Speaking from the perspective of 20 years as a faculty athletics representative, I found the messages in the guest editorial in the January 17 issue of The NCAA News ("Integrated mission a must for athletics") difficult to understand.

All of us are aware of the principle of institutional control, which says that athletics is an avocation and that "student-athletes should be protected from exploitation by professional and commercial enterprise." I know of no one who does not at least pay lip service to those principles.

It's hard for me to see how universities can exercise any control over athletics if the universities provide no revenue. In my experience, control is based largely on the principle that he who pays the piper calls the tune. So, I pose the following question: What leverage does the university have over athletics in cases where athletics is an independent, self-supporting entity?

A central point in the guest editorial is that athletics departments "must reflect the values and mission of the university." I'd be willing to bet that most coaches do not know what the mission of the university is. They are not to be blamed; there often is widespread disagreement among faculty about what the guiding principles of a university ought to be. Many public universities have foresaken the traditional model of what a university is, and the result is that they have turned into glorified job training centers with football teams.

The question is not whether athletics is an integral part of the university but whether big-time athletics is. It is almost axiomatic that the smaller the university is, the closer it is to what a university ought to be. Many faculty believe that when a university commits itself to big-time athletics, that it is a "deal with the devil," especially in an era in which public support seems headed to zero. It is easy to see from the preposterous salaries many big-time coaches receive and the monstrous athletics facilities many universities construct how the public might think that the university is thriving and needs no further public support.

If the university really wanted to focus on enhancing the athletics experience, it might take steps to rein in athletics' ever-expanding nature. Many sports are now year-round activities; the concept of playing seasons is almost obsolete. When athletes are not competing against external competition, they spend hours lifting weights and participating in other "off-season" activities. There is almost constant debate about adding contests and lengthening the existing playing seasons.

One of the greatest threats to the mission of many universities is the inordinate influence of wealthy donors. Athletics at some places has been pretty thoroughly "privatized," and a significant part of the athletics mission is now providing entertainment for donors who pay big bucks for luxury boxes and the best seats.

I have seen a clear pattern develop throughout my tenure as an FAR: More and more politicians have been elected on a platform of cutting taxes and starving public institutions. Then, the big donors, the same people who backed those cost-cut-
|ting politicians, ride to the rescue and are thought of as generous, public-spirited benefactors.

They are praised for providing a solution to a problem for which they themselves have been responsible to a large degree. This phenomenon is not limited to athletics; it is especially obvious in many areas of primary research, which operates on the principle that the one who pays for it owns it.

Universities run the risk of losing the traditions it cherishes most, chief of which is their independence. University administrators face a real dilemma -- they face a situation in which the state has largely opted out of providing public support, and the answer seems to lie in the area of private funding.

But the cost of selling off parts of the university is surely not a price a rational person would pay, if he were free to choose. One of the costs is a loss of the sense of direction combined with a greater confusion over the mission of the university -- in a word, independence.

Michael J. Wenzl
Faculty Athletics Representative
California Polytechnic State University