National Collegiate Athletic Association |
CommentDecember 7, 1998
Guest editorial -- Non-Olympic sports deserve protection
By Phillip A. Buttafuoco
During the 1997 NCAA Convention, the membership passed Proposition No. 137, which protected all Olympic-sport championships regardless of sponsorship levels. The sport of lacrosse (football and golf also), not being an Olympic sport, was not included in this legislation. Proposal No. 2-19 simply asks the membership to treat the sport of lacrosse as we are treating the Olympic sports. If Proposal No.2-19 is not passed, the 1,650 student-athletes who compete in these two sports will be treated differently than their fellow student-athletes. There is a fundamental flaw in establishing a system whereby we identify sports based on their Olympic status. It has been said many times that the NCAA, especially Divisions II and III, should not be focused on developing professional and Olympic athletes. In the spirit of that philosophy, therefore, we urge the membership to provide men's and women's lacrosse with the same "protection" as the Olympic sports. In preparing to vote on Proposal No. 2-19, here are a few things to consider:
providing athletics opportunities for students, and not in the business of preparing Olympic athletes.
On behalf of the men and women who have dedicated their athletics careers to the sport of lacrosse, I urge the NCAA Division II membership to support Proposal No. 2-19. Philip A. Buttafuoco is the commissioner of the Eastern College Athletic Conference. Comment -- ADs and presidents on the same page
By John R. Gerdy A recent survey indicates that Division I athletics directors and university presidents have similar perceptions of athletics directors' authority in all significant areas except for "institutional control." The research -- conducted by Todd L. Seidler, Bradley J. Cardinal and me and published in the summer 1998 issue of the International Sports Journal -- seems to indicate that athletics directors and presidents have similar perceptions of athletics directors' authority in the areas of "goals and philosophy," "budget and finance," "personnel procedures" and "academic standards and integrity." While statistical differences were noted in the area of "recruiting," the differences were substantively insignificant. However, the difference noted for "institutional control" appears to be both statistically and substantively significant. Institutional control Interestingly, it appears that athletics directors and university presidents have qualitatively similar perceptions of athletics directors' authority and institutional control in terms of the six subscales assessed by our questionnaire. While keeping in mind that every situation is unique and that job functions may vary depending on a number of factors, it would appear that NCAA Division I athletics directors have shared authority in the area of "academic standards and integrity;" major authority in the areas of "goals and philosophy," "budget and finance," "institutional control," and "recruiting;" and almost total authority in the area of "personnel procedures." With regard to "institutional control," the disconnect may be only moderately problematic. In this area, athletics directors perceived a quantitatively higher level of authority than that perceived by the university presidents. However, qualitatively, both perceived athletics directors to have major authority in this area. The study's most important finding was that, unlike an original study that I conducted on this topic, there was little or no significant difference between athletics directors in their perceived authority in almost all areas. This was not the case in 1986 when athletics directors and presidents showed discrepancies concerning their perceptions of athletics director authority in each of the four areas assessed (budget and finance, personnel procedures, ethics in recruiting, and academic standards and integrity). While the exact cause of this increased understanding cannot be determined, it is interesting to note that the NCAA's effort to define, develop and promote the concept of institutions gaining more control over athletics departments began in earnest in the mid-1980s. And, as has been well-documented, a major thrust of the ongoing college athletics reform movement has been to encourage presidents to become more involved in the operation and oversight of their athletics departments. Positive dividends With increased involvement comes increased communication and understanding. Thus, it can be argued that as presidents have become more involved in the governance of intercollegiate athletics, they and their athletics directors have come to a much better understanding regarding the role and authority of athletics directors in the conduct of athletics department affairs. Overall, our findings seem to indicate that NCAA reform efforts in the area of management and institutional oversight of athletics departments have reaped some positive dividends. While it cannot be stated unequivocally, it is simply too hard to imagine that the significant and ongoing emphasis that the NCAA has placed upon the importance of presidents becoming more active in the oversight and management of their athletics departments has not affected this improvement in the understanding of the role and authority of athletics directors in this way. These findings also are significant as they relate to the much-debated and always controversial subject of the place of athletics in higher education. One of the primary criticisms of intercollegiate athletics is that it has become divorced from the mainstream academic community. While these results do not mean that athletics suddenly has become a comfortable institutional "fit," they do indicate an increased institutional understanding of the role and authority of the directors of those athletics programs. As academic leaders continue to work to integrate athletics in the higher education community more effectively, perhaps this increased understanding can be used to further strengthen the link between athletics departments and the institutions of which they are a part. In any case, the results of this study indicate a positive shift in the relationship between athletics and the academe that bears continued examination. John R. Gerdy is a visiting professor at Ohio University and author of "The Successful College Athletic Program: The New Standard." Todd L. Seidler is associate professor and coordinator of the graduate sports administration program at the University of New Mexico. Bradley J. Cardinal is an assistant professor in the department of exercise and sport science at Oregon State University.
Opinions -- Opportunities are greater, but so are the expenses
Ferdinand A. Geiger, athletics director "The very most important, most positive thing that has happened to college athletics in my career is Title IX and the growth and explosion of athletics for women. "We're much less on the defensive about the existence of athletics...than we were before Title IX. The fact that women are demanding more opportunity to play has created an appreciation for athletics that didn't exist before."
Rick Bay, athletics director "We are becoming more corporate, especially at places like Ohio State, where it's big business by any corporate standard. Certainly, major-college football and major-college basketball have lost a lot of their innocence and charm. "On the other hand, the success of those sports in marketing has created a lot of opportunities for other men and women at the nonrevenue level that probably would not have been possible without that money."
Gordon Gee, former president "If I sit here and say we will not take dollars away from students, we will not take dollars away from faculty, we will not take dollars away from research, we will not take dollars away from public service (to fund) athletics, that means we have to look for other sources, and that's where a university president is caught on the proverbial pike."
Coaching
Gerry DiNardo, football coach "It's the same thing that you tell the players. Sometimes it's just the same lessons over and over -- how vicious the business is that we're in -- how difficult it is, how many people depend on you financially from a departmental standpoint, morale-wise and the community standpoint. "You learn, don't get too close to people.... "I was with a very prominent coach and one coach asked, 'Who are your friends in this town?' He said, 'I don't have any friends.' "You learn that. That's a lesson that you constantly learn. You can get tricked into thinking that you're a part of the community because you are a part of the community. You're part of the community because of what you do -- and that's sometimes temporary. It's the same lesson for the kids to learn. It's a good lesson."
Football playoff
Graham B. Spanier, president "I think that the (present) bowl championship system is about as close as we're likely to get in the near future (to a playoff). The NCAA is fully governed by university presidents who have a broader view of institutional priorities that goes beyond football rankings.... "The question is, is there a compelling reason to change the current system? I don't see much of a clamor (among college CEOs) to change the current system....Penn State University, as an institution, is not opposed to considering the idea, and I am not opposed personally. But most of my colleagues are much more opposed to it than I am....I'm about as supportive as they come, in that I can see both sides of the issue."
Roy F. Kramer, commissioner "If you ever have a playoff, you lose that drama of the regular season. This year, more than any I can remember, we had a game every week that had some impact on the national championship. In college football, the regular season is the playoffs. It's one of the things that makes college football special."
|
As the 1999 NCAA Convention approaches, it is important for all Division II members to fully understand Proposal No. 2-19, which is written specifically to protect the Division II Men's Lacrosse Championship and permit the creation and sustainment of a Division II Women's Lacrosse Championship.