Editorial: Proposal tying academics to coaches’ bonuses should be passed

When the University of California Board of Regents tabled a proposal last week to tie coaches’ bonuses to academic performance, it signaled a blatant lack of concern for student-athletes’ academic success.

The Board of Regents must move forward with this proposal to ensure that UC student-athletes take advantage of the world-class education available to them. Moreover, coaches’ academic bonuses should be valued on par with bonuses for athletic success in order to secure academic excellence for the NCAA-estimated 98 percent of student-athletes that will not make professional careers out of their sport.

As it stands, the NCAA holds teams to a minimum Academic Progress Rate of 930 out of 1000 to compete in postseason play, which means schools must maintain a roughly 50 percent graduation rate to remain eligible. Additionally, APR factors in other variables, such as player retention and academic eligibility.

Despite this, UCLA Athletic Director Dan Guerrero argued at last week’s Regents meeting that tying coaches’ earnings to academic performance or raising the minimum APR would injure recruiting, discourage students from choosing rigorous majors and hurt programs like men’s basketball when players voluntarily leave early to go pro.

Guerrero’s concerns, however, are unfounded. The team Guerrero used as a test case, UCLA men’s basketball, has consistently maintained an APR well above the minimum, even with a number of players leaving early for the NBA draft.

In the 10 years that the APR has been calculated, UCLA’s men’s basketball team has only fallen below 930 once, in 2004-2005, and has averaged a rating of 955. It’s clear, then, that we should be holding ourselves to a higher standard – student-athletes should be held to a stricter academic standard and their coach’s pay should be tied to making that happen.

If Guerrero were seriously concerned about his athletes’ academic welfare as opposed to primarily safeguarding his team’s ability to play in the postseason, he would do well to reexamine the incentives he provides to several UCLA coaches.

For example, men’s basketball coach Steve Alford receives an annual bonus of $10,000 if his team maintains at least a 930 APR rating, while the athletic bonuses available to him can reach up to $270,000 in on-court, performance based incentives. These bonuses, including $25,000 for reaching the Division I NCAA Men’s Basketball tournament, are tacked on to Alford’s base salary of $2.6 million.

For coaches, then, the math is clear.

If student-athletes sign with UCLA, they deserve to be treated the same as every student. They deserve to be given the tools to succeed and graduate with a degree from a world-class institution. And that starts with Guerrero holding his athletic program to a higher standard.

Efforts to at least reward academic excellence on the same scale as athletic performance can shift the perception on what getting a scholarship truly means. It shows that as an institution, UCLA and the UC are not just interested in what someone can do with their legs or their arms, but are seriously dedicated to cultivating well-rounded future professionals.