National Collegiate Athletic Association |
CommentOctober 6, 1997
Guest editorial -- It's time to revisit grant-in-aid limits
BY SAM BELL When "cost containment" was the buzz word of administrators at NCAA institutions, limits were placed on scholarships in all sports.
Even though there are problems with scholarship numbers throughout the so-called "nonrevenue" sports, I would like to address the issue of cross country and track and field. The only sport not allowed scholarships if an institution has a specified other sport is cross country. I know people can run to the barricades to defend the current rule, but in looking at other situations regarding scholarship allocations, it is obvious that different sets of criteria are used. It is time to allow scholarships in cross country without the inhibiting rule now in place, which does not allow scholarships if the school has a track and field program. In examining "starting positions" in each sport and scholarship allocations to cover those positions, there are glaring inconsistencies. I will not try to cover all of them but will deal with track and field and cross country. The percentage of starting positions covered by scholarships in Division I schools for men range from 37 percent for track and field to 117 percent for baseball. Other than track and field and swimming and diving, the lowest percentage of funded scholarships for starting positions is 75 percent for tennis, volleyball and water polo. In Division I schools for women, 53 percent of the track and field starting positions are covered by the limitations, the lowest of any sport. Women's soccer is next at 109 percent. In 1995-96, there were 556,742 competitors in high-school girls' cross country and track and field, the largest number of girls in any high-school sport. The NCAA allows 18 scholarships for Division I women's track and field, 12.6 for Division II. Please contrast that scholarship allocation with 20 grants for Division I women's crew, which had 966 high-school competitors in 1995-96. I doubt anyone would like to stand up in public and defend those allocations. They defy logic. In 1995-96, there were 664,798 high-school boys participating in cross country and track and field. This trails only football in the number of participants. The combination of these facts would lead one to believe there is a prejudice against track and field and cross country by the rules makers or that the decision-making process was flawed. The lack of opportunity for athletes in the No. 1 sport in the Olympic Games is a scandal that has gone on too long and needs immediate correction. Our association stands ready to assist in creating fairness in our rules governing scholarships. The time when these issues should have been addressed is well past. Sam Bell is president of the United States Track Coaches Association. He also is men's cross country and track and field coach at Indiana University, Bloomington. Letter to the Editor -- Longer women's races not the answerYour article "Women's cross country races getting longer" by Stephen R. Hagwell (September 15) leads one to believe that the Divisions I and II subcommittees of the NCAA Men's and Women's Track and Field Committee don't understand the sport of cross country and its imperceptible and declining exposure and relevance on the American sporting scene. So, the powers-that-be have decided to increase the length of Divisions I and II cross country races in 1998 from 5,000 meters to 6,000 meters for championships while allowing colleges to race at 8,000 meters in the regular season. Forget about the marginal college runners who toil without benefit of scholarship assistance. Those I've already spoken with will retire from a sport that they love, leaving behind a most gratifying labor they willingly accept even though they aren't the best. Jim Sackett of California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, along with others, says there isn't any reason our athletes shouldn't be running at least 6K. Let's look ahead and try to predict the future of women's cross country at the Divisions I and II levels. The additional racing distance will, for too many young ladies, turn the fabulous sport of cross country into a job, a physical and ever more demanding task rather than the labor of love that they enjoyed in high school. Being able -- meaning having free time -- to enjoy all of the cultural, social, educational and exploratory opportunities is something that I want all of my high-school girls to experience when they move on to college. The last thing I want them to do is to solely (and soullessly) eat, study and run. Enjoying the full range of college life is vital to the full development of our young women today. I suspect that you'll soon see fewer high-school girls willing to go to the Divisions I and II levels and, instead, opt to go the Division III route, which remains, in many of our minds, the most level-headed component of the NCAA athletics scheme. One suspects that the discerning high-school middle-distance runner will search for programs where they can train during the fall and participate during the indoor and spring seasons, which will for many kids make the whole experience of running much more acceptable. For many, avoiding the college programs where the coaching staff is adamant about running the cross country at the 6 to 8K distance will be an overriding concern. College coaches, instead of looking for high-school kids with speed gained from low mileage and a high percentage of fast training paces, will now look for high-school runners who are already running 50-plus miles per week -- little girls who are going to be more prone to injury with the increased racing and training distances. We already know that young girls and young women who engage in high-mileage training programs have "swiss-cheese" bone structures that mimic the bones of women in their 60s. Is that what we're all after? And then there's the problem of anorexia that already concerns most of us at all levels. Logic and studies tell us that the longer you train and race, the more likely you are to risk injury during your running career, with far too many runners getting injured each season. With college women runners getting injured more often, the college programs will, out of necessity, have to stockpile more runners. But where will the extra money come from? You can bet that the walk-on rate will not increase with the prospect of running 6 to 8K races facing them full bore. The outlook for running is gloom and doom, though we all hope that Craig Masbeck (new executive director of USA Track) can do something to pull us out of a nasty tailspin that seems never to reach the ground. If high-school coaches stick to their guns, we'll see in a few years just who the truly good college coaches are in Divisions I and II. This will be an opportunity for the cream to rise to the top of the coaching ranks -- for those who truly understand training methodology, the college woman's mind and emotions, will win. No longer will everyone be able to recruit (hire) the best athlete to "go the distance." There won't be enough around and there will be no one who already has proven herself at the longer racing distance. From 1998 on, the good coaches will have to produce good runners, runners who aren't overcommitted, aren't stripped of too much weight, aren't being totally deprived of the good and rich college life. I'm sure we all want the same thing: a dynamic, popular and healthy sport called cross country, but the decision to race longer simply doesn't make sense from any perspective. I will have a hard time encouraging my girls to go the Divisions I and II route -- and they're in great demand. I consider them to be my second family and I don't want them to be deprived of the full wonder that college and university life offers.
Jack Reed Opinions -- Media playing a major role in proliferation of gambling
Arnie Wexler, gambling-abuse counselor "Picture the following scenario: A young man uses the lines and odds from his newspaper to set up a bookmaking operation at a local bar. He's eventually arrested there. The next day, there's a headline: 'John Doe arrested for bookmaking.' The very newspaper that carried the lines he used now runs the story about his arrest. "Hypocritical, isn't it? "The problem is getting worse, too, as evidenced by an increase in gambling on college campuses. "A Sports Illustrated story in 1995 laid bare what most students around the country already know: Gambling is running rampant at schools. Opportunities to bet are as available as six-packs of beer, and student bookies use the lines out of the local paper.... "The NCAA understands the dangers. The governing body for college sports has discussed withholding credentials to cover basketball's Final Four from newspapers that persist in publishing point spreads, but so far has not done so.... "Sixteen years ago, I did a TV show with the late Howard Cosell on whether the media encourages the public to gamble. On the program, Indiana basketball coach Bob Knight said that newspapers that publish point spreads might as well publish the names and addresses of services that provide prostitutes. 'They have practically the same legality ... and I can't see why one is any better than the other.' "I'd like to pose a few questions: "Do point spreads in newspapers cause a proliferation of gambling? "Do people see point spreads in the newspaper and believe it is legal to place a bet? "Do the media entice people to gamble? "Do the media bear any responsibility for the increase in the number of compulsive gamblers in the America? "Do the media give the appearance of promoting and condoning illegal gambling? "The answer to all of the above is a resounding yes. The responsible thing to do would be to stop publishing the lines, but newspapers just aren't going to do that."
Academic standards
Editorial "The NCAA was right to raise its academic standards -- to ask that student-athletes perform at least to the minimum expected of everyone else. Some students may need extra help. But those standards are important. They require that athletes not neglect their studies. They push schools that use athletes as cash cows to ensure that the athletes don't fumble on the field of learning. "What's the point of college if not to give students a rigorous higher education? And that requires at least some rigor on admissions standards."
Suspending players
Russell Gough, ethics professor Discussing what the policy should be for student-athletes who are accused of serious crimes: "Unless an administration has overwhelming evidence that a student-athlete has perpetrated some egregious crime, then I think it's both ethically and legally appropriate to allow a player to continue to play until they find out otherwise that the student-athlete is guilty. We have to show poise and patience and keep things in perspective insofar as one is innocent until proven guilty."
Eugene D. Smith, director of athletics "When you're dealing with legal issues, be it a misdemeanor or felony and particularly a violent act, you're out of the realm of whether someone misses practice or not. That onus shouldn't be left up to a particular coach.... The institution is bigger than winning a game, winning a match, winning a meet. You're talking about a young person's life, and you want to make sure they do everything they can and have everything they need to deal with that situation. And if that means they need to step away from competition, then they should do that."
|
The numbers that were arrived at seemed at times to be picked out of a hat, and the criteria used to determine those numbers have, no doubt, long since been shredded. The reductions were devastating to certain sports, and in examining the numbers, it is obvious that decisions were based on inadequate information or misinformation. After those draconian measures were put in place, more reductions were made in some men's sports while the numbers for women's sports were raised to try to satisfy the "bean counters" at the Office for Civil Rights.