Impact of Boosters on Collegiate Athletics - Essay Example

Running head: Collegiate Boosters Often, recruited star collegiate athletes come to big colleges confident that in their respective sports, they will get a national championship. All of a sudden, the greatly touted collegiate athlete’s way of life changes and he starts driving around college in a brand new automobile. These successes ensue because the collegiate athlete directly receives money from some wealthy booster who has no life and is making efforts to live out the rest of his life through promising, young and susceptible athletes. This paper discusses the impact of boosters on collegiate athletics, how they violate NCAA rules and it highlights the positive and negative aspects of booster involvement in collegiate programs Introduction A collegiate athlete is a student for whose enrollment a representative of athletics interests or a member of the athletics staff solicited with the aim of ultimately having the student participate in the college’s athletics program. Such a student may be currently participating in athletics or may still be at the college but has completed his or her eligibility. Collegiate boosters on the other hand are people who give cash donations to their preferred college, which in most cases is the college they attended. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) defines boosters as representatives of athletic interests of an institution (Weaver, 2009). One becomes a booster in a certain college if he or she has ever been a member of any organization supporting the athletics of that college, has ever made a donation of any kind to any booster organization that supports the athletes of the college or has ever assisted in the recruitment or evaluation of prospective collegiate players. Other ways in which one can become a booster are if one has ever helped in the provision of benefits to enrolled collegiate players or their families and if he or she has ever supported the athletics of the college in any other way. A member(s) of the college’s athletic administration or executive must know that a booster performs the aforementioned functions. The statutes of NCAA mandate that once a person becomes a booster, he or she maintain that identity indefinitely (Weaver, 2009). Collegiate boosters are the livelihood of many college programs as they play a major role in supporting colleges financially. It is important to note that it is legal for boosters to donate money to colleges. In fact, several colleges have booster clubs where boosters meet and talk about various issues concerning a college. As a team plays better, the boosters are willing to give out more money. Although it is not precisely clear why the boosters give millions of dollars to colleges, it is indubitable that some seek the power to have control of the athletic organization including the power to hire and fire administrators, coaches as well as college presidents. In other words, some boosters just want more say for their money. Some areas towards which boosters donate their money include athletic facilities, college stadiums, libraries and class buildings. In return, colleges usually dedicate these buildings in the boosters’ names (McKay, 2006). Dienhart asserts that boosters often get the ball rolling. To him, a coach can establish a good program and qualify all the athletes he wants. However, if the boosters dislike the program’s direction, the boosters will make the director of athletics know it – when they are not satisfied; they back off supporting the program. He gives an example of the firing of Chan Gailey at Georgia Tech where Dan Radakovich, the director of athletics said the resolution was just about business as losses and wins. Although in every of Gaileys six seasons Tech made bowls, no longer were the boosters behind him making funds raising became challenging. He adds that any good athletic director already has anticipated his next move and has a list of coaching candidates in such a way that before firing a coach, he already has another coach who is ready for the job or has a number of options about which he is happy. Depending on the school type, the athletic director may involve influential boosters in the search or may conduct the search himself at smaller programs. However, almost all athletic directors use a search firm or recruiters owing to the fact that most of them are not well connected and are not acquainted with other coaches. Others use search firms to stay out of the news. On getting a job, the coach is advised to build his relationship with the boosters. If the moneymen/boosters like a coach, he has better surviving probabilities even though fans dislike him. This explains why in most cases, athletic administrators and coaches confer private appreciation to the boosters, not to their overall leaders or the players who brought the success. This means that to them, boosters are more important than any other person or party who contribute to their success (Dienhart, 2007). Every successful coach has several boosters. The most powerful boosters can lobby college presidents and politicians and boosters who are rich and influential can ensure that the coach obtains a lot of money for his shows such that he feels respected. Boosters give support to projects in the department of athletics that the college might not give precedence when there is no money. Additionally, boosters can privately execute other good tasks for needy athletes including purchasing cars, shoes and tickets home as well as providing them with legal defense. They also present gifts to siblings, parents and high school coaches of needy teams (Lipsyte, 2002). Boosters, to college presidents and coaches, are superior fans enthusiastic on putting their resources where their hearts are while to critics, boosters are predators. In his paper, Lipsyte quotes Linda Bensel-Meyers, the reformist Drake Group leader who argues that without boosters, colleges could possibly keep hold of their mission control and that boosters make colleges become economic and political pawns of the state. He also quotes Murray Sperber who points out that in most cases, boosters are merely local residents not so different from fans and that they only associate with the college through its teams – they are not even alumni. To critics, boosters yearn for the equivalent of the backstage pass, treatment of an important person, good seats and access to the coaches among others. Athletic departments for example, include boosters in social events, let them remain among the athletes, book hotel rooms for them and leave tickets for them. On proving that compared to the average fan, officially, a booster has more connection to the sports team and receives special treatment; the National Collegiate Athletic Association can accuse him or her of wanting to become the athletic department’s representative. Consequently, the department becomes legally responsible for the actions of the booster. Lipsyte cites an example of a case in which a booster from Detroit confessed to have given more than $600,000 to Michigan players in the 1990s and pleaded guilty to conspiracy. The booster, a local businessperson extremely involved with Michigan teams although not alumni to the school faced the charges of laundering money for his unlawful gambling operation. Normally, when busted, a college either denies doing anything wrong and blames the booster or finds a scapegoat in the department of athletics, and to show good faith to the NCAA and to possibly prevent more penalties, the college punishes itself. He gives an example of Marshall University, which the NCAA Committee on Infractions punished due to several infringements, together with the twenty-five dollars-an-hour jobs a Marshall booster was offering athletes (Lipsyte, 2002). In most cases, boosters’ violations of NCAA rules involve giving cash or other gifts to individual coaches, providing enrolled collegiate players with additional benefits and the recruitment of potential collegiate players. Regarding enrolled collegiate athletes, boosters are not allowed to provide them with any special arrangements or extra benefit including reduced-price housing, free meals at restaurants, expense money or movie passes. The NCAA also does not permit them to give discounted professional services or special treatment because of the payback potential or athletics reputation a collegiate athlete has as a professional athlete. They should not confer awards or gifts to collegiate athletes for their athletic achievements. Any award must conform to restrictions of NCAA and must be approved by the college athletic department. The NCAA does not permit boosters to use a collegiate athlete’s picture or name to promote, recommend or advertise the use or sale of a commercial service or product of any type directly. In addition, they are not allowed to pay any expenses that the collegiate athletes, their friends or relatives incur (Virginia Tech Athletics, 2009). Regarding recruitment, except for as permitted by the NCAA, boosters cannot recruit a prospective collegiate athlete. The NCCA defines recruiting as any solicitation of a prospective collegiate athlete or his or her relatives by a staff member of an institution or by a booster with the aim of securing the enrollment and eventual participation of the prospective collegiate athlete in the intercollegiate athletics program of the institution. The NCCA prohibits boosters from making personal, off-college contacts or telephone calls involving recruitment of a potential college athlete or his or her relatives. However, it permits written communications and on-college contact. During an official visit of a prospective collegiate athlete, recruiting contacts by boosters are limited to college and may not extend to the radius of thirty miles allowed to the staff members of the college. The NCCA also does not permit them to make telephone calls to potential collegiate athletes, to offer them money for the purposes of entertainment, to provide, pay or organize for the payment of any cost of transportation that a prospective collegiate athlete’s friends, relatives or legal guardians incur. They may also not contact the counselor, principal or coach of a potential collegiate athlete in an attempt to assess him or her. Except for as the NCAA regulations expressly consent, boosters are not permitted to have direct or indirect involvement of giving or arranging to give any financial support or other benefits to the potential collegiate athlete or his or her friends or relatives. It is important to note that any one who gets involved in most of the above impermissible actions will immediately become ineligible for competition (Angelo State University, 2009). The power and influence of boosters in the athletic departments of majority of colleges has had negative effects. For instance, there is ambiguity or confusion on who is in charge of the program or who holds the power to hire, fire and recruit athletes. Despite being a minority, some boosters would want to control all the decisions of athletic departments. Coaches and athletic directors are left with no choice but to please the boosters who supplement their salary and income and at the same time finance recruiting trips, stadium improvements, offer scholarships among others. Trustees and boosters’ expectations are forcing athletic directors to increase the rate of expenditures. This has led to the isolation of athletic departments from colleges and it is as if athletes exist in their own cultures. To them, education has become just an afterthought. The boosters do not care whether the necessities for proper learning exist- all they want is the allocation of their donations to the teams of their choice (Selena, 2005). Boosters’ donations to specific sports team in a college also create inequity in the athletic program with donations for specific teams being more than those of their counterparts are. This creates animosity among the various teams. Consequently, directors of athletics have to struggle with ascertaining that each sport in the college gets its fair share. Colleges’ athletic budgets have faced financial shortfalls as they struggle to ensure that there is equity. This is because every time a team receives a donation, the athletic directors have to ensure that other teams get equal compensations by drawing on the general athletic budget thereby complicating the entire budget. College administrators and athletic directors therefore advocate for support for the entire athletic program by consolidating the boosters into a unified booster club rather than for specific teams. There are cases where they have had to turn down donations for specific teams because other team would not benefit from them (Meade, 2005). The outcomes of college athletes accepting gifts directly from boosters can be very ruthless. For instance, the involved collegiate athlete may be rendered ineligible for competition; a team can be denied the opportunity to play in a bowl game for a long period and can lose privileges of season tickets. Such a ban is terrible as in essence, bowl game attracts athletes of higher profile and guarantees more cash for a team (Meade, 2005). Hayes points out that in Ohio State, awarding a scholarship is not the only gift for an athlete from the college – he also expects money from the boosters. He recommends that the NCAA should prohibit athletes getting money from boosters with a declaration that any college athlete who is proved to have accepted money from a booster will be accountable for his actions – not the boosters and will forever lose his amateur status. He adds that the punishment should be fast and irreversible. In other words, if athletes knew they were jeopardizing their college careers, they would stop relying on boosters for money. However, the NCAA rule for this fault is forfeiture of 2 games or twenty percent of a season. Conclusion I conquer with Wood that athletic directors and coaches should be more accountable as they deal with boosters and in monitoring the relationships between boosters and athletes. Otherwise, they should eliminate these associations – it is their duty to ensure that students do not get themselves in situations of choosing whether to accept money from boosters. If this persists, in the end, it will only harm the athletes and they will have a wrong mentality that everything should come to them without difficulty. This could easily make them lose the outstanding work ethic that has made them to be who they are and thereby destroy their career. Furthermore, they could get in problems with the law. Athletic boosters should stick to the virtue of giving their support to athletic programs allowing the directors of athletics and coaches to assign the money in such a way that the whole team benefits. References Angelo State University, (2009): Who is a booster (representative of athletics)? Retrieved November 11, 2009, from http://www.angelo.edu/org/afoundation/Who%20is%20a%20booster.pdf. Dienhart, T. (2007): Firing and hiring a coach isnt a two-man exchange. Retrieved November 12, 2009, from http://www.sportingnews.com/college-football/article/2007-12-06/firing-and-hiring-coach-isnt-two-man-exchange Hayes, M. (2005): Make the punishment swift and true. Retrieved November 11, 2009, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1208/is_3_229/ai_n9485239/ Lipsyte, R. (2002): A Game in Which the Player Isnt an Athlete or a Coach. Retrieved November 10, 2009, from http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/01/sports/backtalk-a-game-in-which-the-player-isn-t-an-athlete-or-a-coach.html McKay, M. (2006): College Boosters. Retrieved November 10, 2009, from  http://www.plu.edu/~mckaymr/doc/boosters.doc. Meade, L.K. ((2005): Gifts Can Throw Teams Off Balance. Retrieved November 11, 2009, from http://www.bookrags.com/highbeam/gifts-can-throw-teams-off-balance-hb Selena, R. (2005): Big Boosters Calling the Shots on Campus. Retrieved November 11, 2009, from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9803E1D81539F931A35752C0A9639C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2 Virginia Tech Athletics, (2009): Guide to NCAA Rules for Alumni, Fans and Friends. Retrieved November 10, 2009, from http://www.athletics.vt.edu/compliance/boosters/brochure.pdf. Weaver, J. (2009): Virginia Tech athletics: guide to NCAA rules for alumni, Fans and Friends. Retrieved November 12, 2009, from http://www.athletics.vt.edu/compliance/boosters/brochure.pdf. Wood, (2002): Athletic boosters must be kept away from athletes. Retrieved November 11, 2009, from http://media.www.thebatt.com/media/storage/paper657/news/2002/09/25/Opinion/Athletic.Boosters.Must. Read More