National Collegiate Athletic Association |
CommentJanuary 12, 1998
The Faculty Voice -- NCAA legislation needs sunset clause
BY MICHAEL L. KASAVANA
Too often, the NCAA membership has been attracted to legislation that on its face appears to be in the best interest of the enterprise, only to have the legislation bring unanticipated criticism, endless interpretation, and/or administratively burdensome workloads. The current flow of NCAA legislative proposals can be described as piecemeal at best and haphazard at worst. Consider these two popular NCAA targets for purposes of illustration: the restricted-earnings coach and athletics certification. What do they have in common? The current legislative status of each is but a faded resemblance of its original design. Can such erosion be avoided? Is there a way to curtail the seemingly endless NCAA stream of interpretation, corrective legislation, reinterpretation and fine-tuning? Perhaps the alternative to these patchwork solutions lies with mandating a sunset clause for all adopted dominant legislation. The fact that current legislation was not constructed with a built-in reconsideration (that is, sunset) timetable leads members, conferences and external constituencies to seek partial solutions to satisfy short-term needs, as opposed to comprehensive proposal review at a predetermined point in time. Restricted-earnings coaches The 1991 concept of a restricted-earnings coach was an entry-level, cost-effective staff position for a nongraduate student assistant. Soon after its initial legislative adoption, the NCAA created a fine-tuning committee to define and limit the restricted-earnings coach role. In fact, legislation intended to modify, expand or correct shortcomings believed to be inherent in the original restricted-earnings coach proposal has been adopted at nearly every NCAA Convention (1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997) since it became effective. There is currently a proposal, subject to override consideration, designed to remove most remain- ing restricted-earnings limitations in basketball. In essence, adoption of the current proposal will render the position another full-time coach -- no longer an entry position reserved for novice coaches. It can further be argued that restricted-earnings coach legislation, hoped to be cost-effective, can often lead to increased salary expenditure and creation of additional staff positions. The problem arises when the restricted-earnings coach has served a full term and must then be moved elsewhere or terminated. The pressure to retain the former restricted-earnings appointee can result in the creation of an administrative assistant post as a supplementary position to the restricted-earnings slot. What once began as a cost-containment exercise has blossomed into a two-person hiring with uncontrolled earnings potential. Perhaps if the original legislation contained a sunset clause with a time-specific review process, the NCAA might be on firmer ground. A sunset clause at least would have led to the legislative testing of the restricted-earnings concept on its own merits, rather than the successive restructuring of the position at each legislative Convention. The 1991 legislation should have contained a four-year effective period, after which a continuity determination would be made. Such a review could lead to a comprehensive overhaul, discontinuation or extension. It would be a movement away from piecemeal legislative tinkering and toward substantive change. Why consider addendum each annum during the proposal's legislative life when a time-certain decision could rectify such activity? Athletics certification The initiation of an NCAA athletics certification program was applauded as a means of ensuring compliance with NCAA rules, regulations and operating standards. In the few years since its inception, certification has become increasingly focused on equity planning, mission statements and rebalanced sports programs. NCAA members have spent mega-dollars and countless hours and generated reams of output on a review that was supposedly based upon already existing NCAA data-gathering and management procedures. While it appears nearly all reviewed Division I members have attained certification (either without conditions or with achievable conditions), the real issue is what has been gained. Do campuses learn about the athletics enterprise through self-study? For sure. Do athletics administrators benefit from having persons from across campus provide outside review? For sure. Do university administrators change management, budgetary or philosophical approaches to athletics as a result of peer review? The answer is probably no! That the certification cycle has widened from every five years to 10 years reflects upon the overwhelming requirements required for peer-review certification. Unfortunately, the recertification cycle timetable is tied to the date of the peer-review team's campus visit, not the date of certification. A delay in a certification decision can arise due to any number of external or internal factors and may render the announcement of a final certification decision in limbo for one or two or more years. Imagine an institution that receives certification in the spring and is told six months later that its next cycle begins in two years! Can this happen? Yes, due to a significant lag between the peer-review visit and a certification decision. Is the certification program really providing a satisfactory return on investment? Does the certification serve as a verification of principles and policies or is it merely a seal of good housekeeping? Perhaps it's time to review and assess what has been accomplished during the first certification cycle. As newly crafted legislation attempts to further clarify and expand certification requirements, maybe this is the appropriate opportunity to pause and determine whether certification is meaningful? In other words, it is not too late to attach a sunset clause to this legislation. Summary The NCAA membership should think seriously about building a sunset clause into significant legislative proposals. The fact that there is a date certain for reconsideration may go a long way toward curtailing the endless chain of interpretations and fine-tunings. Instead of a piecemeal approach based on a stream of moving targets or simple indifference, the NCAA needs to seriously consider abandoning legislation that has become outdated, meaningless, or administratively more confusing than it is worth. Michael L. Kasavana is faculty athletics representative at Michigan State University. Letter to the Editor -- Use power of contract to influence NikeI am responding to the guest editorial by University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Chancellor Michael Hooker that appeared in the December 15 issue of The NCAA News. I assume I will be one of many respondents to Dr. Hooker's exercise in sophistry, but I nevertheless feel compelled to write. The Hooker editorial made one main point with three supporting, or corollary, points. The major issue concerning North Carolina's $11 million contract with Nike, according to the chancellor, is to understand that university administrators face "tough moral issues" in the modern world. "We live in a world of moral ambiguity and complexity," he notes. While Chancellor Hooker is smart enough to understand this point, the press is not. " 'Sound-bite journalism' caters to our desire to avoid the challenge of thinking clearly," he posits. Thus, people who criticize Nike for its employment practices and link the university to these immoral acts do not really understand the college's position. Hooker delves into this complex issue with what he must regard as an adequate three-point defense of the contract. First, Nike will provide a great deal of revenue as well as sporting goods to the self-supporting athletics department at UNC in exchange for athletes wearing the swoosh. (Argument: "It's to our economic benefit.") Second, for critics of the "human billboard" aspect of athletes wearing manufacturers' insignias on team uniforms, Hooker writes that all manufacturers mark their apparel, whether or not they pay an institution. (Argument: "Everybody does it.") Finally, Hooker comes to the major criticism that has surfaced against Nike -- the use of overseas manufacturing establishments where workers are paid marginal or submarginal wages, a practice commonly known as "outsourcing." Chancellor Hooker notes that all of Nike's competitors do the same thing (more of "Everybody does it"), that consumers would not be able to purchase goods made only in the United States (more of "It's to our economic benefit") and that this is really to the benefit of the countries where the work is done cheaply (an argument frighteningly similar to that of 19th century imperialists). While I have no respect for Michael Hooker's facile "answer" to critics of the Nike contract, I am not sure that such an arrangement is altogether a bad thing. We do, obviously, live in a world of tough moral choices. However, to say that a situation is fraught with moral ambiguity is not the same as saying that there is no potential for improving that situation. Instead of adopting the attitude that there are no easy answers to moral questions, why not seek some solutions to what most perceive as real problems, Dr. Hooker notwithstanding? The University of North Carolina is a fine example of a school with a distinguished academic ranking, along with top-notch teams in a variety of men's and women's sports. Any sports outfitter would be happy to land a contract with such an institution. Why not use such a position as UNC's to bring about change? Why not sign a contract with Nike that contains clauses pertaining to eliminating practices perceived by the university as disreputable? A five-year contract could contain a timetable to which Nike executives would have to adhere to continue the contract into the next year. For that matter, why couldn't a major university take ads in the trade papers offering to contract with a manufacturer that could meet the schools athletics needs and provide guarantees about their manufacturing and business practices? Universities are in the "business" of training leaders in corporate and public affairs. They should be playing as large a role in moral leadership as in cutting-edge scientific, technological and intellectual advances.
Richard G. Frederick Opinions -- Athletes who want payment should turn professional
Debbie K. Schlussel, sports and entertainment attorney "Many athletes claim that they make a lot of money for the NCAA and for their universities and conferences. The reality is that most major college football programs lose money because their expenses are so high. And lest we forget, taxpayer funding helps to finance the stadiums and arenas where these athletes play and 'produce' that sports revenue. "As an attorney for several Big Ten athletes and a four-year tutor for the University of Wisconsin, Madison, athletics department, I often heard complaints from college athletes (who received my tutoring services at no cost) that they were paid less than minimum wage when one factored in all of the hours they spent at practice and games divided by the dollar value of their scholarships, room and board, and other benefits. "Yet, I have yet to meet a single athlete who was forced to attend college as an athlete, or who quit collegiate sports because he or she was 'paid' too little. I have yet to meet a single collegiate athlete who would rather trade places with a regular student who is struggling to hold down two jobs, paying taxes on those jobs, and studying for exams and papers, and leaving college with a huge debt due to exorbitant college loans. "If college-age athletes truly believe their athletic prowess and skills are worthy of compensation, then they should put themselves on the market and bypass college, as both Kevin Garnett of the Minnesota Timberwolves and Kobe Bryant of the Los Angeles Lakers did. The reality is that most college athletes would not deserve compensation in the marketplace, as less than 2 percent of them ever make it to the professional level. "I count many professional and collegiate athletes among my closest friends, but I view and treat them as any other friends. And while I love sports just as much as the next guy, the idea of paying college athletes is a symptom of our society's grotesque distortion of the relative importance of sports. We must wake up from the intoxication of bowl games and Final Fours. The idea of paying college athletes is like a Snicker's candy bar. Any way you slice it, it comes up nuts."
Eating disorders
Nancy Theis Marshall, chair Discussing The Athlete Wellness Program, sponsored by USA Gymnastics, which has a goal of establishing a national certification program to ensure gyms offer healthy environments: "It was time to say, 'This is a problem, let's get our heads out of the sand and face it.' One of the biggest issues that we talked about was educating the principals -- coach, parent and athlete -- so that they can see the red flags. If a parent walks into a gym and sees an unhealthy environment, they'll take responsibility for their children. At the same time, there are a lot of incidents where the coach and the gym are the safe environment and the unhealthy environment is at home.... "(An individual with a serious eating disorder) is a story that is tremendously sensational -- it's an ugly story and it's very popular to focus on, but it's usually oversimplified."
Dr. Cedric Bryant, director of sports medicine "As parents, we need to stay involved in our children's lives and not allow coaches to have too much influence or pressure on the kids. It's very important for parents to clearly send a message to their daughters that their value is much more than what they look like."
Worth of bowl games
John Lewandowski, sports information director "The air charter alone cost $300,000. We traveled 97 players, 85 band members, the coaches and their families, administrators, trustees...." In response to the question, "Was it worth it?": "In our situation, in terms of rebuilding our program, you can't assess the value of being in a bowl game just by the bottom line. It's a way to keep up our recruiting. It's great exposure for the program. There's no better marketing tool."
Division I-A football playoff
DeLoss Dodds, athletics director Discussing who would administer a Division I-A football playoff: "I think the NCAA is very capable. I think the commissioners or the Division I athletics directors are capable. But the NCAA is governed by committees that are more inclusive than just I-A. I assume for that reason it will be done outside the NCAA."
Steven J. Hatchell, commissioner "I don't think we go through four years of the Super Alliance before we say, 'What are we going to do?' You get into it after two years. I'd be the first to say, if our game really needs a playoff, if it's best for the sport, let's do it."
|
If there's one thing I have gleaned during my tenure as a student-athlete, coach and faculty athletics representative, it is that there is a difference between an idea and the execution of an idea.