According to Ridpath (2008), the increase in public popularity of intercollegiate athletic had opened the door to the commercialization of college sports. Excessive commercialism, unethical behavior, and the exploitation of student athletes are said to be instrumental detractors from the overall mission of higher education (Weight et al., 2015). This perception is prevalent by some of today’s faculty (Ridpath, 2008). However, when it comes to views on the commercialization of intercollegiate athletics, this section will begin with an analysis of the commercial vs. collegiate models. Following will be a discussion on Sack’s three conceptual models of commercialism. Commercial vs. collegiate athletic model. According to Vanover and DeBowes
…show more content…
over paid coaches, student athlete exploitation, academic scandals, cheating, and state of the art facilities). Whereas, the collegiate model is described as athletics being perceived to value important life skills and character building such as teamwork, persistence, and discipline over academic development and integrity. The positive impact of the athletic-academic divide is evident when university leaders make a commitment to one way or the other (Vanover & DeBowes, 2013). The stakeholder’s commitment is known and adjustments can be made accordingly. Noticeable in major Division I institutions, when an institution adopted a commercial model philosophy, faculty and staff realized the revenue generated from corporate sponsorship and private donations would benefit both academics as well as athletic programs (Vanover & DeBowes, 2013). Whereas, smaller Division III institutions limited by financial resources tend to adopt a collegiate model philosophy. This is because of the lack of pressure to escalate the institutions commitment to its athletic program which allows faculty and staff to focus on the educational mission of the institution (Vanover & DeBowes, …show more content…
According to Mitten, Musselman, and Burton (2009) the increased focus on commercialization of intercollegiate athletics created economic incentives for conduct that are contradictory to a university’s academic mission and may potentially exploit student-athletes. Throughout the life span of collegiate sports, using students as tools to win contests and ultimately generate revenue for the institution has contributed to the institutional stakeholders’ mixed feelings about intercollegiate athletics (Mitten et al., 2009). Maintaining academic integrity, the proper alignment of athletics with the academic mission, and the increasing concern regarding the commercialization of high profile intercollegiate athletics are just a few of the many challenges facing faculty and athletic administrators (Zimmerman & Wickersham, 2013). In the 21st century, some athletic departments from major universities had brought in millions of dollars in revenue for support of its academic programs (Ridpath, 2008). The researcher noted that faculty had been criticized for being hypocritical to stand against the exploitation, particularly of football and men’s basketball athletes for entertainment and economical value instead of academic and life skill development According to Ridpath (2008) the increase in public popularity of intercollegiate athletic has opened the
over paid coaches, student athlete exploitation, academic scandals, cheating, and state of the art facilities). Whereas, the collegiate model is described as athletics being perceived to value important life skills and character building such as teamwork, persistence, and discipline over academic development and integrity. The positive impact of the athletic-academic divide is evident when university leaders make a commitment to one way or the other (Vanover & DeBowes, 2013). The stakeholder’s commitment is known and adjustments can be made accordingly. Noticeable in major Division I institutions, when an institution adopted a commercial model philosophy, faculty and staff realized the revenue generated from corporate sponsorship and private donations would benefit both academics as well as athletic programs (Vanover & DeBowes, 2013). Whereas, smaller Division III institutions limited by financial resources tend to adopt a collegiate model philosophy. This is because of the lack of pressure to escalate the institutions commitment to its athletic program which allows faculty and staff to focus on the educational mission of the institution (Vanover & DeBowes, …show more content…
According to Mitten, Musselman, and Burton (2009) the increased focus on commercialization of intercollegiate athletics created economic incentives for conduct that are contradictory to a university’s academic mission and may potentially exploit student-athletes. Throughout the life span of collegiate sports, using students as tools to win contests and ultimately generate revenue for the institution has contributed to the institutional stakeholders’ mixed feelings about intercollegiate athletics (Mitten et al., 2009). Maintaining academic integrity, the proper alignment of athletics with the academic mission, and the increasing concern regarding the commercialization of high profile intercollegiate athletics are just a few of the many challenges facing faculty and athletic administrators (Zimmerman & Wickersham, 2013). In the 21st century, some athletic departments from major universities had brought in millions of dollars in revenue for support of its academic programs (Ridpath, 2008). The researcher noted that faculty had been criticized for being hypocritical to stand against the exploitation, particularly of football and men’s basketball athletes for entertainment and economical value instead of academic and life skill development According to Ridpath (2008) the increase in public popularity of intercollegiate athletic has opened the