The NCAA responded November 13 to questions from the chair of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means about how intercollegiate athletics furthers the educational, tax-exempt purpose of the NCAA and higher education. The response from NCAA President Myles Brand verifies intercollegiate athletics’ relationship to higher education and addresses misconceptions held by the general public about student-athletes’ academic performance and athletics programs’ financial success.

The full text of the response is available at www.ncaa.org.

The initial letter, sent to Brand last month by committee Chair William Thomas (R-California), challenged several Association principles, including the amateur status of student-athletes and the sincerity of the Association’s efforts at academic reform. The questions particularly revolved around the popularity of Division I football and men’s basketball and the escalation of coaches’ salaries.

While the NCAA already had responded to committee requests earlier this year for information regarding the Association’s tax-exempt status, Brand said the Association would treat the latest inquiry seriously. Thomas, who did not seek another term in the November election, will likely be succeeded by New York Democrat Charles Rangel. With the shift in power in Congress, it is unclear whether Rangel will pursue the matter further.

In a thorough response that addresses each question specifically and includes lengthy appendices supporting the Association’s tax-exempt status and clarifying the academic reforms made in recent years, Brand pointed out that the scale of popularity of an enterprise does not diminish its educational value.

"The lessons learned on the football field or men’s basketball court are no less in value or importance to those student-athletes than the ones learned on the hockey rink or softball diamond — nor, for that matter, than those learned in theater, dance, music, journalism or other non-classroom environments," Brand wrote. "The fundamental purpose of intercollegiate athletics is the education of student-athletes in both the classroom and on the field or court. The scale of the sport does not alter the fundamental purpose."

Similarly, Brand said because men’s basketball and football are popular enough to command high prices from television networks interested in purchasing the rights to telecast the events does not undermine their educational purpose.

"If the educational purpose of college basketball could be preserved only by denying the right to telecast the events, students, university faculty and staff, alumni, the institutions of higher education themselves and even the American taxpayer would ultimately lose," Brand wrote. "The scale of popularity and the media attention given to football and men’s basketball do not forfeit for those two sports the educational purpose for which they exist."

In response to questions about academic performance, Brand explained requirements Division I student-athletes must meet before being eligible to participate in athletics and detailed the progress-toward-degree requirements once a student-athlete is enrolled. Brand also noted that according to data from freshmen entering college in 2004, the most recent data available, Division I scholarship student-athletes on average earned higher SAT scores and higher high school grade-point averages than college-bound students overall. Brand also pointed out that once a student-athlete is enrolled in an academic program, he or she must make specific, measurable progress toward a degree — a minimum of 20 percent per year.

The NCAA response also describes Division I’s Academic Performance Program, which includes a more accurate graduation-rate methodology and increased core-course requirements from incoming high school students. The APP emphasizes eligibility — determined by whether student-athletes meet academic requirements and are making progress toward graduation — and retention at an institution. The program is enforced through a penalty and recognition structure that affects individual teams.

Thomas’ letter also called into question "excessive spending" on coaches’ salaries. Brand’s response indicated that coaching salaries are market-driven, much the same as the salaries for top-tier faculty in medicine, engineering, law and other disciplines. He said the outside compensation package for both top coaches and top faculty are based on their ability to earn beyond the campus. Also, the NCAA is limited by the Sherman Antitrust Act to influence institutional spending.

Brand did refer, however, to the recent report of the Presidential Task Force on the Future of Division I Intercollegiate Athletics, which acknowledged the need to address fiscal responsibility in intercollegiate athletics on a campus-by-campus basis. To assist in that effort, the NCAA, with the help of the National Association of College and University Business Officers, has developed more consistent and clear definitions for reporting of financial data and requires an independent, third-party review of the data before submission.

Those data will be made available to presidents, along with aggregate peer group data, to help universities examine their spending behaviors and to improve campus decision-making. Also included in the reports will be new metrics that will alert presidents to areas in which their spending history may indicate abnormalities or risk. The aggregate data, by category, also will be made transparent to the public.

"Through speeches, articles and most recently through the work of the Task Force, we have urged moderation in the growth rate of athletics budgets," Brand wrote. "However, the NCAA’s ability to influence them is limited."