Comment
February 17, 1997
The Faculty Voice -- New work rule flawed for several reasons
BY JOANNE A. EPPS
Temple University
Let me begin by acknowledging that I am squarely in the camp of those who believe the NCAA has too many rules.
I recognize, however, that many were adopted in response to the actions of creative minds who saw and seized upon an opportunity for some sort of advantage. And as long as we fear such advantage-seekers, we will be tempted to respond with yet more regulations.
One would think, then, that the newly passed legislation, permitting Division I student-athletes to work, would be a step in the right direction -- a relaxation of otherwise rigid rules that sometimes produced harsh results. In fact, though, the new rules are well-intentioned, but flawed.
On the positive side, the new rules eliminate one more distinction between student-athletes and other students. And getting adequate resources to needy students is a good thing. Moreover, financial need aside, working does provide some student-athletes with work experience that will serve them well in future professional endeavors.
On the other hand, student-athletes are different from other students. They have entered school and made a substantial commitment of time to a nonacademic endeavor. And while we must admit that financial aid scarcely allows a student to live in luxury, the neediest students are eligible for Pell Grants that are supposed to address the gap between scholarship aid and the cost of attendance. If Pell doesn't fill that gap, we shouldn't change NCAA work rules; we ought to lobby for changes that would ensure that Pell does fill the gap.
Moreover, while work may enhance a student's ultimate attractiveness in the job market, that possibility does not justify these new rules.
In the first place, many college students, including many nonathletes, make college a full-time endeavor. They get work experience in the summer. Many of these nonathletes go on to highly successful careers. For the most part, work that gives one an edge in the job market tends not to be the unskilled work that typifies hourly jobs in this country.
In addition, the new work rules create a host of new problems. For many institutions, opportunities for student-athlete employment will become yet one more recruiting tool. What 18-year-old won't be lured by the recruiter who offers a job at $10 to $15 an hour over a recruiter forced to admit that hourly wages in that school's area are in the $5 to $7 range, a reality that puts schools in rural or economically depressed areas at an instant disadvantage?
Wherever the school, student-athletes will be attracted to institutions where the effort invested (in locating and performing the job) is low while the rewards (dollars for time invested) is high. This will put pressure on schools to locate and secure employment, or else provide it themselves, as well as to prescribe and monitor the hours worked versus total dollars that can be earned. The "haves" will have staff to perform these functions; the "have-nots" will not.
In addition, the rules create a compliance nightmare. Granted, both the student-athlete and the employer must sign affidavits of compliance before the work begins. But the work will have to be monitored. Who will do it and how? We cannot reasonably expect employers to monitor dollars earned in relation to the student's cost-of-attendance cap. And someone must ensure that work is actually being performed and that the compensation is locally appropriate. Schools with the largest programs won't need a compliance person; they'll need a compliance army.
Perhaps most importantly, many student-athletes are already busy, especially those in football and basketball. Most do an admirable job of balancing academics and athletics. Practice and travel impose enormous time burdens that nonathletes don't have. Both at and between Conventions, we have congratulated ourselves on our commitment to high academic standards and achievement, noisily pointing to institutional graduation rates.
Most students will want to work if they can. Unless work is nearby, the time devoted to work will include not just hours worked, but travel time as well. Something will have to give, and that something will most certainly be academics. That seems at odds with our espoused goals.
Putting student-athletes in the off-campus workplace only increases the opportunities for exposure to well-meaning but overly enthusiastic boosters.
We should minimize, not enhance, the chances for mistakes. If we believe that a full scholarship, with or without a supportive Pell Grant, is insufficient to give students the financial resources they need to have a satisfactory lifestyle -- a debatable proposition to be sure -- then we should permit schools to provide financial aid sufficient to permit a satisfactory lifestyle.
What we have instead is the worst of all possible worlds -- more needed compliance, more chances for institutional and individual violations, and less time for academics. The new work rules are certainly well-intentioned, but they are nevertheless flawed.
JoAnne A. Epps is faculty athletics representative at Temple University, where she is a professor of law and associate dean of academic affairs.
Letter to the Editor -- Title IX reducing men's opportunities
"Drop." "Reduce."
These words continue to echo across the college athletics scene. In the January 27 issue of The NCAA News, an article tells how Michigan State University plans to comply with Title IX. It is by dropping men's sports and reducing the squad sizes of some of the remaining men's sports.
Title IX says there can't be discrimination based on the athlete's gender. Is this not discrimination?
And someone has yet to explain this to me: According to statistics I have read, the participation percentage of high-school athletes is about 60 percent male and 40 percent female. How does this translate into a 50-50 ratio that most major colleges target?
The only approach to comply is to offer collegiate opportunities to only 40 percent of the high-school male athletes, reducing by one-third the number who can participate. "Drop" and "reduce."
Lest anyone think I am against women's sports, when I coached in high school, I fought a running battle with the principal over establishing a girls' soccer team, but I won, and I was instrumental in establishing women's soccer at Vanderbilt University in 1985.
Randy Johnson
Men's Soccer Coach
Vanderbilt University
Opinions -- Thoughts divided on viability of athlete work legislation
Kirk Bohls, sportswriter
Austin American-Statesman
"Somehow, the NCAA has come to the realization that it is here to serve the student, not suppress the student. What did the NCAA do that was so outrageous, so revolutionary in scope?
"It voted to allow the student-athlete to work. Imagine that. The NCAA decided athletes can now do for money what they have done for free since Naismith inflated a basketball. The same work ethic athletes demonstrate on the field, court, diamond or pool, they are now entitled to use in the workplace.
"Before you assume these athletes will be pulling down Shaquillian salaries, hear that they can only earn enough to match the full cost of attending school. But they can hold a part-time job just like Bobby Joe and Susie Q. Odd, isn't it, that a group that so often praises the dedication and work ethic of athletes until now had denied them the opportunity to work for pay?
"Some within the NCAA hierarchy shuddered at the thought of letting athletes earn spare money like normal students. That's because it would be hard to monitor. Because it would allow some schools recruiting advantages by luring them to their campuses with the prospect of better-paying jobs. Because it makes it easier for those who wish to cheat by giving overzealous alumni a proper avenue through which to channel those illegal gifts.
"Balderdash.
"Yes, it will certainly mean more paperwork and more bureaucracy for schools already inundated by it, but the end result is worth it. True, it'll be easier for USC and Miami to lure recruits to their schools because of bigger and more lucrative job markets, but the NCAA should realize all fields aren't level and don't need to be. As for cheating, don't tell me Joe Fan can't find a way to slip a $100 bill to Joe Superstar without hiring the stud tailback to wait tables at the local pizza parlor.
"Rules such as those prohibiting part-time work did nothing but penalize honest, law-abiding athletes who wanted to work, who don't take money under the table and who would like some extra spending money."
Editorial
Chicago Tribune
"Delegates from Division I schools, the larger schools, voted at the recent NCAA Convention in Nashville to lift the ban. To their credit, the state's two Big Ten representatives -- Illinois and Northwestern -- supported the so-called right-to-work rule.
"The change will not make any athletes rich. Their earnings still will be restricted to an estimate of incidental expenses at each school, up to about $2,500 per school year. But to athletes at the Spartan margins, it is a welcome difference.
"The primary argument against the change is that it is subject to fraud and abuse -- that shady boosters or recruiters could provide athletes with bogus jobs as a cover for slipping them money on the sly. And unethical athletics departments could phony up inflated estimates of incidental expenses to sweeten the pot for potential athletes.
"Clearly, there is the chance of abuse, and the schools must be vigilant with their bookwork to guard against it. But just as clearly -- as these student-athletes mature into adulthood -- it is time that the NCAA and the schools showed them some trust."
Digger Phelps, television commentator
Asbury Park Press
"The part-time jobs are just another way to skirt the issue of a stipend. Why don't they just give the kids $1,000 a semester and be done with it?"
Kevin O'Neill, men's basketball coach
University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Asbury Park Press
"There is just no way kids can work during the season. It's impossible. They have a full-time job....
"I'm terrified about the possible abuses. I predict you may see as many as 50 or 60 rules violations because of this new rule....We're responsible for policing these jobs. We're the ones who have to free up the people to monitor the situation. It has the makings of a (compliance) nightmare."
Eric Lewis, football player
San Diego State University
Copley News Service
"I'll at least try to get some kind of paid internship, if I can find the time. The time demands are great, even in the offseason. Finding enough hours to have a job will be very tough. You don't want to complain as an athlete, because we're getting a free education, but until now we couldn't work like other students to have some extra money."
Academic standards
Phillip Fulmer, football coach
University of Tennessee, Knoxville
The Nashville Banner
"You have to look at the character and the fortitude of the youngster and whether they will actually use the tutors and go to class once they get here.
"I have seen outstanding high-school students go to college and struggle academically. And I have seen average students go to college and do well because it was really important to them....
"In my opinion, what they need is to get an NCAA national standard and stay with it. They need to be fair to the student-athlete.
"Unfortunately there are youngsters that as freshman and sophomores in high school, for whatever reason -- background or maturity level -- don't realize that they have an opportunity to go to college via athletics. They suddenly realize there is this possibility, but there is too much ground to make up."
International recruiting
Joe Mullaney, assistant women's basketball coach
Villanova University
The Hartford Courant
On the benefits of recruiting international student-athletes:
"If you can identify the (international) kids, and get them interested, you're not battling 150 other schools for them. The top (American) kids get five visits.
"And you're not even in the Top 20. You end up spending a lot of time on kids that you didn't even have a shot with."
Wendy Larry, women's basketball coach
Old Dominion University
The Hartford Courant
"I've been fortunate that the athletes we've brought here from abroad have been tremendous people and students. I don't know if many people spend quality time selecting the right ones for their programs.
"For instance, I've never seen many programs travel abroad for the major European championships, but they still have European players on their roster.
"Are they taking these kids unseen? Are they meeting their families? Are they recruiting these kids the same way they recruit American kids? Or are they simply trying to save some coin without bothering to get background information about the players?"
Football recruiting
Bruce Snyder, football coach
Arizona State University
Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel
"I don't want my assistant coaches to know anything about a player in terms of what awards he has won, how much yardage he has run for, or where a recruiting service ranks the player before he evaluates him. I don't want them to be influenced....
"One of the happiest days of my life is when I grade a player I like, and I find out nobody else is interested in recruiting him. There's such a herd mentality. I think you have to have confidence in your own ability to evaluate."
|
