[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 36 (Monday, March 22, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2938-S2940]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           COLLEGE BASKETBALL

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the second issue I would like to address 
is an issue that could not be more timely. The issue is ``March 
Madness.'' Frankly, everywhere I have gone today--in the airport, while 
traveling, as I came back to my office--everybody is abuzz about the 
basketball games over the weekend.
  I am happy the University of Illinois is going into Sweet 16. There 
have been upsets and great victories, and those who love college 
basketball cannot wait each year for the NCAA tournament. It is college 
basketball really brought home to America in a way like no other sport. 
Sixty-five teams start, and in the end one will be champion.
  But, frankly, when we take a closer look and understand the reality 
of who the players are, it calls into question whether or not in many 
cases this is college basketball.
  Let me tell you what I mean.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
today's lead editorial in the Chicago Tribune of March 22.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                       [From the Chicago Tribune]

                         The Real March Madness

       If you're a basketball fan, you know how many college teams 
     qualify each year for the NCAA men's tournament: 65. But can 
     you guess how many schools would be playing if there was a 
     requirement that they had to graduate at least half of their 
     athletes?
       If you guessed a third, you'd be about right.
       Commentary about college sports often focuses on programs 
     with serious shortcomings. So let it be noted that there are 
     some universities that have exemplary records combining 
     athletics and scholarships. Among the schools with teams in 
     this year's tournament, Kansas graduates 73 percent of its 
     players within six years of their original enrollment. At 
     Dayton, 82 percent get a degree, and at Lehigh, the figure is 
     90 percent. Atop them all is Stanford, with a 100 percent 
     graduation rate (and a number one seed in the tourney).
       Three years ago, the Knight Foundation Commission on 
     Intercollegiate Athletics proposed that postseason 
     competition be limited to teams that graduate at least 50 
     percent of their players. But the NCAA obviously has a long 
     way to go. Of the 65 teams playing this year, only 21 would 
     qualify under that rule--down from 22 last year.
       For that matter, 10 of the teams fail to graduate even 20 
     percent of their players. But they're not the worst. 
     Commission Chairman William C. Friday, president emeritus of 
     the University of North Carolina, noted that ``four of the 
     teams in the men's tournament failed to graduate a single 
     athlete over the period we reviewed.'' He was kind enough not 
     to identify them.
       Basketball fans may be aghast to think what March Madness 
     would look like if the commission had its way. Only three of 
     this year's first-round games could be played if its rule 
     were in effect--Gonzaga v. Valparaiso, North Carolina vs. Air 
     Force, and Mississippi State vs. Monmouth. A tournament like 
     that would make for a short, craze-free March.
       But if the rule were in effect, you can be sure schools 
     would be taking the steps needed to strengthen their academic 
     mission. They'd recruit kids capable of doing college-level 
     work, and they'd structure their programs to assure that 
     players devote as much time and energy to their studies as to 
     their sport. If every school that hoped to play in the 
     tournament had to graduate 50 percent of its players, just 
     about every school would graduate 50 percent of its players.
       That's as it should be. Most college basketball players 
     will never play professionally. They need an education that 
     prepares them for life after sports.
       The Knight Foundation Commission goal is hardly outlandish, 
     as the teams in the women's tournament regularly demonstrate. 
     Of the 63 women's teams for which the commission had 
     sufficient data to judge, only 10 failed to graduate half 
     their players.
       And there's no apparent conflict between success in the 
     classroom and success on the court: At many of the perennial 
     powers, such as Connecticut, Tennessee, Texas and Duke, 
     upwards of 67 percent of players get degrees.
       On the men's side, though, most schools apparently care 
     more about winning than anything else. That approach creates 
     far too many losers.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this editorial raises the following 
question:

       [C]an you guess how many schools would be playing [in the 
     NCAA men's tournament] if there was a requirement that they 
     had to graduate at least half of their athletes [in a 6-year 
     period of time]?
       If you guessed a third, you'd be right.

  This article goes on to note that some universities involved in this 
tournament have exemplary records combining athletics and scholarship; 
and he names Kansas, with 73 percent of its players graduating within 6 
years of their original enrollment; Dayton, 82 percent; Lehigh, 90 
percent; and atop the chart--which is a university which lost 
yesterday--Stanford, with 100 percent.
  This editorial says:

       Three years ago, the Knight Foundation Commission on 
     Intercollegiate Athletics proposed that postseason 
     competition be limited to teams that graduate at least 50 
     percent of their players [within 6 years]. But the NCAA 
     obviously has a long way to go. Of the 65 teams playing [in 
     the tournament] this year, only 21 would qualify under that 
     rule--down from 22 last year.
       For that matter, 10 of the teams [in the NCAA tournament] 
     fail to graduate even 20 percent of their players.

  This is what commission Chairman William Friday, president emeritus 
of the University of North Carolina, noted:

       [F]our of the teams in the men's tournament failed to 
     graduate a single athlete over the period we reviewed.

  The information here talks about the general graduation rate. We call 
this college basketball. But if we were to learn that there was a team 
headed for the Sweet Sixteen or the Final Four that did not have a 
single college player graduate, we would cry fraud. This is supposed to 
be about college athletes participating against one another. But if you 
have schools involved in the tournament where none--absolutely none--of 
the athletes involved in the basketball game are ever going to 
graduate, are these truly college students, is this really college 
basketball?

[[Page S2939]]

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a commentary from that same newspaper written by Derrick Z. Jackson, 
entitled ``Suppressing the bad news on NCAA graduation rates.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

           Suppressing the Bad News on NCAA Graduation Rates

                        (By Derrick Z. Jackson)

       Not to be outdone by the federal government's attempts to 
     delete key portions of reports on global warming, health 
     disparities, and racism within the Justice Department, here 
     comes the National Collegiate Athletic Association. That 
     august body is eliminating the graduation rates of basketball 
     players. What is good for the Bush administration is 
     wonderful news for the Universities of Cincinnati, Kentucky, 
     Louisville and Memphis.
       March Madness ought to be canceled with the scandal that is 
     in the computer banks of the NCAA's 2003 Graduation Rates 
     Report. The report covers whether scholarship athletes who 
     entered school in the falls of 1993, 1994, 1995 or 1996 
     graduated within six years. The report is the best long-term 
     way to see whether a university is providing an education to 
     its athletes or pimping them in an era where CBS is paying 
     the NCAA $6 billion over 11 years to televise men's games and 
     where an additional $3.5 billion will be wagered illegally on 
     this year's tournament alone, according to The Wall Street 
     Journal. The amount of betting is half the annual budget of 
     the chronically underfunded Head Start.
       That is March Madness enough, but now the NCAA has quietly 
     adjusted the graduation rates to satisfy ``a new 
     interpretation'' of federal laws which say that information 
     on any category containing only one or two students ``must be 
     suppressed.''
       In basketball, which has far fewer players than football or 
     baseball teams, the new rules amount to liberation from any 
     accountability whatsoever on the part of college athletic 
     departments and their presidents.
       Because of the new rules, 37 of the 65 men's teams in this 
     year's tournament did not publish graduation rates of their 
     African-American players. Sixteen schools published no 
     graduation rates at all.
       Nine of the 16 schools that mysteriously had no graduation 
     rate whatsoever just happen to include last year's most 
     hideous offenders, such as:
       Alabama (0 percent for black men and 13 percent overall in 
     the 2002 report).
       Cincinnati (0 percent for black men, 17 percent overall).
       Louisville (0 for black men, 10 percent overall).
       Kentucky (13 percent and 33 percent overall).
       Southern Illinois (14 percent for black men and 27 percent 
     overall).
       Memphis (0 period).
       Nevada (0 percent for black men, 20 percent overall).
       Virginia Commonwealth (0 period).
       Alabama State (0 period).
       The ``new rules'' did not stop the schools with good and 
     great graduation rates from publishing them, even when the 
     numbers of players on scholarship are obviously similar to 
     the schools that withheld the information. Kansas, Air Force, 
     Manhattan, Gonzaga, Vanderbilt, Central Florida, Duke, 
     Princeton, Valparaiso, Stanford, Monmouth and Xavier all had 
     African-American player graduation rates of at least 67 
     percent.
       Among New England schools in the men's and women's 
     tournament, the Connecticut men's team published its general 
     and woeful graduation rate of 27 percent, but withheld its 
     black rate. The UConn women's team published its general 
     graduation rate of 67 percent but withheld the black rate. 
     Boston College's men's team published both its 46 percent 
     overall and 67 percent African-American rate. BC's women's 
     team published its 71 percent overall rate but withheld its 
     black rate.
       Rates for Providence's men were 42 percent overall, 50 
     percent for black men, Vermont's men were 55 percent overall 
     and the school withheld a figure for black men. Maine's women 
     were at 69 percent overall, with no black women to count.
       In the case of most of the New England schools, the 
     withholding of the black rate actually did not affect the 
     overall rate much as the white rate was similar to the 
     overall rate. But it was very clear that many other schools 
     purposely hid disastrous rates. For instance, Georgia Tech 
     did not publish the rate of its black athletes. But with a 
     white graduation rate of 60 percent, it managed to plummet to 
     an overall rate of 27 percent. Texas Tech did not publish the 
     rates for black athletes. But with a white graduation rate of 
     60 percent, it had an overall rate of only 33 percent.
       Last year, 13 men's schools had a 0 graduation rate for 
     black men. The average black male graduation rate for the 65-
     team field was 35 percent. With the liberation provided by 
     the new privacy rules, only one university in this year's 
     field published a black male rate under 38 percent. That was 
     Eastern Washington, where the rate was zero.
       That is probably because that school is not a perennial 
     NCAA powerhouse. Give it time. A couple more appearances in 
     March Madness and school officials will join Kentucky, 
     Cincinnati, and Louisville in erasing its records, too. If 
     President Bush wins re-election and needs some more 
     bureaucrats to delete the truth, he knows where he can find 
     them. At the NCAA and in our nation's athletic departments.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Jackson comes at this issue a little differently. Mr. 
Jackson says, let's take a close look and see how many are graduating 
who are minorities, African Americans. He says:

       This is March Madness . . . but now NCAA has quietly 
     adjusted the graduation rates to satisfy ``a new 
     interpretation'' of federal laws which say that information 
     on any category containing only one or two students ``must be 
     suppressed.''

  What it basically means is that these schools will not publish the 
graduation rates of their athletes, and particularly will not publish 
the graduation rates of the African-American athletes who are playing 
basketball.

       Because of the new rules [as interpreted by the NCAA], 37 
     of the 65 men's teams in this year's tournament did not 
     publish graduation rates of their African-American players. 
     Sixteen schools published no graduation rates at all.
       Nine of the 16 schools that mysteriously had no graduation 
     rate whatsoever just happen to include last year's most 
     hideous offenders. . . .

  He lists the following universities: Alabama University, zero-percent 
graduation rate for Black players, and 13 percent overall--this is in a 
2002 report--Cincinnati, zero percent for African-American athletes, 17 
percent overall; Louisville, zero percent for Black men, 10 percent 
overall; Kentucky, 13 percent for African Americans, 33 percent 
overall; Southern Illinois, 14 percent for Black men, 27 percent 
overall; Memphis, zero percent in both groups, Black and White 
basketball players not graduating; Nevada, zero percent for Black men, 
20 percent overall; Virginia Commonwealth, zero percent in both 
categories; Alabama State, zero percent, period.
  He goes on to list the schools that can point with pride to their 
graduation rates. Kansas, Air Force, Manhattan, Gonzaga, Vanderbilt, 
Central Florida, Duke, Princeton, Valparaiso, Stanford, Monmouth, and 
Xavier all had African-American player graduation rates of at least 67 
percent.

       Among New England schools in the men's and women's 
     tournament, the Connecticut men's team published its general 
     and woeful graduation rate of 27 percent, but withheld [the 
     graduation rate for African Americans].

  Rates for Providence's men were 42 percent overall; 50 percent for 
Black men. Vermont's men were 55 percent on their men's basketball team 
overall, and they withheld the figure for their African-American 
athletes.
  Mr. President, the reason I think these two items should be in the 
Record is that all of us enjoy watching college basketball. But, 
frankly, if these athletes we are watching are not really college 
students, we are not watching the best of college basketball; we are 
watching the best of colleges and universities that are sending teams 
of so-called students who have not even a ghost of a chance of ever 
graduating from their institution.
  These men in the men's tournament are being used. They are being used 
as players on the court in the hope that some of them will end up in 
professional basketball. I am sure that is their ambition, but such a 
small percentage ever do.
  So we watch and applaud and talk about our alma maters and their 
devotion to education when, in fact, these schools know full well that 
the people who are being put on the court to play this game are, 
frankly, never going to graduate in most instances in many of these 
schools.

  What do the universities get out of it? A lot of money. They go to 
the NCAA tournament, and the money comes back to them in revenue, money 
that might have been spent to help some of their players get the help 
they need to go on to graduate. But, sadly, that never happens.
  Mr. President, I am going to be looking at this interpretation of the 
NCAA rule which allows them to suppress and, frankly, refuse to publish 
the graduation rate of African-American players who are at the NCAA 
tournament, and, frankly, in all other sports. I think that should be 
public knowledge. I think the leaders at the universities have an 
obligation to not only put the best basketball teams on the court but 
to make certain those teams are made up of real students who, with the 
help of the university,

[[Page S2940]]

are going to end up graduating someday and have a college education on 
which to build their lives.
  Unfortunately, today, that is not the case. As the Chicago Tribune 
editorial concludes, when it comes to men's basketball, though, ``most 
schools apparently care more about winning than anything else. That 
approach creates far too many losers.''
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold his suggestion of 
the absence of a quorum?
  Mr. DURBIN. Yes, I will.

                          ____________________