To the Editor:

After many years of participating in sports, watching sports, and teaching and writing about the history of sports in North America—and a long career as a professor of history—I believe that there is a great deal that can be done to improve the state of intercollegiate sports in the United States ("What the Hell Has Happened to College Sports?" The Chronicle, December 16).

First, end all athletics scholarships. Scholarships should be based on financial need only. There is system already in place to determine that. Athletics scholarships have made it possible for athletics departments and coaches to exert tremendous pressure on athletes. The present scholarship system has also had the unintended consequence of sending exactly the wrong message to parents, students, and administrators in America's secondary schools—that athletics is the way out of poverty for the disadvantaged and the pathway to a free or reduced educational cost for those of moderate or even significant wealth. But as anyone who has been paying attention knows, education is the way out of poverty, not sports. The number of professional athletes emerging from American colleges and universities is so small that it is statistically insignificant. While education is not a guarantee of later success in life, it provides a much more likely chance than does sport.

Second, students should be admitted to college because of their academic credentials, first and foremost. Other factors may come into play, but athletics achievement has a privileged status in the admissions process at nearly all colleges and universities, including those institutions that claim that they do not provide athletics scholarships. Real student-athletes will still populate colleges and universities, and those who attend to play first and learn second will be less common. There are plenty of student-athletes in the U.S.

Third, coaches should be paid in line with other faculty members, and their tenure should be based upon factors other than won-lost records. Graduation rates would be a start. In addition, faculty members in the athletics departments should be teaching all undergraduates, who should be required to take at least two semesters of physical education, unless there is a physical or other medical reason to exempt them from this requirement. Some of this instruction could be courses or minicourses in learning new sports and games. This could be a way to put a dent in the obesity problem in the U.S., which is chronic.

Fourth, destroy the myth that intercollegiate sports make money for the participating institutions. Anyone who has read William G. Bowen and James L. Shulman's The Game of Life knows this. Only a tiny fraction actually make money on sports; the rest lose millions. Recent increases in revenues generated by television and merchandise sales have merely raised the stakes and expenses of institutions trying to gain market share, while only a small number have actually achieved a profitable status. And that "profit" may well be a result of accounting practices, such as not counting the depreciation and upkeep of physical facilities against the bottom line.

Fifth, dispense completely with the idea of paying the athletes. Paying athletes would only make things worse, as will the NCAA's decision to award up to $2,000 in spending money to athletes. Much as I admire the work of Harry Edwards and some of the others advocating paying intercollegiate athletes, this is exactly the wrong direction. There will be more corruption, not less.

Sixth, dispense with the doomsday scenario that supporters of the current system—especially the media—proffer: that stadia will be empty, the quality of play will decline, etc. Intercollegiate sports filled stadia a century ago and will continue to do so. Fans will continue to watch games.

Seventh, shoot down the similar scenario concerning alumni and alumnae contributions—that they will fall off. As Bowen and Shulman show—with real research, not opinion—the majority of alums are in favor of less emphasis on sports, not more, and contributions increase when sport is de-emphasized.

Eighth, reassert the idea that sport itself is not inherently corrupt or out of place on college and university campuses, while simultaneously reaffirming the conviction that it is tangential to the central educational mission of any institution of higher learning.

None of this is very likely to happen. The NCAA is too wedded to the present system to clean up this mess. Furthermore, the myths of big money and profits persist in the face of hard empirical evidence to the contrary. It's a corrupt system, one that is enabled by a powerful combination of forces—the NCAA, boosters, television promoters, journalists, fans, and gamblers, among others. As in other eras when colleges and universities confronted problems with big-time sports getting out of control, it is up to the presidents and to resurgent and reassertive faculties to take control of their institutions. Until that happens, we can expect to see more and more revelations such as those of the past few years. It may get substantially worse before it gets better.

Harvey Green
Professor of History
Northeastern University
Boston