National Collegiate Athletic Association |
CommentJanuary 27, 1997
Student-athlete view -- Convention listended to concerns of athletes
BY KARRIE FARRELL, JULIE FERNANDEZ AND BRIDGET NILAND -- NCAA STUDENT-ATHLETE ADVISORY COMMITTEEThe 1997 NCAA Convention can be summed up in one simple word -- groundbreaking. Not only did the NCAA make its final leap into a new structure, the members of the Association chose to trust each other, along with the student-athletes. As a result, sensible, productive and even logical legislation was adopted. In previous years, our committee has walked away from Conventions discouraged and disillusioned. For the most part, we were baffled by the defeat of proposals that truly enhanced the welfare of student-athletes. We brought to the floor strong arguments that often resulted in administrators actively nodding their heads in agreement. It appeared to us that our message was finally being heard. However, when the votes were tallied, the proposals we supported were substantially defeated. We surmised that although the membership heard us, for some reason, they weren't listening to us. Through the leadership of our former chair Tanya Hughes and other veteran committee members, we went back and did what you sometimes have to do after a defeat -- we worked harder. We decided that the 1997 Convention might be our last chance to make some improvements in student-athlete welfare. As a group, we focused in on what were the key issues confronting student-athletes. Then we planned an effective strategy to notify the membership of those issues before the Convention. To do this, we strengthened our relationship with campus and conference student-athlete advisory committees. We also published articles in The NCAA News that outlined our positions on the legislation and explained why certain proposals should be supported or defeated. We figured that most decisions involving Convention legislation are made long before the actual votes are cast. By working with the campus SAACs and publishing articles, we hoped to get our views to institutions long before they left for Nashville. Whether our networking strategy worked or votes were simply swayed on the Convention floor, it does not make a difference. Any way you choose to look at it, the 1997 NCAA Convention brought about a huge change in the way the Association views and treats its student-athletes. Following is an overview of what we, the members of the NCAA Student-Athlete Advisory Committee, perceive as the highs and lows of the 1997 NCAA Convention. Just like our new structure, we have federated our analysis into Divisions I, II and III. Division I The 1997 Convention resulted in some major doors of opportunity being opened for Division I student-athletes. The most prominent of those gains is the opportunity to work part time during the academic year. After an exhausting hour-long debate, the membership agreed that it was no longer fair to prevent student-athletes from gaining real work experience. Under Proposal No. 62, a student-athlete on a full grant-in-aid can work part time in the academic year, provided he or she is academically eligible and signs an affidavit confirming that he or she can earn only the difference between a full grant-in-aid and the cost of attendance. As a committee, we were thrilled to see the membership give student-athletes an opportunity to work. However, we feel rather strongly that legislation without the cost-of-attendance cap would be a more effective and practical rule. Perhaps the most shocking gain for student-athletes is the adoption of Proposal No. 68, which allows partial qualifiers to earn back their fourth year of eligibility. Under the new rule, partial qualifiers will have the opportunity to compete in their fifth year of college, providing they have successfully completed their bachelor's degree within four years. The adoption of Proposal No. 68 demonstrates that people are finally realizing that it is unfair to continue to penalize a student-athlete for past academic trouble in high school. The SAAC feels that it is more important to judge a student-athlete on his or her current college work rather than on past high-school grades. All secondary education in the United States is not equal in terms of quality. School districts with greater financial resources offer more college prep work than those schools that are hard-pressed to simply get their students to graduate. We agree that a partial qualifier may need to sit out his or her first year of study. This year can allow them to get organized and focus on remedying any learning difficulties they may have had. It does not, however, make sense to deny them an opportunity to earn back that year through academic achievement. Finally, the most far-reaching change made at this year's Convention is the membership's decision to allow student-athletes to write and participate in media activities. Proposal No. 59 -- coined by our committee as the "Right to Write" provision -- allows student-athletes to receive compensation from publishing articles or participating in theater productions unrelated to athletics. Proposal No. 59 also permits student-athletes to participate in media events related to their sport, provided that they are not compensated for such involvement. For years, student-athletes have been at a disadvantage because of the NCAA's policy on our relations with the media. Under the new regulation, student-athletes are free to express themselves both as students and athletes, without endangering their eligibility. Not everything turned in our favor at this year's Convention. We lost our fight to prohibit coaches from annoying prospective student-athletes with recruiting phone calls during the exam-filled month of May. Despite our first-hand accounts of how truly distracting, unnecessary and intrusive these phone calls are, the membership chose to adopt this measure. We also lost in our quest to expand college opportunities for high-school students. The membership refused to adopt Proposal No. 67, which would not have lowered academic standards but rather would have created greater opportunities for institutions to offer a disadvantaged high-school student a chance to attend college. The SAAC chose to support this proposal for two reasons. First, under the new standards effective last August, the definition of the partial qualifier was narrowed. What this meant is that students who under the old standard were considered partial qualifiers are now considered nonqualifiers. For example, suppose there are two student-athletes with the exact same academic qualifications. One enters college in 1995 and the other in 1996. The first is considered a partial qualifier and is given the opportunity to attend college. The second, although he or she has the exact same grade-point average and test scores, is a nonqualifier. The only difference between the two is that the second was unlucky enough to have been born a year late. As you can see, the logic behind the distinction is inconsistent. It seems to imply that just because he or she was born a year later, that individual is not qualified to attend college. The second reason we supported Proposal No. 67 is that the new standard did not lower academic standards. For that to happen, the legislation would have to make nonqualifiers certified qualifiers. No. 67 merely adjusted the initial-eligibility index to be consistent with what the NCAA considered a partial qualifier in 1995, therefore allowing more opportunities for high-school students to receive financial aid to attend college. Without such financial assistance, many academically qualified students cannot afford a college education.
-- Bridget Niland Division II The pressing concern for our committee in terms of Division II legislation was the presence of the NCAA Student-Athlete Advisory Committee in the new governance structure. Unlike Division I and III, Division II has yet to decide exactly how the SAAC will be involved in the Division II policy-making process. For this reason, we chose to speak to Proposal No. 25 in the Division II business session. This proposal dealt with the composition of the Division II Management Council. Our committee asked for voting power, as well as representation on the Management Council and other Division II committees. Division II members wholeheartedly endorsed the idea of student-athlete representation on the Management Council and assured our committee that there will be a true partnership between the membership and student-athletes before any policy changes involving student-athletes are made. We are grateful to members of the Division II Steering Committee for discussing these changes with our committee, and we are encouraged that the SAAC will be an active and valued participant in the new Division II governance structure. In addition to our discussion concerning restructuring, we also spoke to several other pieces of student-welfare legislation. First, we spoke in support of Proposal No. 74. This proposal would allow for two hours of voluntary skill-related instruction during the off-season and within the academic year. As a committee, we felt that this legislation was good for the student-athlete. Individual instruction ultimately helps the student-athlete improve skills while at the same time fostering a stronger relationship with the coach. It also was important to us to afford Division II athletes the same opportunities to improve themselves that are available to Division I athletes. Finally, we felt that the fact that the skill sessions were voluntary removed any possibility of placing an undue burden on athletes or coaches. The membership agreed and the proposal was adopted.
-- Karrie Farrell Division III The Student-Athlete Advisory Committee addressed three pieces of legislation that would affect the welfare of Division III student-athletes. The first, and perhaps most important to us, was Proposal No. 73. It would allow a student-athlete from any division to use up any remaining eligibility while enrolled in a Division III graduate or professional program. This opportunity already is available for Divisions I and II schools. Unfortunately, the proposal was withdrawn before our committee had the opportunity to ask for its adoption. Apparently, there is a concern among Division III schools that such an opportunity would give those schools with graduate programs an advantage over those schools that do not offer such extensive education. This logic focuses more on the "level playing field" and less on the welfare of student-athletes. It is the exact opposite of what NCAA Executive Director Cedric W. Dempsey asked the Association to do when considering legislation. In addition, if we (the athletes who may actually have to compete against former Division I athletes) do not have a problem with it, why should the administrators? Affording former Division I athletes the opportunity to continue their graduate studies not only will enhance the level of play on the athletics fields, it will also add to the academic and financial environment of Division III institutions. We hope that the sponsors will reconsider their decision and repropose such legislation in the future. The second piece of legislation we addressed was Proposal No. 75, which would permit Division III institutions to start on-court preseason basketball practice October 15. We opposed this legislation. Many Division III athletes and coaches are involved in more than one sport. Allowing on-court practices to begin October 15 would confront them with a significant time conflict due to an overlapping of seasons. In addition, the student-athletes would suffer if their coaches are forced to divide their attentions between two teams. The membership agreed with our arguments and voted down Proposal No. 75. The final piece of Division III legislation we spoke to was Proposal No. 78, which would permit football players to wear shoulder pads during the three-day noncontact period. Again, we opposed this legislation. Those who supported Proposal No. 78 made the level-playing-field argument, claiming that such a change was necessary to stay consistent with similar rules already in place in Divisions I and II. Antonio Coley, himself a Division I-A football player from the University of Miami (Florida), spoke on behalf of our committee. He stated: "As a Division I player, I can tell you from personal experience, because we already use shoulder pads on noncontact drills, that as long as shoulder pads are involved, there is actually no difference between contact and noncontact days." His warning was heeded and No. 78 was defeated.
-- Julie Fernandez * * * We are encouraged by the improvements in student-welfare made by this year's Convention and hope that the Association will hold true to its promise to "make these changes work." It may be too early to tell, but we hope that this year's event represented a change in the way the NCAA views its relationship with its student-athletes. As Cedric Dempsey so eloquently stated in his Convention address: "In the end, what the NCAA is about, what your institutions are about, is the development and education of young people. We cannot and should not allow any other principles to overshadow that mission." The NCAA SAAC presence and voice shall serve as a continual reminder of that mission. All the NCAA has to do is keep listening. Comment -- 'Big time' is in the eyes of the beholderBY JIM MOORE I saw a terrific college basketball game recently. The two teams are the finest kind of rivals. They have a lot of recent history; both know each other's personnel very well; they respect each other -- to a point. These are two of the best women's teams on the West Coast. The opposing coaches are good friends, the kind of friends who share information on opponents, discuss each other's games, recruit the same kids and maybe even "borrow" a play or a strategy from the other -- and then try to beat the hell out of the other's team twice a year. Each team has one of a pair of siblings playing for them. These sisters talk on the phone frequently. Not a lot is said -- by coaches or players -- that is not relayed the same evening between campuses. Bulletin-board material abounds. The visiting team (in red uniforms) had momentum on its side. They beat the home team (white, of course) two seasons ago to end their rival's 23-game win streak. Then they beat them early last season, bringing to a halt a season-and-a-half home-court streak. Then they beat them again to make it three straight. The game was played before a vocal and knowledgeable crowd. Because the two schools are only a couple of hours apart, the crowd was actually just about 50-50. Graduated players from recent teams on both sides were there, eyeing each other across the stands and retelling slightly exaggerated war stories. The announcer introduced the lineups, over-emoting for the home team as announcers are prone to do these days. Half the crowd enjoyed it. The game started off tentatively, as rivalry games tend to. The teams were well-prepared. The Red team would call play "2"; the White coach would call "4"; the Red coach would scream, "It's our '2'!" The players talked a little trash -- even the White team's lefty freshman point guard. The athletes ran up and down the floor with grace and power and dived like wrestlers for loose balls. The fans screamed in disbelief at the referees' calls. The coaches sweated through their expensive suits. Red put together a late spurt to lead 38-32 at the half. White's tall, mobile post had just two points. Her teammate, a sharpshooting forward, had no threes. Their coach had plenty to say in the locker room at half time. In the second half, Red began to pull away. Both teams had players in foul trouble, necessitating substitutions that made the coaches nervous. Red's shifty-quick freshman guard forced White's lefty freshman guard into 10 turnovers. White's mobile post finally got a couple of baskets off offensive rebounds. With seven minutes to play, Red led by 16. But White's tall, mobile post put together a streak. She scored three more buckets. The sharpshooting forward got a couple of looks at threes, and one went down. White's confidence improved visibly. With four minutes to play, Red's lead was just seven. The gym smelled of popcorn and failing deodorant. Cheerleaders pounded their feet during free throws. Some players wanted the ball, and some just wanted to pass it. Assistant coaches checked on timeouts left. Red's lanky freshman hit a couple of clutch pull-up jumpers. White was forced to foul. Red's vocal senior point guard, on her way to a career-high 27 points, calmly made free throw after free throw. The White coach got a technical foul. The Red coach kept a straight face. Red won, 83-68. At the buzzer, its bench was an explosion of high-fives and high-pitched voices. The White players swallowed hard and lined up to exchange handshakes. The referees ran off the floor. Fans, friends and family streamed down onto the court and milled about, offering hugs of joy or consolation. A reporter interviewed the White coach -- cautiously. People trickled gradually out of the building, still a little high on adrenaline. * * * Did I mention that this was a Division III game? That these were two of the best Division III teams in the West? The Chapman Panthers beat the Cal Lutheran Regals. Yes, this was small-time action. None of the players gets a dollar of athletics scholarship money. The tall and mobile post is barely six feet tall. The vocal senior point guard is 5-foot-6, has had two reconstructive knee surgeries and has a jump reach of about six inches. The crowd was fewer than 200. The gym was several feet shorter than normal size. The visiting team stopped in their vans at Tito's Tacos on the way home with $5 each to spend. What defines small-time? These players dream of going to the NCAA tournament. They study in vans on road trips with pocket flashlights. They lift weights and run together in the off-season, on their own. They crowd in their coach's office to study game film. Most of them take out big-time loans to get their degrees and play ball. They graduate. They play in front of family and friends. They get in the best shape of their lives. They instinctively make plays they didn't know they were capable of. They laugh and cry together as a team. They look to their coaches as role models. They begin to see the intricate choreography of the higher levels of the game. They shoot threes in bundles, they make clutch free throws, they set crunching picks, they face off in spirited rivalries. They play terrific basketball. Jim Moore is sports information director at Chapman University.
Opinions -- Greater responsibilities to accompany greater rightsReaction to the passage of 1997 Convention Proposal No. 62, which gives Division I student-athletes the right to employment earnings up to the cost of attendance:
Bob Minnix, associate athletics director "They say they want to be treated like adults, saying, 'We want to make our own decisions.' But along with that comes responsibility of maybe paying the ultimate price if you screw up."
Bob Hawking, men's basketball coach "I think it's a great decision. What just about all of us in this business have been saying is that it's very difficult for kids to live on what we are able to provide them. Our kids get $590 a month, and that doesn't go very far living in Orange County."
Ray Ratelle, men's volleyball coach "You look at the academic responsibilities and the practice commitments these kids have; where do they find the time to work? Sure, there will be some who can. I just don't see how many will be able to with everything they have to do. I just don't see it."
Paul Dee, athletics director "There's no question there are problems, but is our inconvenience a reason to constrain students? I think not."
Dave Hart, athletics director "I think it's a good rule. It's a rule the athletes said they wanted, and now they have it. But at the same time, what we just did was make the job of every compliance officer out there that much harder to do. I think there's going to be an enormous amount of paperwork involved in this."
Max Urick, athletics director "There will definitely be abuses. For example, it gets us right in the middle of something we've tried to keep away from -- a direct relationship between athletes and boosters. The boosters will be the ones providing the jobs. That's the direction it's going."
Amy Cheney, softball player "I think, no matter what sport you are participating in, a Division I athlete really doesn't have time to work outside of school, do academics and sports."
Ryan Andrick, basketball player "I think the opportunity to do that could be labeled a plus, but I wouldn't suggest it during the season. "I tell you what, the word part-time would have to be pretty big. If you're asking me would I, I wouldn't. Between rehab, school starting, that's still a lot even without playing. I don't think there are many jobs out there I could be available for even if I could. Even busing tables. Your schedule is full, and set day-by-day. Out of season, it's a different thing. But if a person thinks they can handle it in season, more power to them."
DeLoss Dodds, athletics director "It's a nightmare -- an absolute nightmare....It's going to be just another way for the NCAA to come in and declare an athlete ineligible."
|