SPENER: No exceptions for UConn in NCAA ruling

When the Columbia men’s basketball team opened its season against the UConn Huskies on Nov. 11, nobody in their right mind characterized the game as a preview of a possible NCAA tournament matchup. UConn is a perennial March Madness contender (and defending champion this year), and Columbia was picked to finish second-to-last in the Ivy preseason poll. However, it seems that even our Lions have a better shot than the Huskies at making the 2013 NCAA tournament—not because of a their on-court heroics so much as their diligence in the classroom.

After adopting more stringent academic standards in October, the NCAA declared the Huskies ineligible for the next year’s tournament due to consistently poor academic ratings. UConn offered to suffer several self-imposed consequences instead of facing a tourney ban, but the NCAA has stood by its decision.

When we hear about NCAA compliance violations, we often think to ourselves, “Why do these rules even matter?” While this sentiment may be valid for illicit jersey sales and even overaggressive recruiting, the core rules regarding academic standards are fundamental to the legitimacy of college athletics. NCAA regulations are meant to mitigate the tension between college sports programs and the academic institutions that sponsor them, delineating what it means to be a college sports program.

Obviously, teams don’t win national championships by keeping their GPAs high, but the UConn ruling serves as a reminder that college teams cannot eschew academics, no matter how successful they are on the court. Of course, it’s not realistic to compare UConn with Columbia or even Harvard (ranked in the top 25 this year), since Ivy League schools purposely compromise their athletic programs in favor of high academic standards. However, there are blue-chip basketball programs that also enforce more stringent academic standards. Duke and Kansas are prime examples.

In the past 20 or so years, Duke has won four national championships, UConn has three, and Kansas has one. Last year, Duke received an academic rating of 990 for the 2009-2010 cycle, compared to UConn’s 893. Kansas—and Columbia, for that matter—received 1000, the maximum score. Despite this disparity in terms of academics, all those three big programs consistently fare very well on the court, and all are feeder teams for the NBA—evidence that being required to work hard in the classroom does not adversely affect an athlete’s performance at the college or pro level. Keep in mind, though, that these scores measure basic academic compliance by athletes, not academic excellence.

Interestingly, Kemba Walker, the star of UConn’s championship team last year and now a member of the Charlotte Bobcats, graduated in just three years. Even at UConn, and even for its star player, success on the court does not prohibit success in the classroom. Jeremy Lin is an Ivy League example of a student who succeeded both academically and athletically in college and has gone on to excel in the NBA (at least thus far). Clearly, earning a 3.1 GPA at Harvard doesn’t get in the way of scoring 38 points for the New York Knicks and attracting the ire of an opposing Kobe Bryant.

Moreover, many hold up a college education as an athlete’s reward for bringing revenue to his or her school without any other form of compensation. With its current ruling, the NCAA is looking out for the rest of the UConn team and those like them who will never be paid to play basketball and who, at the very least, should earn a degree and a marketable skill set before leaving school. UConn has no excuse for failing to follow the leads of Duke, Kansas, Harvard, and Columbia if it wants to participate in college athletics.

Benjamin Spener is a Columbia College sophomore majoring in economics-mathematics and Latin American and Iberian cultures.

If you are a Columbia University student or alum interested in writing a guest column, please email sportscolumns@columbiaspectator.com.