National Collegiate Athletic Association |
CommentApril 13, 1998
Guest editorial -- Drinking, recruiting an inappropriate mix
BY Jacquie Joseph It is time for the NCAA to legislate the use of alcohol with regard to recruiting.
However, one area I believe we can address now involves drinking and recruits during their official campus visits. The simple solution if we are serious about attacking this problem is to make the consumption of any alcohol during a campus visit against the rules. If we (the NCAA) can regulate everything else from stationery to what restaurants we eat in, we certainly can say no drinking on campus visits. Currently, no individual institution wants to take a stand for fear it will get killed in recruiting. The first thing everyone always says is, "That's a nice idea, but we can't monitor such a rule." That's true. If people want to cheat, they can. However, this would make drinking a reportable violation, just like all the others. The biggest advantage would be that all the prospects would know, in advance, that there would be no drinking on their visits. If they go to a party, they would have to carry a soft drink around. Everybody would know that this kid couldn't drink tonight. Another benefit would be to help the athlete evaluate the school on criteria other than how drunk school A got him or her vs. school B. What great lessons. Sounds like good practice to me. Others argue we don't need a rule because it is already against the law for people under 21 to drink. I hope we all know what a joke this is by now. If this were a compelling reason, would we have the drinking problems on campus that we have? Current student-athletes face a lot of pressure in "showing recruits a good time." Recruits feel equal pressure to impress their hosts. I have had a no-drinking rule during recruiting for years. I have had my players tell me that the prospect wanted to party because they did when they visited institution A. I also have had recruits bring alcohol with them on visits, as well as ditch their hosts and show up later in the evening. I know I am not alone in having these kinds of things go on. We haven't learned an effective way to teach responsible drinking, nor have we convinced anyone not to drink before his or her 21st birthday. What we can do is make it against the rules to drink on campus visits. It would be one small step in the right direction. Jacquie Joseph is head women's softball coach at Michigan State University. She also is president of the National Fastpitch Coaches Association. Letter to the Editor -- No two-part test in athletic reinstatementThis is in reference to Lee Pelton's article regarding "amateurism" in the March 30 issue of The NCAA News. As chair of the Division III Subcommittee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement [and chair of the Divisions I, II and III student-athlete reinstatement (sub)committees when they gather jointly], I believe there are several points involving the work of all three student-athlete reinstatement committees that appear to need further amplification and clarification. In Dr. Pelton's article, four reinstatement cases were used to demonstrate the different conditions imposed upon student-athletes who received monetary compensation. In determining whether a particular student-athlete should have his or her eligibility reinstated, the NCAA does not apply a two-part test as was noted in Dr. Pelton's article. According to NCAA rules, a student-athlete permanently loses amateur status and is not eligible for intercollegiate athletics if he or she has used his or her athletics skill for pay, accepts a promise of pay, signs a contract to play professional athletics, receives a salary, competes on any professional team, enters a professional draft or enters into an agreement with an agent. The task of the student-athlete reinstatement staff and committee is to determine whether the student-athlete should remain permanently ineligible or whether the student-athlete should be reinstated with some type of condition. An analysis of prize money, and its relationship to actual and necessary expenses, used to be considered a mitigating factor for those sports, such as tennis, in which student-athletes win prize money based on place finish. The committee's reinstatement analysis has changed for those student-athletes who win prize money based on place finish after January 1, 1998, and will require repayment of all impermissible prize money. Monetary compensation, as well as violations of other NCAA rules noted above, is considered by the student-athlete reinstatement staff and student-athlete reinstatement (sub)committees as they evaluate whether a particular student-athlete should be reinstated and what conditions should be attached to being reinstated. The (sub)committees are responsible for evaluating the diverse sports systems in Europe, Asia and Australia (among many others) to determine whether a particular team or league should be considered "professional," based upon current NCAA rules. Further, the staff and (sub)committees also attempt to determine the student-athlete's "intent to professionalize," which runs directly to the student-athlete's knowledge, responsibility or culpability for his or her involvement in the violation. Domestic and international student-athletes currently are treated a bit differently within the reinstatement process primarily because, while there are clear lines between "professional" and "amateur" in the United States (and the membership has made decisions through the years that they do not want professionals playing in NCAA programs), those distinctions internationally have become blurred. The trend to blur the lines between an amateur and professional is also evidenced by some national governing bodies in the United States who no longer use the word "amateur" to determine who is eligible to participate on their national teams. The term "amateur" clearly has a different meaning in different countries, and student-athletes answer questions on the NCAA International Student-Athlete Form based on their own understanding of the word "amateur," not always with a good understanding of how NCAA rules apply to their circumstances. For these and other reasons, the (sub)committees on student-athlete reinstatement agree that the NCAA does need to remove the word "amateur" from use within the NCAA Manual and begin an earnest discussion about establishing criteria by which student-athletes' athletics eligibility can be judged without using the word "amateur." This first step will enhance the ability of the NCAA membership to consider alternative ways to evaluate whether an individual has jeopardized his or her ability to play in an NCAA program and to think creatively about setting up criteria that can be consistently applied to different sports and different countries. Further, since the work of the Division I Amateurism and Agents Subcommittee has the very real potential to directly affect how "amateurism" and professional issues are viewed and handled within all divisions, the Division II Committee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement and the Division III Subcommittee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement renew their request to have a representative from each division on the Division I Subcommittee on Amateurism and Agents. While the NCAA is now a federated Association, and different divisions may choose to enact different legislation regarding amateurism issues, having representatives from all three divisions discussing these issues together will greatly benefit the entire NCAA in the long run. The Divisions I, II and III (Sub)Committees on Student-Athlete Reinstatement welcome the opportunity to assist the Subcommittee on Amateurism and Agents in its continuing education and discussion regarding these issues.
John C. Harper Opinions -- College basketball benefits from emphasis on team play
Neil Hayes, sportswriter "Many predicted doom for college basketball when droves of players began leaving early for the NBA, but a recent NCAA study discovered the college game is as popular as ever. The NBA still doesn't get it, but many basketball fans would rather watch Drew Hansen and Scott Padgett set screens than four guys standing around while Allen Iverson goes to the hole. "Stanford coach Mike Montgomery watched Monday night's (Final Four championship) game but didn't learn anything he didn't already know. " 'We're going to do it the old-fashioned way -- as a team making the extra pass,' Montgomery said the day after being eliminated by Kentucky. 'It has to be done that way.' "It's as entertaining as it is effective. Nobody left the Alamodome feeling cheated because they didn't see a Kentucky or Utah player celebrate a reverse dunk by thumping his chest and pointing to the crowd. SportsCenter probably was hard up for highlights. And you know what? Who cares?"
Bob Lipper, columnist "From deep in the heart of Tex-Mex country, where the last strand of net has been snipped, the last margarita drained and the last 'How 'bout them 'Cats!' whoop echoed along the Riverwalk, comes word of a startling development. "College basketball lives. "There were doubts a year ago at this time, and among the doomsayers was one Rick Pitino, then the Pied Piper of Lexington. Peering into a haze shorn of NBA bailouts Allen Iverson, Ron Mercer, Stephon Marbury, Kevin Garnett, Tim Thomas and Kobe Bryant, among others, Pitino pronounced the college game in deep trouble. "He himself soon bolted for the Celtics. He left behind a roster lacking even one sure-fire lottery pick for Tubby Smith to maybe coax to a win or two and keep Kentucky zealots from besieging talk radio and loading up on tar and feathers. "And we all know how that one goes, don't we? "There were no superstars on the Alamodome floor Monday night, no $20 million shoe contracts in waiting -- just two lovingly blended basketball teams playing their sizable hearts out. And when Kentucky prevailed, 78-69, over Utah to snare its seventh national championship, we all could share in the celebration of a season well done."
Women's basketball
Brenda VanLengen, executive director "Last year, we sold out for this in five hours, so we went to a ticket drawing. The event is still growing. We're not close to where we're going to be. "The Final Four is the pinnacle of college women's sports. It is one of the greatest national sporting events in the country."
Katie Gates, high-school basketball player Describing her feelings at the Women's Final Four: "You know when you're a little kid and the first time you go to the circus, you're all wide-eyed? That's how I was. I was sitting there before the game, and I almost couldn't believe it. I don't think you can really describe the feeling."
GamblingReaction to charges that two Northwestern University basketball players were paid to shave points in the 1994-95 basketball season:
Chris Anderson, director "The only business the state is in is gambling. We're a nation of gamblers. So why should we be surprised when something like this happens? We should expect it. It goes with the territory. "Obviously, they're involved in gambling, they get over their heads, they started losing money they can't afford to lose, and they do what any compulsive gambler would do: Amidst an addiction, any addict starts to violate his values. Point shaving is equivalent to stealing money.... "What we do is we label them as bad eggs. Compulsive gambling is not about money. It's about the action.... Before they know it, they're into the (bookmaker) for $5,000 or $10,000, and it's a setup. It's a trap."
|
Everyone agrees drinking on college campuses is a problem. While most students stop drinking in the "college quantities" when they get out of college, far too many learn dangerous drinking habits that develop into drinking problems. This scenario is nothing new, and the solutions are complicated.