National Collegiate Athletic Association |
CommentApril 7, 1997
Guest editorial -- Amateurism rules need enforcement in tennis
BY WILSON CAMPBELL NCAA rulings on eligibility are at best very complex, involve a multiplicity of contributing factors that are ill-understood by coaches and which have a great deal of variability. That statement certainly applies to recent NCAA rulings regarding the amateur status of many female collegiate tennis players. Case in question: a foreign student-athlete at a university in Louisiana. After a limited amount of investigation by several coaches, it was ascertained that the student-athlete had played the World Tennis Association circuit as a professional for a number of years. Her successful professional career included a third-round finish in the 1994 Australian Open, a first-round loss in the U. S. Open, a world ranking of 82 and more than $60,000 in prize money. That information, along with supporting material, was forwarded to the appropriate conference office and the NCAA. On the surface, this would seem like an open-and-shut case for anyone familiar with NCAA rules concerning amateur status. After all, NCAA Bylaw 12.1.1 says: "Amateur status: An individual loses amateur status and thus shall not be eligible for intercollegiate competition in a particular sport if the individual: (a) uses his or her athletics skill directly or indirectly for pay in any form in that sport." The NCAA was furnished a U.S. Open player-registration form as evidence of the student-athlete's professional status. On the form was marked "competing as professional," total per diem and prize money, "$7,914.00." It would appear that, based on this information, there is no way that student-athlete could be eligible for college tennis. The NCAA requested that the university in question conduct an internal investigation of the allegations of its student-athlete's professional status and submit a report. After a review of all material and weighing of numerous contributing factors, the NCAA restored the student-athlete's eligibility. Just when you think you know the rules, you find you don't. Further contact with the conference office produced information that the NCAA based the restoration of eligibility on three major factors. 1. During her time on the professional circuit, the student-athlete's expenses amounted to more than her prize money won. However, 1994 WTA records show that the student-athlete won prize money amounting to $41,211. It's amazing how much more expensive the circuit becomes as you win more prize money and your world ranking rises. Regarding this NCAA factor for restoring eligibility, where is the bylaw pertaining to prize money and expenses in the NCAA Manual? I did find Bylaw 16.11.2.5: "Expenses based on place finish: Receipt of expenses is prohibited when the amount received is based on the individual's place finish achieved in the competition (e.g., tennis, golf, track and field)." This would seem to be another NCAA bylaw that is ill-understood by coaches and that has a great deal of variability. 2. Although her tennis association entered her as a professional, she intended to remain an amateur. Words fail me on this one, but it sounds like having your cake and eating it, too. 3. The student-athlete did not gain financially; all money went to the country's tennis association. Oh, so when Martina Navratilova won Wimbledon in 1978, she was an amateur and eligible to play college tennis? After all, all her money went to the Czech Tennis Association. Sad as this ruling may be for college tennis, this student-athlete is only one of numerous professional tennis players participating in intercollegiate tennis. More outrageous is the fact that players who have won in excess of $60,000 have been declared eligible for intercollegiate tennis. Consider the impact that these rulings have on collegiate tennis. The art of coaching is being replaced by unscrupulous recruiting. Developing players, in most cases, is not a priority; finding seasoned circuit players has become the road to success. Instead of looking at state and sectional rankings, coaches now look for circuit place finish. Once upon a time, top state players could expect several scholarship offers from major universities. Today, those offers are less frequent, if they come at all. The American tennis player is being squeezed out of the athletics scholarship market by foreign professionals. Prize money accepted is not an issue, as proven by numerous NCAA rulings; the question instead is whether expenses have amounted to more than prize money won. In other words, breaking the amateur status rule is all right, just as long as the infraction is not too flagrant. Why are professional tennis players participating in college tennis? Simple. The NCAA does not enforce its own rules. It should be obvious to anyone that these rulings by the NCAA make a mockery of the amateur status rule. It is easy to see why the NCAA has a major credibility problem. Wilson Campbell is a former men's and women's tennis coach at Northeast Louisiana University. He currently is an assistant professor of health and human performance at Northeast Louisiana. Letter to the editor -- Bar too high on partial qualifier' fourth yearAfter checking The NCAA News for the last two months, expecting someone to react to the incongruity of two articles that ended back-to-back on page 20 of the January 20 issue, I feel compelled to address what is to me either a very naive or, worse, hypocritical rule. One article concerned Cedric Dempsey's concerns that our membership continue the quest to address student-athlete welfare issues in a fair and forthright manner. Mr. Dempsey stated at the conclusion of the article: "In the end, what the NCAA is about, what your institutions are about, is the development and education of young people. We cannot, we should not, allow any other principles to overshadow that mission." I concur and applaud Mr. Dempsey for that stand. However, I fail to see how this has any consistency with the headline of the story right above it on page 20, which says, "Partial qualifiers who complete baccalaureate degree in four years gain additional year of athletics eligibility." If we can justify accepting young people who we know are "at risk" when they enter college, then we should at least be willing to give them the same opportunity to graduate and participate as all other students if they "earn" that chance. As it stands now, that is not the case. I am in complete agreement that this "at risk" group of young people should not be permitted to play or practice their first year in school. That year should be dedicated to their effort to make up the gap that generally exists between themselves and their regularly admitted classmates. If, however, they close that gap and, at the end of their fourth year, have met the 75 percent rule required of their classmates, it should be considered that they have "earned" the chance to be given the opportunity to enjoy their final year of college participation the same as their teammates. Since it takes nearly five years for regularly admitted student-athletes to complete their degree, it is unrealistic to expect "at risk" student-athletes to achieve this in less time. To expect more from them does not consider the welfare of all student-athletes we elect to develop and educate.
Dick Bestwick Opinions -- Players perform their best when motivated by respect
Clem Haskins, men's basketball coach "The thing in life is respect. I work hard to get respect. Doesn't matter if you're white, black, yellow or pink, short or tall, everybody is not going to like you. But if people respect you, they will do things that work for you. That was the key last summer (when he asked members of the U. S. men's Olympic basketball team to remove their earrings for a team picture). The guys respected me. When I asked them to be on time for a press conference, asked them to remove their earrings, they did it. Out of respect. You don't make a man do anything."
Blacks and athletics
Michael Wilbon, columnist "The principal at Farragut Academy, the Chicago school that sent Kevin Garnett to the pros and Ronnie Fields to the bench in the Continental Basketball Association, is a man named Edward Guerra. Only nine percent of his students read at grade level. In U.S. News (and World Report), Guerra was quoted as saying of kids like Garnett and Fields, 'These guys were not the kind of kids who were going to grow up to be doctors or lawyers. They are basketball players.' "Guerra, of course, ought to choke on his own words. That kind of thinking is far more dangerous than any verbal poison a bigot can spew because it's so easily swallowed. I would point Guerra in the direction of John Thompson, who as a child was said to be virtually uneducable. Wouldn't Guerra's twisted logic suggest that young John Thompson was not the kind of kid who could grow up to be an educator, to be all that Thompson has become? As scarce as the images are in mass media of successful black men who aren't athletes or entertainers, as comfortable as it is for some whites to accept Blacks as athletes though little else, the biggest danger comes from black adults who allow (no, make that encourage) these kids to buy into the notion that sports is all we've got, the only means of expression, the only way to make a great living. "Don't get me wrong, I love sports. It's my vocation and avocation. But our obsession with sports to the exclusion of everything else is frightening and counterproductive. There's got to be a way to maintain a strength while emphasizing how imperative it is to diversify. But it is going to take adults who don't have their hands out, adults who see a picture with more than basketball courts and football fields, responsible adults who have the common sense to see that any people so consumed with one interest risk suffering from shortsightedness, preventing us from seeing the rest of the world pass right by."
Title IX
Peter H. King, columnist "The explosion was a long time coming. The fuse was lit way back in 1972 with the adoption of Title IX of the Education Code. It required equal opportunity for women in education and related activities, sports included. And yet, just as civil rights legislation did not ensure overnight integration, Title IX did not bring immediate parity to the playing fields. "Many supporters of male programs have fought it all the way, from the start predicting all sorts of athletic doom: Why, once women started receiving a proportional number of scholarships, juggernauts like Notre Dame might not even be able to carry 10 backup quarterbacks on their traveling squads. "A quarter-century later, Title IX remains a source of controversy. Women complain about uneven, begrudging application; in many cases, they have been forced to sue for their share of athletic turf. In the opposing locker room, male critics describe a heavy-handed Big Government program that in effect has stolen scholarships from wrasslers and pole vaulters and so on. "Nonetheless, it is difficult to argue with the numbers: In 1971, less than 30,000 women participated in collegiate sports; the number has grown to 110,000-plus. In 1971, 294,015 American girls participated in high-school sports. Last season the number was 2.4 million. And most people in the field now will agree that women's sports are here to stay.... "Not that mandating opportunity ensured success. The Bud Lights and Nikes of American culture do not gravitate toward women's basketball because of Title IX. They chase markets and money. They read Q ratings, not educational codes. The more women athletes participated in sport, the more their natural fan base broadened, and the better -- and more marketable -- their contests became. What Title IX did was light the fuse, prime the pump. The rest was earned, paid for with what coaches like to call sweat equity. "Still, it's tricky business, this governmental priming of pumps. A prominent example: To hear Ward Connerly and his allies in killing affirmative action tell it, government has no business promoting integration, even in admissions to public colleges. Rather, it must happen only 'on the natural.' The pump must somehow prime itself -- and too bad for those left behind in the meantime. I would suggest here that the success of women's sport offers a lesson for these advocates of jungle law, these quashers of dreams, in just how wrong they can be."
Peter Vidmar, former Olympic gymnast "Your writers could have shed much more light on the implementation of Title IX by noting which schools increased the number of women's sports without dropping men's sports. "Even the Women's Sports Foundation has stated that it does not support sacrificing men's programs to further the cause of women in sport. "Yet, in the name of fiscal prudence, many popular and successful men's programs have been dropped to make room for new women's sports. To brush this off as an acceptable casualty is callous at best. My alma mater, the University of California, Los Angeles, recently dropped men's gymnastics and men's swimming to make room for women's soccer and water polo. "Without question, women deserve the right to compete in these sports. However, both of the former men's teams had produced Olympic and NCAA champions, were among the finest academic performers in the athletics department and were nationally ranked. "Your writers should have identified and praised those schools, if there are any, that held themselves to a higher standard than did UCLA -- schools that found a way to avoid decimating some excellent men's programs while still creating deserving programs like women's soccer. "It is always a tragedy when opportunity is denied a student-athlete, regardless of gender." |