The NCAA News - News and Features

August 17, 1998

Second summit

Division II student-athletes focus on multiple issues, including Title IX and time spent on athletics

BY DAVID PICKLE
STAFF WRITER

PHILADELPHIA -- Division II continued its unique -- and apparently successful -- method of student-athlete involvement with its second Student-Athlete Summit July 25 and 26.

While Divisions I and III each permit student-athletes to participate in Management Council meetings, Division II instead conducts a once-a-year "summit" during which student-athlete representatives from each conference discuss relevant issues with Management Council members.

It is one of the most "outside the box" concepts derived from the restructuring of the Association, but it may also be one of the most meaningful.

While last year's inaugural summit was interesting, participants said this one was more focused and perhaps more productive.

Not only did the athletes and administrators both have the benefit of a year of experience, but the student-athletes also were able to use the NCAA Foundation Leadership Conference in May as a vehicle for identifying issues that are of interest to Division II student-athletes.

"I was overwhelmed last year," said Shannon LeBlanc, a member of the Division II Student-Athlete Advisory Committee from the University of Massachusetts, Lowell. "There were 16 new SAAC members then, but by this year, we had jelled as a group. And we knew the Management Council representatives this year. It was a lot better."

Last year, the summit bogged down at times in comparisons with Divisions I and III and with debate over whether student-athletes should have a seat, voting or otherwise, on the Management Council. This year, the focus was on issues of broader interest to the rank-and-file student-athlete: Title IX and time spent on athletics.

With regard to Title IX, the athletes sent a message that they did not want institutions to achieve compliance with the law by capping rosters or eliminating sports.

"We believe universities should exhaust all means possible without eliminating sports," said Heather Andrews of Missouri Southern State College. "There should be no roster-cutting. We don't want to achieve compliance at the expense of our fellow athletes."

Instead, the student-athletes asked they be involved in helping find solutions.

"Student-athletes have been told, 'We don't have money in our budgets,'" said Kevin Listerman of Northern Kentucky University. "That answer is no longer acceptable."

In the alternative, the student-athletes discussed options such as increasing student fees, cutting unnecessary expenses and using Division II's unallocated funds.

The athletes also advised the Management Council that they need help with enforcement of the 20-hour-per-week restriction that applies to their athletics participation.

The athletes said that they were effectively powerless in addressing the issue because they believe that those who do issue a challenge could be replaced with teammates who are willing to exceed the limitation. SAAC members said that some student-athletes at the Foundation Leadership Conference reported that they were spending up to 40 hours per week practicing and competing and that some of the athletes were not aware of the existence of a rule that limits time spent on athletics participation.

"Where do we go from here?" Greg Clark from Kennesaw State University asked the administrators. "We are turning to you and ask for your support."

The Division II Management Council, in turn, discussed the issue at length during its July 27-29 meeting. It was sensitive to the point that athletes are in a difficult position in cases where abuses are occurring, but Council members also noted that in some instances, athletes may not understand how the 20-hour restriction applies. (As an example, a number of Division II athletes compete in multiple sports; in cases where sports overlap, the two coaches could require 40 hours of involvement in a week without violating any rules, since the restriction is for 20 hours per week per sport.)

The Management Council was sympathetic to the issue and referred the question of how the rule should apply to multisport athletes to the Division II Legislation Committee. Further, it discussed the possibility of developing a rules-orientation program for incoming student-athletes, who might not necessarily be familiar with rules relating to student-athlete welfare. It also discussed the possibility of exit interviews, similar to those required in Division I, to help uncover abuses.

The format for the summit was different this year, with two days rather than one. The first day included a presentation on leadership from consultant Michael David Scott, sandwiched between a pair of opportunities for the students and administrators to become better acquainted.

During the second day, the summit also focused on ways to use about $1.5 million in unallocated funds (among the suggestions: use the money to help fund travel to conference student-athlete advisory committee meetings so institutions don't have to bear that expense), issues related to Division II recruiting rules and Division II foreign student-athlete issues.

Is this approach one that Divisions I and III should consider?

LeBlanc thinks so.

"I think Divisions I and III should consider something similar to this," she said. "They both have two members on the Management Council, but maybe their personal views become involved."

NCAA President Cedric W. Dempsey, who attended both days of the summit, praised Division II for developing the concept and also said it was an approach that Divisions I and III should consider.

Patricia A. Merrier of the University of Minnesota, Duluth -- who serves as a liaison to the Division II Student-Athlete Advisory Committee along with Peggy L. Green of Fayetteville State University -- came away impressed with the experience.

"I don't use the term loosely," she told the Management Council, "but this is an extraordinary group of young people."