The NCAA News - News and Features

The NCAA News -- February 15, 1999

Catalysts of change

Constituent committees work to ensure progress made, promises kept

BY GARY T. BROWN
STAFF WRITER

Guardians. Watchdogs. Conscience.

Those words often surface when committees like the NCAA Minority Opportunities and Interests Committee, the Committee on Women's Athletics and the Student-Athlete Advisory Committees are in the NCAA spotlight.

Those modifiers have very different connotations. In fact, it often depends on the issue being discussed and from whose point of view as to which is selected.

When critics point to the lack of minority head coaches in college football, for example, the Minority Opportunities and Interests Committee (MOIC) may be seen as the Association's watchdog. When legislation is proposed regarding the senior woman administrator position at member institutions, the Committee on Women's Athletics (CWA) often is portrayed as the Association's conscience. And when student-athlete welfare issues come to the forefront, the Student-Athlete Advisory Committees (SAACs) might be pegged as the Association's guardians.

By their very nature, those committees cater to specific constituency groups. Yet all are governed by Association-wide principles of equity, access and opportunity, which means that if they are grappling with an issue that affects their constituent base, then it probably affects the entire Association.

And whether they are seen as watchdogs, guardians or as the conscience of the NCAA, they are not going away, because the issues close to their hearts have not been resolved -- by the NCAA or by anyone else.

"Most committees have their duration to address certain issues," said Charles Whitcomb, faculty athletics representative at San Jose State University and chair of the MOIC. "Then those issues go away and the committee moves on to something else. It's not a constant itch like it is with the MOIC, the CWA and the SAACs. We're always going to be there.

"There are times when we're probably much more visible than others, depending on the issue, and I get the feeling that some folks tend to start seeing that itch as a rash. And no matter how much ointment you put on it, it's going to come back."

Initial eligibility

One itch that has returned, according to Whitcomb, is the ongoing battle with current initial-eligibility standards, which new research data say have a disparate impact on minority and lower-income prospects.

The standards always have been important to the MOIC, but the issue is even more significant now because the committee believes its constituents are unfairly disadvantaged by the current standards.

Whitcomb, who has chaired the MOIC since 1991, said the committee's concern isn't so much that its constituents are adversely affected but that any group is adversely affected.

"It's all about access," Whitcomb said. "And why not, in defining who may or may not participate in intercollegiate athletics, err on the side of access?"

It's a battle that the MOIC has fought for a long time.

Back when Prop 16 was under consideration, the MOIC rejected the proposal and suggested a new initial-eligibility rule called "Index II" that changed the combination test score/core-course grade-point average and redefined partial- and nonqualifier status. Index II also provided for partial- and nonqualifiers to earn back their fourth season of eligibility if they met the satisfactory-progress requirements at the beginning of the academic year in which their fifth year of enrollment would occur.

But the MOIC's suggestions were not supported and Prop 16 passed. Since that time, however, the MOIC believes that the data accumulated indicate that the committee's initial wishes were right.

So in August 1998 when the Initial-Eligibility Subcommittee of the Division I Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet sought comments regarding a possible change to the current standards, the MOIC was ready to respond.

Though none of the four models submitted matched what the MOIC originally proposed, the committee latched onto Model No. 4 because it essentially provided the most access.

But after further review, and after hearing in October that the Division I Management Council and Board of Directors were willing to consider alternatives, the MOIC eagerly went back to the table.

What came forth was an alternative model that retains the access from Model No. 4 and provides a way for partial- or nonqualifiers to regain that fourth year of eligibility, which was the critical piece the MOIC had fought for all along.

"Our alternative strikes a compromise by raising the number of core courses (to 14), placing a cut-off on the grade-point average (minimum 2.000) and allowing partial- and nonqualifiers to receive aid and earn back that fourth year," Whitcomb said.

Again, the fourth year would be tied to having achieved satisfactory-progress requirements. Nonqualifiers would be able to receive institutional aid but would not be able to compete, practice or travel in their first year.

Whitcomb said the proposal would provide access to nonqualifiers that the current standards have otherwise blocked. He said that graduation rates could actually increase if the change were made.

"We need to be at a point where we put more value on four years of high school than on one day and one exam," he said.

As for how the proposal will fare, particularly in light of past failures, Whitcomb believes the climate may be more accepting now than before, especially since the research data indicate that current standards have a disparate impact.

"We feel that especially at the Board and Management Council level, there's a willingness to listen to alternatives," he said.

Also a SAAC issue

Another group speaking out on the current initial-eligibility standards is the Division I SAAC, which also is considering an alternative model that addresses the "triangle" of nonqualifiers in the current sliding scale.

Kerry McCoy, former wrestler at Pennsylvania State University and chair of the Division I SAAC, said the discussion of the standards is one of several ongoing issues facing the group.

He said the group's primary concern with Prop 16 is that it makes nonqualifiers out of some prospects who formerly would have been qualifiers under Prop 48. Though the SAAC hasn't reached a consensus on how to accomplish it, the goal is to get those people back in the game by essentially retaining the test-score and grade-point average requirements under old Prop 48.

"In no way do we want to send a message that we're sacrificing academic integrity or lowering standards -- or that athletes would in any way need lower standards," he said. "But we're trying to figure out a way in which prospects who were qualifiers under Prop 48 but not under Prop 16 regain that access."

McCoy said the group has looked at the MOIC's alternative model and for the most part has expressed its support.

However, he said the group still has not resolved what it feels are some loose ends with the proposal, particularly whether providing access for lower test scores compromises academic integrity or promotes opportunity for prospects who do not test well.

"For now," he said, "we're favoring the MOIC model, but we still have a few concerns."

Those alternatives figure to be discussed at length during the Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet's February 18-19 meeting in San Diego.

SAACs seek input links

Initial eligibility isn't the only issue that student-athlete advisory committees continually address. Recent meetings have been dominated by communications issues and making sure that student-athlete views appear on the right governance agendas.

With few voting privileges within the governance structure, student-athlete groups must rely on their powers of persuasion. Since 1997, when the old Association-wide SAAC split into divisional groups, the SAACs have taken steps to ensure they have a voice.

For the most part, all three groups feel their collective voice is being heard.

"If you had asked me two years ago if I thought we were going to have an ear after restructuring, I would have said no," said Division II Chair Stormie Wells of the University of Northern Colorado. "But at least in Division II, our Management Council has been so receptive and willing to work with us, and we're also represented very well on the Presidents Council."

Kerry Gotham of Nazareth College, who chairs the Division III committee, said increasing access on Division III and Association-wide bodies is one of the most powerful ways the committee can monitor integrity issues.

"We want to actively participate rather than have decision makers assume what the student-athletes want," he said.

But McCoy said an obstacle to such dialogue in Division I often is the fact that once an issue hits the Management Council table, many members carry with them directed votes from their conferences.

"Those are hard to change," he said. "We need to increase our input at the conference level."

Women's athletics issues

For the Committee on Women's Athletics, the issues get to the right table at the right time, but some people would suggest those issues are not acted upon in the right way.

Cheryl L. Levick, chair of the CWA and senior woman administrator and senior associate athletics director at Stanford University, said the issue is opportunity, no matter how you look at it.

"The single biggest issue that the CWA addresses continually is the issue of opportunity for women," she said. "Whether it's an administrative role, a coaching role or a student-athlete-participation role, the issue is opportunity and access at any of those levels. We address that repeatedly.

"It might take on a different component each time -- it might be marketing at one meeting or championships opportunities at another. It's a continual challenge and most of our agenda items tend to revolve around those issues."

The current focus of the opportunity issue is a Gender-Equity and Diversity Audit Report that was submitted to the NCAA Executive Committee in January. The report was recommended by the Executive Committee's Ad Hoc Committee to Review Diversity Issues and was overseen by the CWA and the MOIC.

The report contains recommendations on Association-wide staffing issues; student-athlete participation rates; championships opportunities; diversity in officiating; equity issues in marketing; exempted contests in Division I; and increased access for minority student-athletes.

Levick said her heartbeat quickens at the thought of the report's impact.

"It is a comprehensive, multidimensional report that can show in every area -- from staffing, championships, marketing and television -- what we can do to become equitable or make substantial gains in each of those areas so that women and minorities can have additional opportunities and access," she said. "If we can achieve even half of what's in that report, we'll have made significant progress."

Levick said the issue of increasing opportunities for women is not new. Only the strategies are new. She said the issues resurface because women's athletics finds itself in a period of constant catch-up.

"For the last two decades we've been trying to catch up in more sports opportunities, better coaching, administrative opportunities, better marketing, and exposure on television and other media," she said. "We're going to see that for several more years until we're at a point where we can say we're equitable in different areas."

Association roles

So what are these committees? Are they guardians, watchdogs or do they represent the conscience of the NCAA?

"First and foremost," Levick said, "is that we're part of a team.

"But if indeed the committee finds there are issues or problems, then it will take on the role of a watchdog or an advocate depending on the issue. We shouldn't be looked at as a separate entity on the side that watches over the Association."

"We're not a watchdog because we don't have that kind of power," said Wells. "I see us more as a conscience because you can override a conscience, but whether you do so just depends.

"But because we have such a good ear within the structure, we are able to give a lot of the administrators cause to look at what the student-athletes want instead of what's going to be the best for their bottom line."

Whitcomb said that no matter what they are called, groups such as the MOIC, the CWA and the SAACs will continue to be referred to by the membership as something that will not go away.

"It's like education," he said. "If there were a time we felt we were educated enough, then we could close our eyes and call it a day -- but we know that we're still being educated every single day.

"So too is the MOIC educating every single day and reminding folks not to forget the past -- the past is what has given us the foundation to create change in the future. I see committees like ours as catalysts of change."

But if the committees have been successful in triggering changes -- and indeed they have been -- then why won't the issues go away?

Whitcomb said it is because issues facing intercollegiate athletics often are the same issues facing the general society. And until those issues are resolved outside of athletics, committees like the MOIC, the CWA and the SAACs will continue to be the conscience of the Association, or the guardians of the Association or -- if necessary -- the watchdogs.

"Athletics mirror society," he said. "As we fight these issues in-house, we need to fight outside in the communities from which we attract our student-athletes. These issues don't go away. They're just part of who and what we are."