007            827            4%            49            6%            38            190      
Arkansas State U       2,971            444            15%            75            17%            56            163      
Auburn U       8,975            669            7%            78            12%            58            213      
Austin Peay State U       2,327            365            16%            13            4%            0            67      
Ball State U       7,389            340            5%            49            14%            38            170      
Baylor U       4,878            321            7%            68            21%            49            163      
Belmont U       1,414            45            3%            7            16%            0            97      
Bethune-Cookman C       1,228            1,115            91%            131            12%            81            191      
Birmingham-Southern C       564            26            5%            10            38%            0            95      
Boise State U       5,005            92            2%            34            37%            25            165      
Boston College       4,506            261            6%            44            17%            33            146      
Boston U       7,097            167            2%            6            4%            0            99      
Bowling Green State U       6,676            493            7%            58            12%            49            179      
Bradley U       2,391            91            4%            11            12%            0            73      
Brigham Young U       13,837            73            1%            20            27%            16            256      
Brown U       2,737            166            6%            n/a            n/a            n/a            n/a      
Bucknell U       1,728            54            3%            17            31%            11            93      
Butler U       1,351            31            2%            2            6%            0            103      
California Poly State U San Luis Obispo       9,362            118            1%            37            31%            25            216      
California State U Long Beach       11,310            536            5%            23            4%            0            108      
California State U Fresno       7,268            399            5%            68            17%            45            201      
California State U Fullerton       8,932            335            4%            17           5%          0          109     
California State U Northridge      8,444          666          8%          30          5%          2          140     
California State U Sacramento      7,529          472          6%          40          8%          24         161    
Campbell U     1,172        87        7%        14        16%       0      110   
Canisius C    1,431      65      5%      5      8%     0    99  
Centenary C*   341    22    6%    8    36%    0    75  
Central Connecticut State U   3,648    313    9%    23    7%    15    97  
Central Michigan U   7,525    353    5%    62    18%    47    180  
Charleston Southern U   851    211    25%    52    25%    30    150  
Chicago State U   1,019    818    80%    24    3%    0    59  
Citadel   1,979    133    7%    61    46%    43    106  
Clemson U   7,596    474    6%    69    15%    48    233  
Cleveland State U   2,597    441    17%    20    5%    0    120  
Coastal Carolina U   2,937    352    12%    67    19%    50    206  
Colgate U   1,345    66    5%    31    47%    17    138  
C of Charleston   3,177    169    5%    8    5%    0    89  
C of the Holy Cross   1,267    53    4%    23    43%    18    90  
C of William and Mary   2,522    130    5%    32    25%    26    157  
Colorado State U   9,109    190    2%    51    27%    38    143  
Columbia U-Barnard C   3,641    193    5%    n/a    n/a    n/a    n/a  
Coppin State C   791    765    97%    43    6%    0    55  
Cornell U   6,762    236    3%    n/a    n/a    n/a    n/a  
Creighton U   1,500    42    3%    13    31%    0    115  
Dartmouth C   2,002    131    7%    n/a    n/a    n/a    n/a  
Davidson C   840    47    6%    1    2%    98    0  
Delaware State U   1,208    993    82%    100    10%    59    146  
DePaul U   4,884    305    6%    16    5%    0    82  
Drake U   1,255    44    4%    12    27%    0    77  
Drexel U   6,130    289    5%    12    4%    0    134  
Duke U   3,267    244    7%    53    22%    46    179  
Duquesne U   2,163    92    4%    11    12%    0    113  
East Carolina U   6,434    792    12%    77    10%    58    198  
East Tennessee State U   3,458    120    3%    19    16%    3    84  
Eastern Illinois U   4,029    277    7%    57    21%    35    211  
Eastern Kentucky U   4,249    203    5%    49    24%    37    141  
Eastern Michigan U   5,252    906    17%    60    7%    52    207  
Eastern Washington U   3,431    137    4%    25    18%    18    136  
Elon U   1,801    126    7%    50    40%    38    171  
Fairfield U   1,431    19    1%    7    37%    0    63  
Fairleigh Dickinson U Metro*   836    143    17%    17    12%    0    78  
Florida A&M U   3,922    3,689    94%    96    3%    53    104  
Florida Atlantic U   4,960    715    14%    61    9%    46    163  
Florida International U   7,686    981    13%    69    7%    50    159  
Florida State U   11,626    1,080    9%    85    8%    64    201  
Fordham U   2,854    141    5%    50    35%    34    170  
Furman U   1,172    77    7%    46    60%    38    168  
Gardner-Webb U   1,198    142    12%    45    32%    34    86  
George Mason U   6,434    392    6%    14    4%    0    99  
George Washington U   3,915    163    4%    12    7%    0    100  
Georgetown U   3,007    188    6%    35    19%    21    158  
Georgia Inst of Technology   7,860    500    6%    97    19%    68    227  
Georgia Southern U   6,609    1,349    20%    70    5%    51    167  
Georgia State U   5,327    1,178    22%    19    2%    0    100  
Gonzaga U   1,923    27    1%    4    15%    0    69  
Grambling State U   1,938    1,811    93%    122    7%    72    135  
Hampton U   1,922    1,781    93%    93    5%    60    99  
Harvard U   3,389    229    7%    n/a    n/a    n/a       
High Point U   943    146    15%    20    14%    0    35  
Hofstra U   3,675    315    9%    45    14%    35    200  
Howard U   2,539    2,186    86%    144    7%    86    154  
Idaho State U   2,985    65    2%    37    57%    30    128  
Illinois State U   7,015    341    5%    46    13%    33    170  
Indiana State U   3,440    367    11%    50    14%    36    141  
Indiana U Bloomington   13,371    536    4%    63    12%    41    240  
Indiana U.-Purdue U   3,027    124    4%    9    7%    0    93  
Indiana U-Purdue U-Indianapolis   5,084    398    8%    12    3%    0    83  
Iona C   1,420    102    7%    9    9%    0    91  
Iowa State U   10,895    310    3%    54    17%    41    159  
Jackson State U   2,148    2,047    95%    142    7%    76    150  
Jacksonville State U   2,537    609    24%    65    11%    50    153  
Jacksonville U   973    151    16%    8    5%    0    83  
James Madison U   5,780    204    4%    70    34%    58    154  
Kansas State U   11,350    370    3%    50    14%    35    172  
Kent State U   6,181    407    7%    66    16%    46    191  
La Salle U   1,486    112    8%    11    10%    0    110  
Lafayette C   1,198    71    6%    30    42%    26    94  
Lamar U   2,848    571    20%    16    3%    0    71  
Lehigh U   2,724    78    3%    31    40%    26    124  
Liberty U   4,802    492    10%    44    9%   31 164
Lipscomb U 899 38 4% 10 26% 0 91
Long Island U Brooklyn 1,268 410 32% 22 5% 0 80
Louisiana State U 11,359 791 7% 76 10% 56 195
Louisiana Tech U 3,931 539 14% 94 17% 64 172
Loyola College (Md) 1,472 55 4% 9 16% 0 72
Loyola Marymount U 2,206 128 6% 9 7% 0 78
Loyola U (Ill) 2,790 104 4% 15 14% 0 72
Manhattan C 1,381 25 2% 14 56% 0 110
Marist C 1,843 66 4% 10 15% 0 110
Marquette U 3,365 125 4% 8 6% 0 70
Marshall U 3,581 224 6% 58 26% 47 164
McNeese State U 2,636 469 18% 62 13% 45 161
Mercer U 1,217 183 15% 8 4% 0 83
Miami U 6,522 204 3% 38 19% 28 244
Michigan State U 14,755 1,005 7% 66 7% 45 254
Middle Tennessee State U 8,217 889 11% 87 10% 64 177
Mississippi State U 5,840 899 15% 91 10% 65 193
Mississippi Valley State U 800 735 92% 106 14% 71 128
Missouri State U 5,595 154 3% 44 29% 35 221
Monmouth U (NJ) 1,769 86 5% 23 27% 9 138
Montana State U Bozeman 4,995 40 1% 35 88% 28 133
Morehead State U 2,123 94 4% 10 11% 0 78
Morgan State U 2,205 2,043 93% 85 4% 54 92
Mount St. Mary's U 611 41 7% 19 46% 0 111
Murray State U 3,081 182 6% 52 29% 41 132
New Mexico 4,573 156 3% 50 32% 37 142
State U
Niagara U 1,123 43 4% 9 21% 0 96
Nicholls State U 1,981 327 17% 51 16% 43 128
Norfolk State U 1,681 1,518 90% 97 6% 60 134
North Carolina 4,210 3,876 92% 112 3% 65 122
A&T State U
North Carolina 10,901 854 8% 78 9% 56 217
State U
Northeastern U 7,209 343 5% 31 9% 23 165
Northern Arizona U 4,465 104 2% 27 26% 19 107
Northern Illinois U 7,950 763 10% 48 6% 37 198
Northwestern 2,077 614 30% 75 12% 50 147
State U
Northwestern U 4,787 163 3% 43 26% 38 197
Oakland U 3,681 248 7% 3 1% 0 45
Ohio State U 17,596 1,002 6% 63 6% 41 339
Ohio U 7,671 252 3% 44 17% 34 198
Oklahoma State U 8,645 299 3% 75 25% 61 202
Old Dominion U 4,501 792 18% 12 2% 0 98
Oral Roberts U 976 150 15% 16 11% 0 80
Oregon State U 7,260 122 2% 46 38% 35 191
Pennsylvania State U 18,013 590 3% 60 10% 44 290
Pepperdine U 1,128 70 6% 5 7% 0 68
Portland State U 5,025 193 4% 24 12% 18 86
Prairie View A&M U 2,615 2,408 92% 103 4% 65 121
Princeton U 2,548 175 7% n/a n/a n/a n/a
Providence C 1,693 25 1% 7 28% 0 78
Purdue U 17,790 548 3% 66 12% 47 222
Quinnipiac C 2,039 44 2% 4 9% 0 116
Radford U 3,344 187 6% 23 12% 0 94
Rice U 1,539 99 6% 47 47% 35 161
Rider U 1,493 124 8% 18 15% 0 135
Robert Morris U 1,759 134 8% 27 20% 11 139
Rutgers U 11,920 846 7% 89 11% 60 267
Sacred Heart U 1,478 72 5% 4 6% 4 37
Saint Francis C (Pa) 494 57 12% 28 49% 13 29
Saint Joseph's U (Pa) 1,988 64 3% 13 20% 0 130
Saint Louis U 3,193 131 4% 7 5% 0 82
Sam Houston State U 4,470 658 15% 59 9% 43 171
Samford U 976 61 6% 35 57% 30 148
San Diego State U 8,896 337 4% 49 15% 38 168
San Diego, U. of 1,888 50 3% 6 12% 0 69
San Jose State U. 8,424 428 5% 56 13% 46 161
Santa Clara U 1,995 52 3% 14 27% 0 101
Savannah State U 1,017 964 95% 66 7% 34 79
Seton Hall U 2,235 169 8% 16 9% 0 94
Siena C 1,322 25 2% 8 32% 0 106
South Carolina State U 1,582 1,545 98% 97 6% 74 107
Southeast Missouri 3,662 312 9% 59 19% 39 156
State U
Southeastern Louisiana U 4,548 661 15% 72 11% 48 170
Southern Illinois U Carbondale 8,355 1,237 15% 67 5% 48 184
Southern Methodist U 3,328 190 6% 61 32% 52 150
Southern U Baton Rouge 3,121 2,926 94% 144 5% 61 161
Southern Utah U 2,916 39 1% 17 44% 10 117
St. Bonaventure U 1,033 34 3% 4 12% 0 92
St. Francis College (NY) 1,078 163 15% 15 9% 0 74
St. John's U. (NY) 4,868 660 14% 15 2% 0 103
St. Mary's C 899 61 7% 11 18% 2 100
of California
St. Peter's C 911 202 22% 22 11% 0 83
Stanford U 3,436 335 10% 65 19% 39 366
State U of New York Albany 5,570 374 7% 19 5% 3 94
State U of New York Binghamton 5,551 192 3% 11 6% 0 125
State U of New York Buffalo 9,116 519 6% 63 12% 44 206
State U of New York Stony Brook 6,648 481 7% 19 4% 10 139
Stephen F. Austin State U 3,951 610 15% 62 10% 41 156
Stetson U 895 30 3% 9 30% 0 77
Syracuse U 5,294 277 5% 64 23% 52 172
Temple U 9,584 1,165 12% 72 6% 54 187
Tennessee State U 2,098 1,827 87% 75 4% 51 85
Tennessee Technological U 3,499 172 5% 45 26% 36 144
Texas A&M U College Station 18,402 443 2% 79 18% 59 237
Texas A&M U Corpus Christi 3,174 92 3% 16 17% 0 66
Texas Christian U 3,621 194 5% 59 30% 40 196
Texas Southern U 411 391 95% 126 32% 61 144
Texas State U 8,315 389 5% 67 17% 50 189
San Marcos
Texas Tech U 11,396 390 3% 68 17% 46 191
Towson U 4,791 410 9% 48 12% 37 173
Troy U 5,121 1,321 26% 82 6% 60 177
Tulane U**              
U of Akron 5,646 635 11% 56 9% 43 181
U of Alabama Birmingham 3,094 717 23% 82 11% 64 175
U of Alabama Tuscaloosa 7,421 667 9% 76 11% 56 198
U of Arizona 11,491 354 3% 56 16% 46 190
U of Arkansas Fayetteville 5,812 282 5% 76 27% 57 188
U of Arkansas Little Rock 2,242 537 24% 6 1% 0 17
U of Arkansas Pine Bluff 1,260 1,198 95% 86 7% 57 97
U of California Berkeley 10,816 292 3% 61 21% 41 267
U of California Los Angeles 10,794 311 3% 66 21% 44 257
U of California Riverside 6,496 297 5% 19 6% 0 102
U of California 8,080 177 2% 14 8% 0 171
Santa Barbara
U of California Irvine 9,507 184 2% 14 8% 0 154
U of Central Florida 12,819 893 7% 58 6% 46 188
U of Cincinnati 7,479 578 8% 67 12% 42 215
U of Colorado Boulder 12,433 228 2% 63 28% 49 160
U of Connecticut 7,131 367 5% 77 21% 53 182
U of Dayton 3,476 137 4% 11 8% 0 79
U of Delaware 6,259 320 5% 49 15% 38 239
U of Denver 2,081 27 1% 6 22% 0 119
U of Detroit Mercy 798 147 18% 19 13% 0 67
U of Evansville 869 18 2% 3 17% 0 77
U of Florida 14,615 1,075 7% 86 8% 59 236
U of Georgia 9,725 429 4% 88 21% 67 210
U of Hartford 2,345 205 9% 7 3% 0 59
U of Hawaii At Manoa 5,255 86 2% 24 28% 20 174
U of Houston 9,075 1,146 13% 79 7% 49 173
U of Idaho 4,562 61 1% 30 49% 26 125
U of Illinois Chicago 6,344 371 6% 22 6% 0 129
U of Illinois Urbana-Champaign 15,903 765 5% 63 8% 41 196
U of Iowa 8,441 187 2% 48 26% 39 244
U of Kansas 9,250 312 3% 64 21% 48 174
U of Kentucky 8,197 372 5% 64 17% 47 228
U of Louisiana Lafayette 5,282 815 15% 78 10% 54 188
U of Louisiana Monroe 2,368 559 24% 61 11% 45 163
U of Louisville 5,253 562 11% 74 13% 61 193
U of Maine Orono 3,849 56 1% 37 66% 30 159
U of Maryland College Park 11,738 1,230 10% 87 7% 64 270
U of Maryland Baltimore County 4,297 494 11% 20 4% 0 117
U of Maryland Eastern Shore 362 314 87% 4 1% 0 6
U of Massachusetts Amherst 9,079 387 4% 51 13% 39 212
U of Memphis 4,552 1,235 27% 85 7% 62 190
U of Miami 4,166 294 7% 76 26% 62 137
U of Michigan 12,028 716 6% 77 11% 55 268
U of Minnesota Twin Cities 12,277 553 5% 60 11% 37 279
U of Mississippi 5,138 498 10% 97 19% 64 185
U of Missouri Columbia 9,613 486 5% 73 15% 58 246
U of Missouri Kansas City 434 53 12% 14 26% 0 84
U of Montana 3,964 35 1% 19 54% 13 133
U of Nebraska Lincoln 8,339 184 2% 54 29% 34 231
U of Nevada Reno 4,600 99 2% 63 64% 57 192
U of Nevada Las Vegas 9,755 714 7% 58 8% 44 202
U of New Hampshire 4,533 83 2% 30 36% 24 74
U of New Mexico 6,277 217 3% 58 27% 39 193
U of New Orleans**              
U of North Carolina Asheville 1,311 29 2% 9 31% 0 75
U of North 3,367 453 13% 14 3% 0 98
Carolina Greensboro
U of North 4,025 166 4% 15 9% 0 126
Carolina Wilmington
U of North 6,582 540 8% 79 15% 60 269
Carolina Chapel Hill
U of North 6,440 637 10% 22 3% 0 100
Carolina Charlotte
U of North Texas 8,668 958 11% 65 7% 44 124
U of Northern Iowa 4,173 156 4% 45 29% 34 174
U of Notre Dame 4,393 158 4% 50 32% 41 241
U of Oklahoma 8,931 417 5% 83 20% 58 218
U of Oregon 7,063 137 2% 48 35% 38 155
U of Pennsylvania 1,257 66 5% n/a n/a n/a n/a
U of Pittsburgh 7,302 535 7% 76 14% 54 203
U of Portland 1,076 25 2% 9 36% 0 83
U of Rhode Island 4,251 210 5% 52 25% 35 160
U of Richmond 1,506 64 4% 23 36% 20 127
U of San Francisco 1,782 83 5% 13 16% 0 101
U of South Alabama 2,938 366 12% 17 5% 0 80
U of South Carolina Columbia 7,389 775 10% 81 10% 59 208
U of South Florida 9,728 982 10% 74 8% 56 176
U of Southern 7,788 384 5% 65 17% 47 213
California
U of Southern 4,248 1,010 24% 88 9% 66 168
Mississippi
U of Tennessee Chattanooga 2,771 494 18% 66 13% 54 151
U of Tennessee Martin 2,203 290 13% 53 18% 41 142
U of Tennessee Knoxville 9,444 678 7% 76 11% 53 196
U of Texas Arlington 6,457 666 10% 23 3% 0 100
U of Texas Austin 15,689 541 3% 65 12% 51 216
U of Texas El Paso 4,999 166 3% 50 30% 40 117
U of Texas San Antonio 8,448 578 7% 18 3% 0 87
U of Texas Pan American 6,953 30 0% 5 17% 0 60
U of the Pacific              
U of Toledo 6,314 661 10% 50 8% 39 154
U of Tulsa 1,332 95 7% 68 72% 49 160
U of Utah 8,601 66 1% 5 8% 4 26
U of Vermont 3,832 38 1% 4 11% 0 110
U of Virginia 6,029 461 8% 66 14% 47 241
U of Washington 11,163 328 3% 49 15% 39 217
U of Wisconsin 1,572 20 1% 8 40% 0 94
Green Bay
U of Wisconsin 12,609 324 3% 63 19% 48 234
Madison
U of Wisconsin 8,719 419 5% 10 2% 0 105
Milwaukee
U of Wyoming 3,853 55 1% 34 62% 24 172
US Air Force Academy 3,612 139 4% n/a n/a n/a n/a
US Military Academy 3,601 186 5% n/a n/a n/a n/a
US Naval Academy 3,646 223 6% n/a n/a n/a n/a
Utah State U 5,418 53 1% 31 58% 23 107
Valparaiso U 1,369 54 4% 4 7% 0 80
Vanderbilt U 3,016 201 7% 61 30% 49 154
Villanova U 3,159 115 4% 50 43% 32 143
Virginia Commonwealth U 6,436 957 15% 20 2% 0 68
Virginia Military Inst 1,265 66 5% 45 68% 29 151
Virginia Tech 12,276 590 5% 69 12% 56 200
Wagner C 692 64 9% 24 38% 15 115
Wake Forest U 2,021 128 6% 69 54% 53 186
Washington State U 8,213 238 3% 58 24% 41 190
Weber State U 4,626 68 1% 33 49% 26 164
West Virginia U 9,985 366 4% 53 14% 47 176
Western 2,960 211 7% 77 36% 54 175
Carolina U
Western 5,327 322 6% 48 15% 38 189
Illinois U
Western 5,581 393 7% 49 12% 33 188
Kentucky U
Western 9,240 421 5% 37 9% 31 175
Michigan U
Wichita State U 3,082 155 5% 13 8% 0 110
Winthrop U 1,423 353 25% 22 6% 0 112
Wofford C 177 12 7% 4 33% 4 36
Wright State U 5,365 511 10% 11 2% 0 91
Xavier U 1,475 102 7% 11 11% 0 95
Yale U 2,720 193 7% n/a n/a n/a n/a
Youngstown State U 4,227 392 9% 39 10% 29 144

*These institutions provided incomplete data on undergraduate enrollment to the NCAA.

**These institutions did not report information in most categories because of damage from Hurricane Katrina.

The eight Ivy League colleges and the U.S. service academies did not report data for athletes because they do not offer athletics scholarships.

 

 

Most:

  • Viewed
  • Commented
  • Past:
  • Day
  • Week
  • Month
  • Year
Loading results...
Back to Top