prepared by Richard Sundt, Art History

8 August 2002
 

 

Introduction:
 

 

This is a final report on information I presented to the Senate in preliminary form during the Spring 2002 quarter. This and the earlier data relate to the debate on the motion I introduced last spring requesting the University Administration and Athletic Department to observe the Senate resolution passed in 2001. This resolution recommends avoiding the scheduling of athletic contests on dead and finals weeks. That there are good academic reasons for such a resolution is largely supported by the chart below.
 

 

Analysis:
 

 

The deleterious effect on GPA performance caused by playing during dead and/or finals week is most clearly evident in the case of women's basketball.

Although the 2000-01 season was a tumultuous one for women as a result of the Jody Runge controversy, women did better academically that season than this past year under Bev Smith when conditions were calm. The difference in GPA performance seems to bear no relation to coaching style and the general atmosphere created by the coaches. In 2001-02, which was a very good year winning-wise, women had a considerably lower GPA because they played more often during dead and finals week than the previous season. In fact, the more games played during finals, the poorer the GPAs; compare Fall 2001 and Winter 2002 (with three games in finals week).
 

 

The statistics for men's basketball are less clear, with very different graphs for each of the academic years. In 2000-1 there is an expected swing up in Winter in relation to Fall since no games were played during dead and finals week of Winter 2001, but GPA declined in Spring 2001 although the playing season was over. Still, it is evident that GPA performance was higher when dead and finals week were game free. The 2001-2 season is puzzling for it began in the Fall much higher than the year previous, but declined term by term, with the lowest in the Spring when one would expect the highest GPA. Why? Are there some grades still "incomplete"?; better players graduated in Winter? other reasons?
 

 

For football, the general pattern of GPA for 2000-1 corresponds to what one would expect: lower GPA in the Fall when players are playing, higher GPAs when they are not. The 2001-2 season with the Civil War game in deadweek produced the highest GPA for the year, contrary to my arguments. But the downward slide in Winter and Spring terms is hard to fathom, and contrary to the graph of the previous year. Why the low GPA in spring? Were some of the better student athletes, such as Harrington, finished with courses by Winter? (My impression is that Harrington was not in school Spring term, but was then trying out for the professional leagues, eventually earning a spot with Detroit). So the 2001-02 season is not easily explainable, and so the effect of playing in deadweek remains unclear. What is also not known is what effect this had on band members and other students supporting the team during gamesÖ.
 

 

Women's Basketball, Men's Basketball, Football over two academic years
 

 

D= Deadweek, F= Finals week, number after D or F indicates number of games played during week indicated
 

 
 

000000000000000000Fall 2000 Wom-BB     GPA 3.09 D-1 F-1	000000000000000000Winter 2001 Wom-BB     GPA 3.05 D-1 F-0	000000000000000000Spring 2001 Wom-BB     GPA 3.42 no games
Fall 2001      GPA 2.95 D-3 F-1	Winter 2002      GPA 2.71 D-1 F-3	Spring 2002      GPA 3.25 no games
000000000000000000 Fall 2000 Mens-BB     GPA 2.31 D-1 F-0	000000000000000000 Winter 2001 Mens-BB     GPA 2.81 D-0 F-0	000000000000000000 Spring 2001 Mens-BB     GPA 2.70     no games
Fall 2001      GPA 2.40 D-1 F-1	Winter 2002     GPA 2.23 D-1 F-1	Spring 2002      GPA 1.88 no games
000000000000000000Fall 2000 F00tball     GPA 2.30 D-0 F-0	00000000000000000Winter 2001 Football     GPA 2.58 no games	000000000000000000Spring 2001 Football     GPA 2.54 no games
Fall 2001      GPA 2.45 D-1 F-0	Winter 2002      GPA 2.40 no games	Spring 2002      GPA 2.33 no games