An update on the tail wagging the dog

Two recent developments in the world of collegiate athletics have cast a new light on the "front porch" theory of big-time sports, which I first wrote about several months ago, and I felt compelled to write this post as an update. As a reminder,

At the University of Florida, one of the largest and most successful programs, spending on athletics increased 6% last year even while the university was forced to slash budgets elsewhere--a total of 139 faculty and staff members have been laid off since 2007.

The reason, university officials say, is that the emphasis on sports pays off: athletics serve as the “front porch” of a university, a powerful marketing tool that generates free advertising on ESPN and the sports pages.

But economists have found it difficult to quantify a link between investing in a high-profile athletic program and reaping presumed benefits, like alumni donations or higher application rates. “If there’s any effect, it’s a blip: it doesn’t persist,” said Jonathan Orszag, an economist who has evaluated such issues for the NCAA.

I'd be interested to see more research on this effect, since I've seen anecdotal evidence on both sides. Schools like Boston College, Virginia Tech, and Southern Cal saw their national profile--and USNews rankings--skyrocket after their football teams became successful. But other schools--Oregon State and Oklahoma State immediately come to mind--have invested massively in athletics but not seen the commensurate bump in rankings.

Regardless of Mr. Orszag's skepticism, schools like the University of Florida have continued to invest massively in their bigger sports, and recent reports have indicated that they've been willing to make other compromises as well in order to ensure athletic prowess. USA Today (and HBO Sports) noted that Florida football players had been arrested more than 30 times during head coach Urban Meyer's tenure, an eye-popping statistic that cast doubt on whether Florida was looking the other way on the caliber of person it was admitting to its program. For many, it was an indication of a win-at-all-costs mentality that was endorsed and condoned at the highest levels of university management.

That dynamic was further investigated by a Sports Illustrated/CBS News report last week, which indicated that the problem was incredibly widespread.

The number of players with criminal histories turned up by the SI/CBS News investigation reinforces a pervasive assumption that college coaches are willing to recruit players with questionable pasts to win. More surprising, however, is just how little digging college coaches do into players' backgrounds before offering them a scholarship.

Among the 25 schools in the investigation, only two -- TCU and Oklahoma -- perform any type of regular criminal background searches on recruits. But even TCU and Oklahoma don't look at juvenile records. No school does, even though football and basketball players are among the most high-profile representatives of a university. (Of the 25 schools, only Virginia Tech did any type of background checks on admitted students, and admissions questionnaires at more than half the other universities ask applicants if they have ever been arrested.)

No sooner had this report been published than a strikingly different story hit the news wires--BYU's basketball team, newly rewarded with a top 5 ranking, made headlines by kicking starting forward Brandon Davies off the team for an honor code violation. His violation? Nothing criminal or arrestable--he violated the university's strict religion-based code by engaging in premarital sex with his girlfriend.

At first glance, this seemed like a dramatic and troubling double standard--students at other schools were getting away with criminal behavior, but Davies was booted for doing something that is considered standard behavior on most college campuses. BYU drew the ire of many in the collegiate sports community, including Amare Stoudemire and none other than former Florida quarterback Tim Tebow.

But the more I thought about the situation, the more I determined that the differing decisions made by schools like Florida (to look the other way) and BYU (to be firm and harsh) were in fact quite compatible when viewed through the lens of the "front porch" theory.

For both schools, athletics are an incredibly visible marketing tool for the underlying institution. There's no easier way to send a message to prospective applicants than via the much-hyped, much-analyzed, heavily-covered world of sports. Florida uses this platform to display its unwavering commitment to excellence; BYU, on the other hand, chose in this instance to use it to display its commitment to moral righteousness and chastity.

Ultimately, the decision on how best to use the platform of sports presents a difficult line for any institution to toe. Some level of winning and competitiveness is seemingly necessary in order to maintain credibility among a sometimes fickle group of applicants (and donors), but going too far down that line can compromise the overall goals and mission of the broader institution to the point that it in fact loses that same credibility. What is undeniable is that the sports platform is an extremely powerful medium via which to communicate with the public--it's up to the individual institution to decide what message it wishes to convey.

Unfortunately, in many situations, the student-athlete can easily end up becoming little more than an advertising tool. In this case, Brandon Davies got caught on the wrong side of the message, whereas many Florida Gators have luckily found themselves on the right side of the message. It's somewhat sad for the athletes to be continually caught in the middle like this, but it would behoove all athletes and fans to recognize collegiate athletics for what they are, and realize the implications on athletes everywhere. It's just not about them.

[SI.com]