National Collegiate Athletic Association |
CommentFebruary 16, 1998
Guest editorial -- Accountability needed with academic fund
BY FRED STROOCK One of the most dramatic and beneficial uses of NCAA revenue each year has been the money distributed to 305 Division I institutions through the academic-enhancement fund. Since 1991, academic-support programs for student-athletes have profited significantly from this funding, which for smaller schools often represents a substantial portion of their annual budget for this area of the athletics department.
However, in a recent survey of members of the National Association of Academic Advisors for Athletics (N4A), it was found that not all academic-enhancement moneys are being used for the purpose they were intended. Examples of the questionable use of these funds included athletics departments using the money to offset budgetary deficits, purchasing computer hardware for staff outside of the academic-support unit and providing portions of salaries for personnel not directly involved with academic support services for student-athletes. Although most of the respondents to the survey indicated that they had significant influence over the use of the academic-enhancement fund, a surprisingly large number (more than 25 percent) also noted that they had little or no input in designating how those moneys were to be used. It is unlikely that football coaches would be pleased to learn that their budget for helmets was spent on computers, nor would athletic trainers enjoy seeing their budget for tape spent on travel for the golf team. Similarly, it is absolutely critical that the directors of athletics academic-support programs be the primary persons consulted regarding the expenditure of the NCAA academic-enhancement funds each year. Currently, the academic-enhancement fund check is sent each June to the president of each university. Typically, it is then forwarded on to the athletics department or the supervising unit to be used at its discretion. A standard form indicating how these funds are used is then completed and returned to the NCAA director of accounting. In order to ensure the proper and appropriate use of the academic-enhancement monies, it is strongly recommended that this form be completed by the director of athletics academic-support programs, with his or her signature required. In addition, the annual NCAA audit conducted at each institution should include a reconciliation of how the academic-enhancement moneys are spent. At the very least, it is time for all institutions to guarantee that these funds, now totaling more than $15 million annually, are used consistently for the purpose for which they were intended. If the NCAA and the presidents of Division I institutions are sincerely committed to providing quality academic support for student-athletes, then they will make sure that these programs receive the monetary benefits to which they are entitled. Fred Stroock is the special assistant to the athletics director for academic affairs at the University of Southern California. He is also the immediate past president of the National Association of Academic Advisors for Athletics. Letter to the Editor -- Require compensation if athlete turns proI am an avid sports fan. I realize that in most Division I schools, the more popular sports programs of football and basketball provide not only significant financial support for the institution but an esprit de corps for the student body. However, rather than providing the athlete with an education and an opportunity to exhibit his skills, in many cases, the athletics experience is nothing more than a chance to advance a shallow and short-lived career at the professional level at the cost of a degree that is the focus of higher education. Basically, the college or university is nothing more than a training camp or exhibition for the professional team with little, if no, regard for education. During his short-lived college career, the student not only has used public or private funds for his own professional sports career, but he has taken a seat away from someone else who would be more inclined to honor the purpose of higher education by focusing on a degree and possibly postgraduate work. And what does the student body have to gain from an athlete's early jump to the professional level? Only bragging rights for the next six to eight years if he makes it to the bigs. After that, generally the only place we see him is on the television show "Where Are They Now?". My criticism is not without a positive suggestion: An athlete who is the recipient of a scholarship of any magnitude should be required to execute a contract, by NCAA rule, to reimburse the scholarship fund from which he received his benefits for the entire funding expended on his education and sports involvement if he signs a professional sports contract before graduation or his athletics eligibility is terminated. This seems to be a small price to pay in respect to the six- and seven-digit contracts that are signed. It is virtually impossible to control the problem of the professional teams luring the athlete away from his educational pursuits. School has been out on the "hardship" stuff for a long time. A rule such as this not only would make a statement that the NCAA does not condone this practice, but it may provide the opportunity for other ideas to surface to correct the problem. We have an abundance of rules to police recruiting practices, so it would seem appropriate to continue to look for new practices to curb the professionals from raiding the ranks of the colleges and universities. I realize my suggestion does nothing to help the potential student who is already missing a shot at a college education because someone thought that a great running back is better than an average student. Education is primary. Athletics is a result of the education; it should never be that higher education is an excuse to have great football or basketball teams. Your organization, and your organization alone with its great power and influence, is the only one that can address this problem meaningfully.
Robert A. Beutler Opinions -- Football recruiting overhyped, overanalyzed, overdone
Jack Bogaczyk, columnist "Oh, happy day. "With apologies to Punxsutawney Phil and his shadowy prediction, there is one thing we don't need to weather for six more weeks -- college football recruiting commitments. "(February 4 was) national signing day. It couldn't come soon enough. Perhaps it should be declared a holiday, for it is certainly a respite from the speculation, innuendo, disingenuousness, hand-wringing, baby-sitting and counter-charging that increasingly seems to accompany the final weeks of football recruiting. "Some folks get so overwrought about commitments they should be committed. "Schools have pushed up the timetable on football recruiting. Programs have begun offering scholarships before athletes' highschool senior seasons. The pressure to make an early decision -- to not get left out when Southwest State signs two other tailbacks -- increases each year. "Today, players may begin signing. Not only do coaches breathe a sigh of relief, we all do. "That's because the proliferation of commitments has become a public spectacle that's too public at times. Recruiting has become another game in which everyone keeps score. It's in the newspaper, on the tube. "Learning where an athlete will visit isn't enough anymore. No one can wait until signing day. "Why do newspapers report commitments? Because they're news, and the public wants it. At the corner of Second and Campbell, the business is to report the news, and sell newspapers and the web world. College recruiting still may be what we call 'niche reporting,' but it's a niche that's growing.... "When I read a 'commitment story,' I ... sometimes wonder just who's doing the committing. "NCAA rules prohibit college coaches from discussing a player until he is signed. Many times, the high-school coach is the one who speaks for the committed recruit. How big a part did that coach play in the decision? "Too many high-school coaches -- and in basketball, AAU coaches -- are involved too much in the recruiting process. Most are interested in their players' futures. Some are using the athlete and his commitment for an ego massage. "An early signing period for football -- as basketball has in November -- might be an answer, but what college coach wants to chance signing an athlete whose career could be ended by injury in his senior season? "Who would be looking to 'decommit' then?"
Bob Lipper, columnist From a column written before national signing day February 4: "I have two confessions: "1. I have no idea where Ronald Curry will attend college next fall. "2. I don't care. "Unofficial surveys indicate I'm in the majority on the first issue and in the minority on the second. "Curry, as I'm absolutely certain you're aware, is the football quarterback and basketball point guard out of Hampton High whose eventual destination is a larger issue for our nation than Bill Clinton's social life, Paula Jones' makeover and the ethics of cow-cloning. "The Ronald, in other words, is very big -- so big that the citizens of at least two states (ours and the one just south of us) are in a dither over the young man, who, at last report, was still living at home and hasn't yet attended his senior prom. This suggests to me that rooters of the universities of Wahoo and Baby Blue have too much leisure time and way too much access to Internet chat rooms. "It also suggests we are fixating on the pursuit of teen-age athletes far more than is healthy for them or for us. "Recruiting has always been a nasty business, and it seems to be getting more noxious every day. That's the message you get from observers in the field and -- to cite the most recent chronicling of gamesmanship and dirty deeds from an article in last week's Sports Illustrated on recruiting pressures and excesses in women's basketball.... "Locally, we had Huguenot High football coach Richard McFee doing a talk-radio gig to explain why star receiver David Terrell had hippety-hopped from his Notre Dame commitment to Michigan's fold and to issue theorems on recruiting at large. "The undercurrent permeating all these maneuverings and discussions is the belief that certain coaches deliver players to certain schools. And although I don't know about you, I've always wondered what's in it for coaches of that ilk. The fact is that no coach should 'send' a player anywhere. It should be left to the players and their parents or guardians to make those decisions. But reality too often boils down to influence-peddling, ego-stroking, payoffs, a brokered deal. "It's a dirty game within the game. If you look too closely, you might not like what you see."
Hubert Mizell, columnist "Funny thing is, Nebraska never seems to rank among the top recruiting classes. Yet, come every January, the Cornhuskers almost always float 1-2-3 in wire-service polls. So how does that work? "I've got a hunch. "Comparatively quietly, the colossus from Lincoln annually brings in a couple dozen new corn-fed unknowns. Guys deeply acquainted with silos and hog slopping. Between now and New Year's Day 2000, they will be growing and pumping into 320-pound blockers and tacklers. "Nebraska recruiters also fan out to California, Texas, Florida and New Jersey. Coming in like red stealths, they scoop up a half-dozen athletes with high competitiveness and global speed. Gurus don't much notice. "Ink Day can be a fooler. "Still, the gatherings should not be belittled. For the big shots, it's a game of playing the odds. Signing a bunch, hoping to wind up with a few gems. These are 17-year-olds. "For considerably more accurate measurement of these NCAA babes of '98, we should check back sometime in the autumn of 1999. Or even a year later. "Then, not now, we can be endowed with performance portfolios sufficient to produce true rankings of the best in Wednesday ink."
|
NCAA guidelines are very flexible for the distribution of the academic-enhancement fund (now $50,000 per year per institution), but institutions often have used the funds in such areas as tutorial services, computer hardware and professional staff development, as well as the salaries for academic-support staff hired to assist student-athletes. All of these areas certainly would be considered to be valuable uses of the funds distributed to each institution.