The NCAA News - Comment
November 11, 1996
Student-athlete view -- Adjustments needed for partial qualifiers
BY BRIDGET NILAND
State University of New York at Buffalo
The 1997 NCAA Convention is fast approaching, and it is time once again to review the proposed legislation. This year, the NCAA Student-Athlete Advisory Committee (SAAC) is urging members to support Proposal Nos. 2-95 and 2-96 and the group of proposals involving student-athlete employment -- Nos. 2-103, 2-104 and 2-105.
The SAAC strongly supports Proposal No. 2-95, which attempts to correct some of the problems with the new initial-eligibility standards. The current standards, which went into effect this past August, narrowed the definition of a partial qualifier. Expanding the definition of a partial qualifier will provide prospects with a greater access to financial aid and practice opportunities. This proposal does not involve a controversial change; rather, it merely attempts to reinclude a set of student-athletes who, in the transition to the new standards, slipped from partial qualifier to nonqualifier status.
No. 2-96 permits a partial qualifier to earn a fourth season of competition, provided that the student-athlete receives a bachelor's degree before beginning the fifth academic year following the individual's initial full-time enrollment. This is the latest in a long line of legislation that has attempted to eliminate the inequities created by the initial-eligibility standards.
For example, say there are two incoming freshman athletes, "A" and "B." "A" did not perform well on her SATs and is considered a partial qualifier while "B," who scored a mere 10 points higher on his SATs, is a full qualifier. "A," because she is a partial qualifier, is not allowed to compete in her first year. Instead, "A" spends her time in the library or study skills center. She works hard and earns a 3.1 grade-point average in her first year. In her next three years, "A" continues to work at her academics, earning a cumulative 3.0 GPA and her bachelor's degree.
"B" completes his first year of eligibility. However, "B" does so poorly in the classroom that he is academically ineligible for his second year at State College. During his
year out, "B" manages to salvage his GPA and is eligible to play his third and fourth seasons of competition.
This spring, both "A" and "B" are graduating. Both have had to sit out a year because of academic troubles, and both have one year remaining on their five-year clock. "B," under the current NCAA rule, is allowed to recover that lost year of eligibility, but not "A." "A" continues to be penalized for the academic trouble that she encountered before she ever set foot on a college campus. It does not seem logical to continue to penalize "A" for her mistakes in high school. "A," unlike her classmate "B," has never faltered on the college campus, but the NCAA continues to stigmatize her as a partial qualifier.
In my three years on the SAAC, I have found very few people who can explain to me the purpose of denying a fourth season to a partial qualifier.
Some argue that allowing a partial qualifier to earn a fourth year of eligibility back will serve as a disincentive to current high-school prospects. There are two reasons this is a weak argument. First, I would like someone to find a student-athlete who carefully plans out being academically ineligible. Second, why would a student-athlete, hoping to land a full scholarship, purposely make himself or herself an academic risk to recruiters? Finally, I think it is about time that we, the NCAA, worry as much about the message we send to our currently enrolled students as the message to the high-school prospects who have yet to set foot on a college campus.
As I stated before, the membership came very close to adopting a similar piece of legislation in 1995. It failed because too many institutions felt that it made the fourth season an automatic gift to a partial qualifier. No. 2-96 does not make the fourth season of eligibility a gift; it merely addresses the unfairness associated with partial-qualifier status. It provides both a reward and incentive for student-athletes who overcome past academic trouble with a fourth season of competition.
In addition to Nos. 2-95 and 2-96, our committee also is urging the membership to support Proposal Nos. 2-103, 2-104 and 2-105. These measures deal specifically with a full-scholarship athlete's ability to work in the off-season. If adopted, these proposals would exempt legitimate off-campus employment earnings from a Division I student-athlete's full grant-in-aid limit and from the institution's sport limitations.
It is only sensible that students, especially full-scholarship athletes, should be discouraged from taking on the additional obligation during the competitive seasons. A student-athlete's time is limited, and careful time management is required for him or her to do well.
A complete list of the SAAC's stance on the proposals accompanies this article. Please take some time to consider our views when casting your vote. Remember, it is the student-athlete who is most seriously affected by our decisions at the Convention.
STUDENT-ATHLETE ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
Positions taken by the NCAA Student-Athlete Advisory Committee on legislation to be considered at the 1997 NCAA Convention:
Supports
Supports and is actively seeking support for the following proposals:
No. 2-95 (initial eligibility -- partial-qualifier, Division I).
Intent: To revise the definition of partial qualifier to include students who present a core-curriculum grade-point average of 2.500 and an SAT score of 810 or an ACT score of 67 and to include students who present core-curriculum GPAs from 2.475 to 2.250 and SAT scores of 820 or above or ACT scores of 68 or above.
Position: The committee believes that access and opportunities are limited with the current partial-qualifier standard. Thus, the committee believes the definition of a partial qualifier should include those students with a minimum 2.250 grade-point average.
No. 2-96 (initial eligibility -- partial qualifier, Division I).
Intent: In Division I, to permit a partial qualifier to earn a fourth season of competition, provided the student-athlete receives a baccalaureate degree prior to the beginning of the fifth academic year following the student-athlete's initial full-time enrollment.
Position: The committee continues to support proposals related to Division I partial qualifiers being permitted to earn back a fourth season of competition if they perform well academically at the Division I institution. Further, the committee believes that a student-athlete should not be held accountable for poor high-school performance during all of his or her years of enrollment at a Division I institution. It believes the option of earning back a fourth season of competition encourages academic performance toward a degree. In addition, the committee disagrees with the notion that earning back a fourth season discourages good academic performance in high school; rather, it gives student-athletes the opportunity to show that they can perform at the college level.
Nos. 2-103, 2-104 and 2-105 (financial aid -- employment earnings, Division I).
Intent: In Division I, to exempt employment earnings from counting in a student-athlete's individual full grant-in-aid limitations and the institution's sport limitations under specified conditions.
Position: The committee believes Division I student-athletes should be permitted to obtain employment earnings and not be required to include such employment in the individual full grant-in-aid of the student-athlete. The committee believes such employment earnings will serve to supplement the student-athletes and help to defray incidental costs related to being a student. Further, the committee believes such employment opportunities will serve as valuable experience and help prepare the student-athletes for employment after college.
Supports and urges the support of the NCAA membership on the following proposals:
No. 2-71 (printed recruiting materials -- student-athlete handbook, Divisions I and II).
No. 2-89 (graduate student -- transfer exception, Division III).
No. 2-107 (financial aid -- outside educational grant).
No. 2-108 (financial aid -- summer school, Division I).
No. 2-113 (weekly hour limitations -- skill instruction, Division II sports other than football).
Opposes
The committee opposes the following membership proposals:
No. 2-62 (recruiting -- telephone calls, Divisions I and II basketball and football).
No. 2-68 (recruiting -- telephone calls, Division I basketball).
No. 2-99 (two-year college transfers -- partial qualifier or nonqualifiers).
No. 2-123 (playing and practice seasons -- preseason practice, Division III football).
No position
No. 2-55 (amateurism -- loan against future earnings).
No. 2-56 (amateurism -- basketball draft).
No. 2-63 (recruiting -- telephone calls, Division I men's ice hockey).
No. 2-97 (satisfactory progress -- hours earned during regular academic year).
No. 2-100 (outside competition -- Division I soccer and women's volleyball).
No. 2-102 (exceptions to outside competition -- summer basketball, Division II).
No. 2-111 (permissible expenses -- meal allowance limitation).
Bridget Niland is student chair of the NCAA Student-Athlete Advisory Committee. She is a recent graduate of the State University of New York at Buffalo, where she ran track and field and cross country. She currently is enrolled in law school at Buffalo.
Comment -- Changing times demand coaches' input
The following is excerpted from The Extra Point, the publication of the American Football Coaches Association.
BY RICHARD E. LAPCHICK
Fifteen years ago, the number one, and perhaps only, rule that mattered was winning. Winning would help sell tickets and increase chances for TV coverage. Coaches who followed this rule stayed at their schools for long periods of time and earned good but hardly sensational salaries. No one pointed a finger at the coach unless he lost.
Then scandals began to reveal that student-athletes were more athletes than students. Football players were graduating at rates that barely broke an estimated 35 percent in the mid-1980s. For African-American student-athletes, the rate was estimated to be 20 percent. But even those percentages were always controversial because schools did not have to report their rates.
Schools and coaches worked hard on educating their student-athletes over the next decade. Now that graduation rates have been reported, we have discovered that white football players graduate at a higher rate (61 percent) than white male students (57 percent) and that black football players graduate at a significantly higher rate (43 percent) than black male students (32 percent).
Yes, there are schools and coaches who have not made the necessary changes, but the data show that most have made great strides to keep the "student" in the student-athlete.
The 1990s have seemed to bring an avalanche of highly publicized cases of athletes and their problems with the law. In 1995, there were 22 athletes arrested for a drug-related crime and 28 athletes arrested for an alcohol-related crime. That meant that, on average, an athlete was arrested every week for drugs or alcohol! Columnists continually wrote that athletes had special problems with both drugs and alcohol and the public, reading about the individual cases so frequently, bought into the negative image. Coaches were running out-of-control programs.
Need for context
The individual stories were never put in the context of our society, in which 1.9 million Americans use cocaine each month; where there are 2.1 million life-time heroin users; in which 17 percent of males aged 18-24 who are not athletes use an illicit drug each month and where 13 million Americans engage in binge drinking at least five times per month. These are enormous social problems, but we still point the fingers at our coaches and their student-athletes as if the problem was owned by them.
So we rewrote the rules for coaches. You have to win, sell tickets, get the team on TV, win a bowl game, graduate your student-athletes and help them become socially ready for the real world. The new rules, which were desperately needed, were developed by university presidents who began to reclaim control of athletics departments. Coaches were rarely asked their opinions, which led to a major rift between coaches and presidents.
College coaches are now very well-paid. Some are making 10 times what they could have earned in 1980 when the coach's job was simpler and clearly defined. With increased fame, income and prestige, coaches have decreased job security as lifetime jobs rarely, if ever, now exist. Over the past 10 years, there has been a huge turnover rate each year for Division I football coaches.
Today, coaches are asked to be fully accountable for whom they recruit to our campuses. They should also be accountable for and assisted in helping student-athletes understand what they must do academically and socially after they arrive.
We are all compelled to adapt to an ever-changing world. However, to be fair, we should include coaches when we change the rules.
Coaches must be part of the discussion for two reasons. First, it is only fair that they be part of the process that will directly affect their ability to do their jobs. Second, they are much more likely to buy into any change when they are part of formulating it.
Richard E. Lapchick is director of Northeastern University's Center for the Study of Sport in Society and is also director of the National Consortium for Academics and Sports.
Opinions -- Debate goes on over NCAA initial-eligibility standards
Editorial
USA Today
"NCAA officials acknowledge the problems but say the Initial-Eligibility Clearinghouse is a convenience for students and colleges and that it helps prevent unscrupulous institutions from bending the rules for star players.
"But the clearinghouse has an impossible task. There are more than 15,000 school districts nationwide (not counting private schools), each with a constantly evolving curriculum. Who believes the clearinghouse, which reviewed 122,000 applications last year, can possibly keep up? And who thinks that with so much at stake for each student there is any room for error?
"The NCAA can better enforce eligibility rules through its members. And if a few colleges bend the rules, if a few below-average scholars take the field -- well, that surely is preferable to obstructing the educations of hundreds of other deserving students."
Cedric W. Dempsey, executive director -- NCAA
USA Today
"Yes, there have been problems with the clearinghouse because of situations we didn't expect. For example, about twice as many students register with the clearinghouse as will ever play college sports, which was a surprise. So we increased staffing and telephone lines to handle the extra load.
"The latest concern has been the process for determining whether a high-school course meets the NCAA's definition of a core course. The NCAA is working with the high-school community on a faster process for those decisions, which may better align NCAA standards with today's changing high-school curricula.
"Still, the clearinghouse is working. Only one percent of students challenge the clearinghouse's ruling by using the rules-waiver process.
"The majority are approved. That process allows good students, caught by a technicality or by bad advice, to become eligible.
"The clearinghouse can work, with cooperation from everyone involved. It ensures the integrity of our academic standards, the ones that now make sure college athletes really are college students from the first moment they arrive on campus. And that's what is important."
FOOTBALL OVERTIME
Tim Layden, writer
Sports Illustrated
"When college coaches voted last February to endorse regular-season overtime and recommended this to the NCAA rules committee (which rubber-stamped the motion), they could scarcely have imagined it would have such an immediate and profound effect. The weekend (of October 26) was the watershed day for overtime, but it was also in OT that Oklahoma emotionally won its first game of the season, 30-27, over Texas, October 12 at the Cotton Bowl. Both of Columbia's victories in the Ivy League have been in overtime. On October 5, Florida A&M took five hours and six overtime possessions to beat Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference rival Hampton, 59-58. The score at the end of regulation was 20-20; then, astonishingly, each team traded scores tit for tat -- five touchdowns, three PATs, one two-point conversion and one field goal each -- before a missed extra point cost Hampton the game. After that marathon, Florida A&M coach Billy Joe said, 'I hope this never happens again. It almost makes you wish for a tie. I've never been in such a stressful situation.'
"What is stressful for coaches has been riveting for fans. Each possession in overtime is paramount, each play is run within easy scoring range. It's a high-risk event played at video-game speed. Still, the question must be asked: Arizona State's OT victory (over Southern California on October 26) was thrilling, but if the Sun Devils had attempted an old-fashioned, all-or-nothing two-point conversion after scoring with 1:30 to play in regulation, instead of kicking the extra point that tied the game, would that have been less exciting?"
ROLE OF ATHLETICS
David Boren, president
University of Oklahoma
The Dallas Morning News
"Dr. Cross (former University of Oklahoma President George) wrote a book called 'Presidents Can't Punt,' which I've read. By that he means that presidents ultimately must ... make sure that athletics programs are accountable to the president. If you don't, you're going to have severe problems.
"In terms of the whole program of the university, sometimes I think we've overstated the impact that a winning season has. We're finding that we're struggling, and everybody knows we're in a rebuilding phase, but this has not slowed down the financial contributions to the university....
"After all, our first mission is educational. Fifty years from now, the university's contribution will be largely judged on how well we trained leaders.
"Having said that, I certainly consider myself pro-athletics. I think that what you learn from participation in athletics is very important."
|
