The NCAA News - Comment
May 13, 1996
The Faculty Voice -- Subdivision at the top of issues for Division III
BY JEFF ANKROM
Wittenberg University
As we enter the transition period for NCAA restructuring, it is a good time to take note of the important issues that remain to be resolved in Division III.
As a member of the Division III Task Force to Review the NCAA Membership Structure, I am pleased to offer a faculty perspective on some of these issues.
Much has been accomplished by the restructuring task force to this point. The concept for our basic governance mechanisms (Presidents and Management Councils) is now in place.
Our championships and sports committees are also well-established. Regarding membership issues, our task force is likely to recommend legislation to establish an additional year of provisional membership, an improved process for approving provisional membership, an increase in Division III membership dues, and an increase in sports sponsorship for membership in the division. Regarding championships, the task force favors enhancements that would give students reasonable opportunities for postseason play.
But the hot-button issue now under consideration in Division III is subdivision.
Specifically, the membership of Division III must decide whether or how to partition our division into two or more parts for championship play in eight team sports. At the 1995 and 1996 NCAA Conventions, our membership discussed a model that would use sports sponsorship and enrollment as the factors used in a formula to accomplish subdivision.
A survey taken at the 1996 Convention indicated that a majority of Division III favors subdivision, and among those who favor the idea, enrollment and sports sponsorship emerged as the desired elements of the method used to subdivide.
At this time, there are a handful of subdivision models on the table. Most have in common that enrollment and sports sponsorship are the primary factors used to accomplish subdivision. Also discussed are models that subdivide on the basis of geography and/or institutional control (that is, whether the institution is state-funded or private). It is important to emphasize that our work is fluid, but the Division III subcommittee of the Presidents Commission has charged us with the task of working on a subdivision model. They also hope to see a legislative proposal prepared for the 1997 Convention.
One early model, initially developed by me for the task force, would require that an index number be calculated. Other current proposals use the same approach.
Exactly how might an index number approach to subdivision work? Avoiding unnecessary detail, the concept consists of three parts.
First, your institution's index score would be calculated. Then a cutoff value (for example, 100) for the index is established. Finally, if your index value is less than 100 you go into what might be called the "National Division" for the championship season, and if the index exceeds 100 you would participate in the "American Division" when postseason play begins.
Cutoff value question
A critical question involves the choice of cutoff value for index, determining the line of demarcation for the two divisions. In other words, would subdivision be accomplished by making the cutoff value for the index 100, or would it be a larger (or even smaller) number? This is a question the task force, and ultimately the membership, of Division III will need to wrestle with.
For now, note that the mean value for index (for approximately 350 current members of Division III) is 100. A total of 147 institutions have index values less than 100, while 198 have values above 100. Note also that 184 Division III institutions currently sponsor at least 16 sports. These numbers suggest that a wide disparity among the current membership now exists, at least with respect to sports-sponsorship levels.
Why are enrollment and sports sponsorship in the index formula?
Telling indicator
Many of those who respond favorably to the idea of subdivision believe that the level of sports sponsorship is a telling indicator of institutional commitment to a broad-based program. In other words, institutions that sponsor a large number of sports are likely to have a large number of women's sports, and also a commitment to nontraditional (that is, minor) sports.
Some argue that it is unfair to expect smaller institutions to achieve sports-sponsorship levels found at larger institutions. The models developed to this point recognize that problem by creating a sliding scale. Smaller institutions could enter the high-sponsorship division (call it the American Division) with a relatively low number of sports sponsored. Large institutions can make the American Division by sponsoring more sports. If your enrollment is very large (for example, 10,000), it would be unfair to expect your institution to sponsor 30 sports to make it into the American Division.
No institution goes homeless
What is important to note here is that a subdivision model would make no institution homeless. Every member of Division III, current and future, will participate in one of the two divisions in championship play. We would still be one division for important governance matters, but would have the flexibility to conduct smaller, less time-consuming championships.
Why might subdivision be needed?
Two main arguments have surfaced to this point in the discussion. First, some believe that the NAIA is in financial trouble. Some argue that the collapse of the NAIA would have occurred last summer if not for the moratorium on new membership established by the NCAA. The prospect of a 600-member division is a frightening scenario to many participants in the discussion.
Others on the task force doubt that the NAIA is in imminent danger and may be stabilizing itself in ways unknown to us at this time. They argue that the discussion about subdivision is therefore premature.
But regardless of the state of the NAIA, there is a second reason for subdivision.
Division III will in a few years be a 400-member division, by far the largest in the NCAA. The championships study commissioned by the task force suggests that we are already at a natural ceiling for division size. That is, in order to keep our division commitment to reasonable championship opportunities (endorsed by the task force and made operational by an 8:1 ratio of participating institutions to championship berths in team sports), we must conduct championships that are simply too long.
In many sports, students and faculty know that our seasons are on the verge of getting out of control, if they have not already reached that point.
Subdivision is an important issue for Division III. The task force and our membership will be involved in an intense discussion for the next several months. Whatever the outcome, exciting times are ahead for a newly restructured Division III.
Jeff Ankrom is professor of economics at Wittenberg University.
Misunderstanding of Title IX is old news
The following commentary first appeared in the Daily Eastern News, the student newspaper at Eastern Illinois University.
BY JOAN K. SCHMIDT
Eastern Illinois University
Title IX and gender equity have been the focus of many articles in the last two years. Recent comments by a newspaper writer made me realize that (1) people just don't understand Title IX and (2) history does repeat itself.
I happen to be an individual who was denied the opportunity to participate in sports in high school because there were no sports for girls. I did compete in three sports in college. In 1994, I was inducted into Western Michigan University's Athletic Hall of Fame and truly understood at that time what an impact sports have had on my life. Yes, I was finally given the opportunity to be the best I would be, and I met that challenge.
Berating Title IX and the Office for Civil Rights is nothing new. Let me direct your attention to clips from The Niles (Illinois) Daily Star in November 1974. "A revolution is brewing in college athletics. The women have joined up and there's nothing the men can do about it. The government has stepped in with a new law called Title IX, and to hear some tell it, the day of big-time college athletics is either over or on the way out." And, "Athletics directors at the nation's colleges and universities are scrambling to find money and methods to comply with a new federal law that requires equal opportunity for women in sports."
Doesn't this sound familiar? Could it be that history does repeat itself?
Although Title IX legislation passed in 1972, postsecondary schools had until 1978 to meet the revisions. In December 1978, newspapers were flooded with articles. The South Bend Tribune had this to say: "Strict compliance with the published 'per capita expenditures' provision of Title IX, as released December 6, 1978, in Washington, could require Notre Dame to spend some $800,000 on women's sports programs or drastically cut back expenditures in all sports." I read The South Bend Tribune in March 1996, and it appears that Notre Dame sports are still in existence and doing quite well.
Title IX legislation was significantly impacted from 1982 to 1988 with the Tower Amendment, the Javits Amendment, the Haffer vs. Temple court case and the Grove City vs. Bell Supreme Court case. It was the passage of the Civil Rights Restoration Act on March 22, 1988, that restored the power of Title IX.
Now in the 1990s, lawsuits and the increased involvement by the Office for Civil Rights have elevated the awareness of universities to the Title IX requirements. We see headlines such as: "Protecting Men's Sports," "We Know Who the Enemy Is: OCR" and so on. These headlines are not much different from those that appeared in 1974 and 1978. Could it be that people just don't understand or is history repeating itself?
New reporters, same issues
For those of us who have been involved with Title IX from its inception, we see the same issues surfacing about every four years. The newspaper reporters change, but the issues don't. No men's programs have been devastated at those institutions where foresight was used and a plan developed to increase opportunities in a timely fashion. Somewhere in this mix of college athletics, the issue of fairness and equal opportunity has been lost. Women were once the paupers and now they are the scapegoats for program reductions. Why do universities continue to be in denial or misplace the blame?
The Knight Commission says it best: "Colleges and universities advance their intellectual mission by placing a premium on fairness, equality, competition and recognition of merit. These values are as important in the department of athletics as they are in the office of the dean. Keeping faith with student-athletes means keeping faith with women as well as men. The goal to keep in mind is the imperative to create comparable opportunities for participants, whether men or women, while controlling cost."
Could it be that people don't want to understand?
Joan K. Schmidt is an assistant professor of physical education at Eastern Illinois University.
Opinions -- Student-athletes need more decision-making authority
Glenn Dickey, columnist
San Francisco Chronicle
Discussing NCAA transfer regulations:
"Right or wrong, (University of California, Berkeley, basketball player) Tremaine Fowlkes should be allowed to make his own decision. College is a time when young men and women learn to make their own decisions. They aren't always the right ones, but those who don't get a chance to learn from their mistakes in college often make similar mistakes later in life, when they can be more costly.
"Those in charge of intercollegiate sports, though, use rules to control athletes and take away their decision-making powers.
"With very few exceptions, transferring athletes must sit out a year before they can play for their new school, and that's a good idea. Those who transfer within the Pac-10 not only have to sit out a year, but they lose a year of eligibility.
"No such restrictions are put on coaches, of course, who move from school to school without penalty. It is common to see a coach recruit athletes at one school and then move to another, while the athletes are bound to his old school by the stringent transfer restrictions even if the new coach has no use for them.
"The scholarship road is one way. Schools can yank scholarships at the end of each year, but they also have the ability to refuse to release athletes from scholarships. If the athletes still choose to transfer, they have to pay their own expenses for a year before they can be put on scholarship again....
"It's all part of a pattern. Many of the NCAA rules are anti-athlete. Other students can work during the school year and talk to prospective employers, for instance, but athletes cannot.
"Fowlkes was suspended by the NCAA for the first half of last basketball season because he took money from someone who had been an agent, which is forbidden.
"In a previous conversation, (California athletics director John) Kasser said he thought that restriction was unfair. 'We allow law students or medical students to borrow against future earnings,' he said. 'If the school isn't involved, why shouldn't an athlete be allowed to take money from an agent, to be deducted from his future earnings?'
"It made sense to me, too. The agent, of course, would be gambling that the player would have a pro career and would be able to pay him back. Why don't the schools and the NCAA allow this? 'Because we (college coaches and ADs) don't trust each other,' said Kasser. 'We're all afraid some schools would cheat.'
"And so, college administrators restrict the athletes, to protect themselves from each other.
"It may backfire on them. The disparity between the millions earned by football and basketball players, in bowl games and postseason tournaments as well as regular-season games, has led to serious talk about paying salaries to college players.
"I think that would be ruinous to college sports, because it would siphon off money that is now used to keep nonrevenue-producing sports going. But it may happen if the NCAA doesn't start giving a fairer shake to athletes."
Gambling
John Rawlings, editor
The Sporting News
"In conjunction with the Final Four, USA Today brought together several people from the sports world to talk about the dangers of gambling. The focus was on college basketball, but the discussion extends to all The Sporting News covers....
"Gambling on sports is bad enough because if enough money is bet on a game, sufficient reason exists to fix the outcome. Pete Rose, for one, deserves every condemnation he has received because he damaged the people's belief that a game would be fairly contested. The mainstream media are guilty of helping legitimize illegal gambling by regularly publishing gambling lines and columns that purport to help people bet. Some newspapers also accept advertisements from 'tout services' that offer gamblers advice, at exorbitant rates, another sellout to promoting an illegal activity. It is the only area I know of in which my profession throws all business ethics and good sense out the window in pursuit of a dollar.
"While USA Today deserves applause for providing the forum for the debate, it also runs a betting line provided by Danny Sheridan and writes about him as if he were a legitimate part of the sports world. And you, dear readers, share in perpetuating this hypocrisy. Newspapers wouldn't carry gambling information if a lot of you didn't demand it.
"Shame on us all."
Eating disorders
Dan Benardot, nutritionist
U.S. men's and women's gymnastics teams
Chicago Tribune
"We want athletes to be thinking about a strength-to-weight ratio and not simply about body weight."
|
