National Collegiate Athletic Association |
CommentJuly 6, 1998
Guest editorial -- NCAA can take pride in degree-completion
BY DON A. ARIPOLI
Not being a joiner, I equivocated and tried to find reasons to not assist, but having known Dr. Walsh in Nebraska, I knew there would be no way I could escape the inevitable fate of service. What I didn't know was that the experience would be one of my most meaningful and rewarding tasks in a 30-year career as a professional in the field of higher education. The committee's first meeting occurred in St. Louis in March 1988. The charge was to identify an application process, create an application form and develop a procedure for the allocation of funds that had been generated by the Division I Men's Basketball Championship and forwarded to the NCAA Foundation. Those funds, or more correctly, the interest from those funds, was intended to provide an ongoing pool of revenues to support athletes who had exhausted their eligibility and had failed to complete their degrees. Given the existing regulations that prohibit a sixth year of aid, it was a natural way for the NCAA to give back to athletes. The original committee of Buzz Kurpius, Ron Dickerson, Alan Hauser, Jack Lengyl, Molly Perdue, Lee McElroy, Richard Hill and the recalcitrant chair came together to start on this project. Little did we know that the effort would continue for the next 10 years as we worked together and served hundreds of students along the way. During the 10 years that the committee has been in existence (under various names) we have assisted more than 900 athletes representing 200 institutions. In 1998-99, $950,000 will be available for distribution to former student-athletes. Through this process, virtually every sport represented in the NCAA has had one or more recipients. However, apart from the good the program has done, it has been interesting for me to observe the dynamics of the committee members during their years of service. Not by chance, the committee, which in 1997-98 included Eleanor Morriss from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; Leo Munson from Texas Christian University; and members from the original group, has worked together to refine, enhance, and manage a program that recognizes the special needs of former student-athletes whose commitment to intercollegiate athletics may have diminished their commitment to the achievement of their original goal -- a degree through the postsecondary educational system. The contribution of each committee member has been immeasurable. Somewhere in NCAA guidelines there must be something that addresses the value of sports as a way to encourage camaraderie, common purpose, commitment, focus to common goals and search for excellence. Over the past several years, I've come to know these individuals as they have made passages through their careers and professional lives; through difficult family situations; and through personal hardships. I have watched them work as a committee, each representing an area of expertise, without ever once putting their personal agendas, needs or individual priorities ahead of the common good. Each has brought a unique perspective to the process, which has enhanced the development of the degree-completion program. Although I have had little experience with other NCAA committees, I do know that this committee represents the "best" in people. Issues and controversies were never ignored -- they were just discussed with a civil and caring attitude that led to a successful resolution, and perhaps a far better outcome than anyone could have hoped. The committee has been an unusual blend in that it has had a stable membership not bounded by a three-year term and has been composed of people who have commitment to a vision of support for student-athletes. Perhaps because of these two unique characteristics, the chemistry has been created to enable an outcome, which has assisted so many former athletes. And so 10 years later, I am glad that I responded positively to the request Dr. Walsh made of me. Whatever the chemistry, whatever the cause, it has been a privilege to have served on this committee as chair during the past 10 years. The lessons that I have learned from this service are that good provides its own reward, and that the boundaries of a group working toward a common purpose are limitless. Perhaps this is not unlike the lesson that athletics intends to teach as student-athletes work together to achieve a common goal. Don A. Aripoli is vice-president for student affairs at Southwest Missouri State University and chair of the NCAA special degree-completion program consultants. Letters to the Editor -- Foreigners often boost collegiate tennisBlake Clifton's editorial on foreign players and college tennis (Student-athlete view, June 22) seemed well thought out and heartfelt. His comments on the involvement college coaches should take in the development of young players in their communities is right on the money. I fully agree that coaches have become lazy in recruiting and have used the "foreign influence" to strengthen their programs. There are, however, a few other considerations that are seldom brought up when the discussion turns to this subject. In NCAA Divisions I and II and the NAIA, there are plenty of scholarships available -- maybe not at the prospective student-athlete's (and parents') first choices -- but they are there. It is not finding a scholarship that is the problem, it is finding that scholarship at a certain place. Foreign students have enhanced the quality of college tennis across the board in all divisions. There are abuses of the system, but no more than in other sports where student-athletes with no hope of graduation are routinely recruited. As for seeing my tax dollars go to support a foreign player -- a far greater percentage of my contribution has most certainly gone into the system to support Americans who are far less deserving of my support, including several now-professional athletes who are deplorable role models. As for coach Dick Gould -- yes, he is undoubtedly a great coach. He is also at Stanford University, has excellent financial resources and traditionally the best men's tennis program in the country. Why shouldn't the best Americans be there? I would wager, however, that if coach Gould were coaching at the small-college level, he might have himself a couple of those foreign players. I am the men's and women's tennis coach (most of us here do double duty) at a small college. Our tennis teams have the highest graduation rates and grade-point averages of all our student-athletes. They have made considerable contributions to our institution in athletics, academics and leadership. They have worked hard to help raise money to bolster our limited budget. Nearly all our players are foreign. As a coach, I will continue to recruit the best student-athletes I can find, be they from Utah, Unadilla or Uzbekistan.
Duward Whelchel No more quotas The recent comments by Donna Lopiano (Opinions, May 25) demonstrate everything that is wrong with Title IX compliance efforts. As a recent installment of the ABC News show "20/20" so effectively pointed out, girls and boys are not alike. There are physical and psychological differences proved by science. Surveys at intramural programs around the country are a good barometer. Boys are at least three times more likely to participate in intramural activities as girls. Those are the facts. Opportunities are being presented that girls are not taking advantage of. Instead, girls have higher participation numbers in band, student government and many other extracurricular activities than boys. I believe that the No. 1 factor to be considered in determining Title IX compliance should be interest and abilities. If there is an interest, women should be allowed to pick up any sport they want without affecting the male sports programs that are now in place. Now, how can Ms. Lopiano possibly be against that? The No. 2 factor should be continued expansion of programs. And quotas should not be a consideration at all. In Ms. Lopiano's perfect world, girls would be forced to play sports as often as boys and boys would be forced to participate in student government and band, whether they wanted to or not. This is what quotas lead us to: unnaturally skewing the numbers to please bureaucrats.
Well, this is America and America is tired of having quotas forced down its throat. Let's put the issue on the ballot and let Americans decide for themselves: quota or no quota.
Editor's note: While Donna Lopiano, executive director of the Women's Sports Foundation, is an ardent supporter of equal athletics opportunities for women, she has on numerous occasions said that elimination of male sports programs is undesirable. She has said she believes such outcomes can be avoided through more creative athletics administration. Men paying the price Regarding the recent comments of columnist Patricia Kent (Opinions, June 1), please know that when the women's tennis team became fully funded at Washington State University, the men's tennis team was dropped.
Please don't perpetuate the myth that men's sports are too often not paying a price for Title IX. Washington State is a prime example!
Opinions -- High-school athletes vary on initial-eligibility philosophyDiscussing the possibility of eliminating end-points on NCAA Division I initial-eligibility requirements:
Meran Metters, high-school student-athlete "I have qualifying SAT scores, but I think the score should be lowered for athletes. I think this is particularly significant because in the inner city, many students have not been equipped with the tools to take the test. "The test is culturally biased. But many factors account for the poor performance of inner-city athletes: lack of quality teachers, lack of focus on the students' part for academics, failure of some parents to instill in their children the value of an education. I am fortunate because my parents have always made it clear that they value education, that they want me to go to college. This fall, I will attend USC. "At first, I played basketball for fun. Since 10th grade, I have played basketball to get an athletics scholarship. But I didn't get any offers that I wanted. A USC athletics scholarship is the only offer that would have interested me. "To prepare for the SAT, I took a six-week training session by the Princeton Review at the Kaiser Permanente Watts Community and Learning Center (course is offered for a nominal $30 fee). My mathematics score increased. "I have attended two high schools, and I know many athletes who could not get scholarships because of their SAT scores. They acted as if they were not disappointed, but people look down on you if you can't pass. "But there are some people who do not do well on tests. They have good work habits. They can hack it out in college, especially if they seek other resources, like tutoring."
Terry Ellis, high-school student-athlete "I don't think that the SAT qualifying score should be lowered. What's so difficult about maintaining a 2.5 grade-point average and receiving an 820 on the SAT -- a little more than half of the maximum 1,600 score? Lowering the score is ridiculous. It's like saying, 'You made an F, but I will give you a C.' It's making sure that the standards are so low that anyone can get in. "I feel that each time you take the test, your scores improve. You learn to search for the main idea to get the gist of what you read. Your process of elimination improves. "I know some students complain that it is difficult to juggle sports and academics. Some athletes get so wrapped up in their sport that they don't want to study. In my honors English and advanced placement history classes, there are few athletes. "I came in second in the 110-meter hurdles at the state track and field championship this year. I would like to attend Morehouse College or Georgia Tech. "I just don't see what is so hard about doing well in school and in sports at the same time."
Title sponsors
Charles Cavagnaro, athletics director Discussing the possibility of a title sponsor for an athletics conference: "It doesn't scare me. My sense is, most of the bowls have title sponsors and that doesn't stop other sponsors from becoming involved. Whatever we decide, it must be done with style and class .... I wouldn't want to rule out anything at this stage."
Division I basketball
Charles Harris Discussing the selection process for the NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Championship: "The whole notion that it's some smoke-filled room. It's not a public process, but the processes through which we go are a matter of public record. Added to that the notion that we operate like the House of Representatives on a transportation bill and trade votes -- 'I'll build a bridge in your back yard if you build a freeway across my county.' It just doesn't happen. It is as pure a process as I have ever been a part of. It's intense, but it's pure." "It's a high energy level. I think when you know the process you're involved in is going to be the subject of review and scrutiny at every level and on Sunday afternoon and Sunday night on selection day, 60 or 70 million people are going to reserve the right to have an opinion about what you did, you go into it knowing you want to be as thorough as you can be. You want to at least answer on Monday the question of why you didn't consider Ball State. And the answer is that you did. Or why you didn't consider Wake. Or Georgia Tech. Or Vandy. Or all those couple of hundred other folks I've heard from."
|
However, I can remember a telephone call I received in February 1988 from Ursula Walsh, then director of research for the NCAA, during which she asked if I would chair a new NCAA Special Degree-Completion Program Committee.