The NCAA News - Comment

December 9, 1996

• The Faculty Voice -- Preregistration policy an institutional matter ...By Vicki Hightower
• Letters to the Editor -- Problem in III is the bylaws, not cheaters
• Opinions -- Coaches acknowledge and accept job-related pressure

The Faculty Voice -- Preregistration policy an institutional matter

BY VICKI HIGHTOWER
Elon College

During a recent student athletics council meeting, I was asked by several members to investigate the possibility of getting advanced preregistration for athletes. Since I am the owner of the Faculty Athletics Representatives Association mailing list, a me ans of communication with other faculty representatives, I asked FARA members what was done about the situation at other schools.

I received 28 responses from the 95 members on the list.

At Elon College, our current position is as follows: We do not give our athletes any advantage over other regular students. Honors students, North Carolina Teaching Fellows and students in the Leadership Program are allowed to preregister ahead of the n ormal student population. Then come seniors, juniors, sophomores and finally freshmen. We, like many other schools, try to advise our athletes to get to registration as soon as they are permitted to go through the line.

We have found that first-term freshmen have the hardest time. Under our current system, entering freshmen are registered by someone in the academic advising office during the summer. We try to make sure that these advisors are aware of which students are athletes and that these freshmen really need a morning/early afternoon schedule so they might participate in late-afternoon practice.

Occasionally something goes wrong and that information is not factored into the equation. This year, there were numerous freshman football and soccer players who ended up with Monday/Wednesday classes at 4 p.m. Upon returning to school in the fall, we adv ised them to go through the drop/add line and try to get morning classes. They had no special registration time allowed and were the last ones to go through the line, making a reasonable schedule very difficult.

Now, from a professor's point of view, the student belongs in class. But as the liaison between the faculty and the athletics department, I can understand the dilemma in which the coaches find themselves. If a player does not come to practice, he or she c annot really be prepared for the upcoming contest and hence will not be an asset to the team. The coach needs everyone there for the workout to be effective, and when student-athletes must attend the late classes, they are placed in a difficult position. Their first priority is to get an education.

But in many cases, athletics is the way they choose to put themselves through school. So they must perform up to expectations; they don't want to disappoint the coach. But they must also do well in the classroom. That's a lot of pressure on a student.

Adding the problem of being forced to enroll in classes that are scheduled during practice seems an extra and unnecessary burden. If we are concerned about academic welfare, shouldn't we be trying to create the best possible process to ensure academic suc cess?

So, how do other schools approach this problem? Some of the respondents said that they give early registration privileges to athletes because other campus groups get privileges. For example, student government leaders, members of marching bands, honors st udents, editors of the student newspapers and student yearbook staff receive early registration in some instances. One respondent noted that these students are "major contributors" to the university and as such their schedules are more complicated because of their involvement.

Frank M. Webbe of Florida Institute of Technology feels it is appropriate to differentiate between the areas where equal treatment is mandatory (in the classroom) and those areas where equal treatment might actually interfere with the student's academic p rogress. According to a respondent whose school is on the quarter system, athletes are allowed to register early during the quarter in which they participate in the sport; in other quarters, however, they are treated no differently.

Others let new athletes register before other newcomers. They are invited to campus before the rest of the freshman class for orientation and therefore register earlier. After that, they are in the same pool with the other students.

Percy Bates of the University of Michigan suggested that to make a class schedule that does not interfere with their practice schedule, student-athletes often end up taking courses at a time that fits in, without regard to the value of the course, or thei r major or their interest. I'm not sure that correlates well with providing a quality education.

Jerry L. Kingston said that at Arizona State University, athletes are allowed early preregistration. He pointed out that student-athletes have to meet eligibility requirements imposed by the NCAA that are more stringent than those for other students.

Longwood College's Wayne E. McWee communicated many reasons his institution currently gives priority registration to athletes: limited facilities, unlighted practice fields, small school offering few sections of a given course, no extended hours in the di ning hall, long travel distances for athletics teams. He also noted that the actual number receiving special treatment is lower than believed since junior- and senior-level students frequently have little or no trouble registering for conveniently timed r equired courses.

Beverly Klooster of Calvin College, a Division III institution, said that the student-athletes have no special registration. She also pointed out that the registrar is sensitive to the problems of student-athletes and would try to avoid a schedule that pu ts a student-athlete in a regular class that meets late in the afternoon, which is no different than he would treat a person who had a job, or someone in music who needed to keep rehearsal time open.

At Elon, the department chair makes out the schedule for that department, and athletics is not a part of the formula that determines when classes are offered. Many faculty representatives said that they have been promoting "militant advising" by faculty, coaches and the faculty representative, encouraging the students to arrive at registration as soon as they are scheduled to appear.

Whatever the approach, faculty seem to agree that the notion of whether to let student-athletes register before others is a school policy matter that needs to be handled by the school's administration -- academic and athletic. Who, after all, has better f irst-hand information about the problems that face the student-athlete and the best solutions to those problems than those who monitor them every day?

Because athletes frequently serve as the "front porch" for the college and are different in a special way, we owe it to them to give careful consideration to the issue of early preregistration, without dismissing it out of hand.

Vicki Hightower is faculty athletics representative at Elon College, where she is assistant professor of computer sciences.

Letters to the Editor -- Problem in III is the bylaws, not cheaters

There is the further claim that illegal financial aid in NCAA Division III "is of significant dimensions, and not much is being done about it."

To me, a neophyte with no experiential or even anecdotal evidence, a turn to the bylaws is required. The writer's only entre to critical judgment of the actual bylaws of Division III is a reference to Bylaw 15.4 and a related reference to "under the guise of leadership, merit or presidential (or other inventive titles) scholarships."

An analysis of our conference's 379 entering freshmen in 1996 fall sports demonstrates that the Bylaw 15.4 standards for academic honor awards are absurd at best. Sixty percent of our 379 entering freshmen in fall sports exceed all of the standards for By law 15.4.6.2 academic honor awards. Although I do not have the statistics on the actual bestowal of academic honor awards among these 379 entering freshmen, I can state with confidence based upon 36 years experience in this conference that few if any of t he students in the "upper 20 percent, 3.500, SAT 1140" category of Bylaw 15.4 are remotely competitive for any academic award, let alone an academic honor award.

Bylaw 15.4.9 is the real crux of the matter. Items (b), (c) and (d) can be met in full, but a member institution is in violation if (a) ("a member institution shall not consider athletics ability as a criterion in the formulation of the financial aid pack age") is not met. How is "consideration" to be measured? If we turn to Bylaw 15.4.9.4 (matrix-rating system), at least there is a prohibited formula to apply to "consideration." However, I repeat the full compliance with (b), (c) and (d) of Bylaw 15.4.9. Are we not again in the absurd world of trying to determine what is in the head of a financial aid officer relative to "consideration?"

As a neophyte, I argue that cheating is not a problem in Division III. The problem is absurd bylaws that lead to charges of cheating, cynicism, or angry, frustrating, futile attempts at compliance.

Combine Bylaw 15.4 with Bylaw 20.11.3 (sports sponsorship) on the same page as a Division III philosophy statement claiming to "encourage participation by maximizing the number and variety of athletics opportunities for their students." If an institution can limit sports sponsorship, the fiscal ability to enhance academic honor awards for all students is expanded. Our conference requires sponsoring 12 sports as a minimum for membership. If Division III were to make 20.11.3 match its philosophy statement o n sports sponsorship, then the pressure is eased on academic honor award expansion. An institution's student-athletes will not tolerate blatant institutional financial aid discrepancies.

Change the bylaws to drop "consideration," approach the actual levels of academic honor awards (GPA 3.95, SAT 1400, upper 10 percent of the class) and increase sports sponsorship to 12. Even cynical winks and smiles will disappear, along with the charges of cheating.

Arleigh R. Dodson
Commissioner
Northwest Conference of Independent Colleges

Headline misleading

My view is that your November 18 headline reading "Typical I-A program is $1.2 million in the black" is misleading.

The referenced article goes on to point out that without institutional support, the typical program would have been $237,000 in the red.

On more than one college campus, I've heard "institutional support" accurately referred to as "subsidy." It would have been more to the point to have a headline reading "Without subsidies, typical I-A program would have lost money."

Dick Kishpaugh
Parchment, Michigan

Opinions -- Coaches acknowledge and accept job-related pressure

"No matter how high the money gets, it doesn't make the coaching job better. There is a tremendous amount of internal pressure. The worst pressure is the pressure you put on yourself.

"Then there's the pressure exerted by the fact that you must win. You can talk about graduation rates all you want, but winning is what keeps your job....

'"I don't think you ever think about how much money you've got. I don't know of anybody who loses a game and then thinks, 'It doesn't matter. I still got mine.' Only a guy who doesn't care anything about his players, his position or anything else except m aterial things would think that way."

Bill Dooley, men's basketball coach
University of Richmond
Richmond Times-Dispatch

"There's a pressure to win -- and knowing that if you don't win, you can be fired. You have to know you're going to be scrutinized, analyzed and criticized in the public eye, oftentimes by people who don't have insight into your sport or your team. But th at's part of it. It's not always pleasant, but that's the way it is....

"Am I on the hot seat? Yeah, I'm on the hot seat. Two 8-20 seasons -- I should be. I don't need someone else to tell me that.

"It's like this. The way it is today, college basketball coaches aren't the only ones under pressure. The people at Best Products -- boom, they're finished. People 50 years old who have been with one company 25 years are being let go. That's always been a part of coaching. It's just that your results are more public and more defined."

Ara Parseghian, former football coach
University of Notre Dame
The Associated Press

"You become a victim of your success. The expectations become great. There is a limitation for a coach. The best he can do is go undefeated and win the national championship. Then the best he can do is try to repeat that. There's nothing you can do to top that, but there's marvelous opportunities to go backward."

Gambling

John Gearan, columnist
Worcester Telegram and Gazette

"The truth is gambling is a serious problem on college campuses.

"There are underworld figures who line up campus bookies to collect all these harmless bets that add up quickly to thousands and thousands of illegal dollars, not to mention unreported income. Law enforcement officials will tell you that gambling money fu els more malicious forms of criminality. It is not uncommon for campus bookies or student bettors to dig a huge financial hole for themselves. They have been threatened with and received serious bodily harm for not paying off lost bets. Parents have somet imes been forced to bail out Junior before his legs are relocated.

"Athletes are particularly vulnerable. If they get into a financial hole with underworld figures, they can use their position to affect the outcome of games or feed inside information to the wise guys. This creates a very dangerous milieu. And college adm inistrators should treat such gambling seriously and harshly.

"Athletes, whether on scholarship or not, should not be engaged in illegal gambling. For starters, they sign agreements with their colleges not to violate NCAA rules. So when they bet, they betray themselves and their teammates. When caught, they bring di sgrace to the images of their schools. That can result in heavy financial losses that are incalculable. That others on campus gamble is not a persuasive alibi.

"Moreover, athletes should hold themselves to a higher standard.

"They should represent fair play and clean competition, however ancient an idea that sounds like. In general, college athletes are revered in our society. Often they are given better opportunities for better jobs because of their self-discipline and compe titive spirit. They should be leaders, not followers.

"It is no laughing matter when they violate our trust in them. In fact, it's a crying shame."

Pressure on presidents

John DiBiaggio, president
Tufts University
The Chronicle of Higher Education

"At some institutions, the alumni are fiercely loyal because of a school's athletic achievement rather than its academic prowess. And the trustees at some institutions are more interested in where their seats are located than what is going on at the insti tution.

"When you can't get the board to stand with you, and there are all these outside interests clamoring for victory, it can be hard to take a stand."