National Collegiate Athletic Association |
CommentJanuary 18, 1999
Guest editorial -- Clearinghous improves 'academic preparedness'
By CHARLES N. LINDEMENN
When we began, we approached development of the clearinghouse simply as a service to members. Clearly, we didn't go far enough. We needed more consideration of high schools and our prospective student-athletes and their families as we fashioned the program. Now, working in conjunction with the Core-Course Review Committee (previously the Academic Requirements Committee), we've forged a partnership between the NCAA and national high-school organizations that is helping. We have sought, and continue to pursue, ways to simplify the initial-eligibility process with the ultimate goal of protecting the interests of students. We are collaborating with high schools to move forward with rules that make sense. The core-course review process taking place right now is a step in that direction, and a possible early certification process that would render "final" certification decisions after a student's junior year in high school is being discussed. The core-course criteria and clearinghouse operations have been and continue to be scrutinized by various audiences, and sometimes our focus on criticism keeps us from acknowledging the many positives that are occurring with the clearinghouse process.
August 1997 to 2,478 in August 1998, and that number should continue to decline.
Perhaps most importantly, the academic preparedness of prospective student-athletes is improving. In 1994, the core grade-point average for prospective student-athletes on an IRL was 3.190 (4.000 scale); in 1997, the figure improved to 3.250. The average number of core courses taken by those same student-athletes increased from 16 in 1994 to 18 in 1997. SAT scores have improved from 1061 in 1994 to 1069 in 1997. There are efforts to undermine the clearinghouse, to paint it as unnecessary and inflexible. I read periodically that the NCAA is attempting to change high-school curriculum. We are not in the curriculum business; we simply want to assure that high-school student-athletes have the academic background the membership believes is needed to become successful collegiate student-athletes. I believe we've operated the clearinghouse in good faith, adhering to the reasons for its creation: protecting student-athletes by assuring they are prepared for the rigors of academics and athletics during their freshman year in college, and providing the Association's members with consistent, reliable initial eligibility decisions. Charles N. Lindemenn is the director of athletics at the University of Montana-Bozeman and chair of the NCAA Initial-Eligibility Clearinghouse Committee.
Comment -- Lessons to be learned through certification
DEBORAH A. KATZ, J.D., PH.D. The NCAA Committee on Athletics Certification fully certified Ohio State University in 1996. The Committee accepted all of Ohio State's recommendations for improvement based on the peer-review team's report and did not impose any additional recommendations. David Williams II, chair of the certification steering committee and the school's vice-president for student affairs, and then-president E. Gordon Gee hired Deborah Katz in 1994, when she was a doctoral student, to direct and organize the certification process. She was hired part-time as a professional staff person to provide direction and continuity to the certification process. Katz wrote the self-study plan and prepared the final report based on the work of the committees. She also wanted to explore how certification was achieved and what were the lessons learned from the experience. Katz posed those questions in her doctoral research to the Ohio State certification leadership -- five university-appointed committee chairs and the four NCAA-required participants. This article summarizes their responses. A detailed description and analysis of the experience can be found in Katz's 1998 dissertation entitled, "A Case Study of NCAA Division I Athletics Certification: The Experience of a Large, Midwestern University." Throughout the certification process, Ohio State's official goals were to determine whether it met NCAA standards presented in the self-study instrument and to recommend improvements where necessary. The university's certification leadership considered the new program a worthwhile experience. Athletics director Ferdinand A. Geiger described certification as an "enormous opportunity for a program to introspectively examine how it's doing. If a program has not identified its mission and goals, or if a program has not identified its role within the university structure, certification is the golden opportunity to do that." President Gee recognized, however, that "certification is a modest standard." Steering committee chair Williams agreed with the president, saying, "Since we're going to do this, let's look broader. Let's not just try to satisfy NCAA certification, let's really attack the things we need to attack to make our department better." Moreover, Ohio State sought to improve communication between the athletics department and the university community and to educate the university community about the issues of a big-time intercollegiate athletics program. To accomplish these goals, the president and steering committee chair strategically planned the self-study process, as Gee noted, "to see us as we are and not as we want it to be or not as we thought that it ought to be." Broad-based committees Strong certification leadership and an extended two-and-a-half-year timeline set the tone. Gee maintained an active presence throughout the self-study, committing financial and human resources and continually communicating his expectations of cooperation and results. Two full-time faculty members and three university administrators (including two with some teaching responsibilities) chaired the steering committee and subcommittees corresponding to the four areas of NCAA study -- governance and compliance, academic integrity, fiscal integrity and equity. All chairs had a relevant knowledge base for their study area and were given independence to lead an in-depth and thorough self-study. The broad-based committees included faculty, staff and students from across the university, as well as representation from the athletics council, athletics administration and the coaching staff. Committee members combined diverse university and athletics experiences. Some members were chosen specifically because their job responsibilities would support the work of the committees. Gee charged each committee with studying its assigned area, answering the related NCAA self-study questions, evaluating whether the university met the operating principles set forth by the NCAA, and then developing recommendations for improvement based on NCAA and university standards. The equity subcommittee received an additional charge to conduct a complete Title IX review of the athletics department in conjunction with the certification equity study. The committees collected information through a variety of methods, including documentation, surveys, focus groups and interviews. The committees then addressed the self-study items and evaluated the data and information against the relevant operating principles. A staff person who attended all committee meetings helped to facilitate strong and meaningful discussion and communication among the committees. The committee chairs also implemented an outreach plan to share the process and results with the university community. A final element in Ohio State's certification process was a follow-up plan. Gee asked that certification recommendations be implemented and charged the university's athletics council with monitoring the implementation progress. Far-reaching effects The certification process affected the athletics program in many ways. The lengthy schedule allowed some changes to be made as issues were identified during certification. For example, booster policies and procedures were updated to create a stronger relationship between booster groups and the athletics department. Also, the athletics department changed some sport budgets to further promote gender equity. Certification brought related university people to one table to review current practices and to develop university-wide solutions. Certification provided additional lessons to the university community, particularly the 75 certification committee participants. Gee noted that certification brought athletics "into the mainstream of the academic enterprise." The certification process established standards that identified university values, set common goals, and provided a benchmark for evaluation purposes. Certification also promoted self-awareness. It put the goals and issues faced by athletics in a larger context to encourage university planning and solutions, to promote better understanding of the athletics program and to clarify roles. Leaders also recognized the importance of active committee participation on the part of coaches and student-athletes. In addition, certification emphasized the importance of systematic record-keeping and documentation and the role such practices play in rules compliance and establishing accountability. Finally, the university learned the importance of leadership continuity from certification to post-certification. To continue the committee work and to further the university's goals, the selection of energetic and knowledgeable leaders and communication with their predecessors are key to achieving excellence in university and athletics administration. Recommendations Based on their certification experiences and the lessons learned, Ohio State's certification leadership provided advice to their successors and to the NCAA. Their recommendations are summarized below.
(a) Leadership: Choose independent people with knowledge of the study area from outside the athletics department. Promote communication between current and past certification leaders and among the current leadership. Ask certification leaders to serve as peer reviewers. (b) Committee structure: Create broad-based committees with members representing the university and athletics communities. (c) Committee process: Start early and provide support-staff assistance to the committee chairs. Use the opportunity to do a thorough review and promote creative and aggressive thinking. Conduct an active study that includes a variety of data collection methods coordinated among the committee chairs. (d) Follow-up to certification: Implement a formal follow-up process that is integrated with ongoing athletics department business. (e) Staff: Assign a coordinator with professional credentials and authority to design and facilitate the certification process.
(a) Add more impact to certification by reviewing the balance of academic and non-academic expenditures and by requiring an academic plan that includes resources to achieve goals. (b) Support the certification process for member schools by exploring ways to save time and developing the process to be more effective. For example, advise schools to designate an internal staff person as the certification coordinator and ensure that certification is led and conducted as a university project. In addition, develop a model for certification follow-up. (c) Increase the size of the peer-review teams, including more reviewers from outside athletics, and improve the training process for reviewers. Continue to assign an NCAA staff person to work with the peer-review team and recognize that peer review and its consequences are new to athletics. (d) Review athletics certification by focusing on the pertinence of the self-study items and operating principles and the program's relevance for accomplishing established goals. Solicit input in the certification review from university committee chairs. Also, examine certification in light of other certification and accreditation programs for guidance. Finally, the certification leadership disagreed on two issues that continue to fuel debate throughout the NCAA and its membership: (1) whether to include athletics in regional accreditation, and (2) whether to maintain the new 10-year cycle. It was agreed, however, that continued evaluation of the certification process, in light of certification goals and benefits, and discussion of campus certification experiences can help direct institution and athletics leaders. Though the NCAA Self-Study Instrument lists expected operating standards and the NCAA Certification Handbook identifies broad certification goals, those materials provide limited guidance regarding how to conduct certification. Therefore, each institution must develop and implement its own certification plan. Deborah A. Katz is the president of KMG Management Group, LLC, which serves the athletics community through compliance auditing, organizational development and rules education. For further information, contact her at dkatz@iwaynet.net or by telephone at 614/488-0260.
Opinions -- Mixed messages still being given regarding sports and racism
Ted Gup, lecturer "It still troubles me that our students and would-be students are getting the clear message that the gridiron coach far outranks the university president. "No harm, no foul, they like to say in sports. But as one who has taught at universities for 20 years and who has witnessed a generation of students come and go, I can attest to the fact that plenty of harm is done. Our children, our institutions and our communities are paying dearly for society's obsession with winning and the dollars that follow. The grossly disproportionate resources and attention given to big-time college sports infect our institutions with corruption, venality and hypocrisy. "Let's talk specifics. We hear that sports is the great equalizer, that it looks beyond race and poverty. In fact, on too many campuses, the football and basketball programs have fostered, even institutionalized, racism. "Many Division I football and basketball programs are represented by disproportionate numbers of African Americans, in programs that have carved out for them the academic equivalent of apartheid. They eat together, live together, study together and often have little interaction with the white student majority around them. Because in many universities these African-American student-athletes provide the entertainment spectacle of sports, some white students come to regard them as the citizens of ancient Rome might have looked upon the gladiatorial ranks. Yet the very subject of sports and racism is taboo on many campuses."
Bowl games
Michael A. Tranghese, commissioner "The system we have that brings No. 1 and No. 2 together cries out to be the only game that matters. The others get a little lost."
James Delany, commissioner "There are probably 50 percent more bowl games than 12 years ago. The marketplace sets the right number. Who tells a community that wants a game that it can't have a game? We're in a world of outlets willing to put the games on television, sponsors willing to sponsor them and teams willing to go to them. They are celebrations for communities, players and sponsors. They are part of the American sports mosaic."
Len DeLuca, senior vice-president of programming Discussing the view that early bowl games serve as a means of promoting the higher-rated Bowl Championship Series games: "Bowl week is annually one of the three highest-rated weeks on ESPN. Between December 23 and January 4, there is a professional or college game on either ESPN or ABC every day except December 24 and January 3. What we are trying to do is turn the intensity up leading to the (BCS). Is there room for anyone else? We will continue to test all the possibilities and we will talk to anyone, but I don't know if you have enough teams left to drive an audience."
|
No one thought it would be easy. When the NCAA membership voted to establish the Initial-Eligibility Clearinghouse in 1993, I doubt anyone could have imagined just how complex its process would become. Now, five years later, the clearinghouse is still what the Initial-Eligibility Clearinghouse Committee refers to as a work in progress, one that must be flexible, willing to listen and make adjustments.