Guest editorial -- Deregulation can ease amateurism gridlock
By Christine H. Grant
University of Iowa
The NCAA has long discussed the possible deregulation of amateurism legislation and over the past two years, the amateurism and agents subcommittee of the Division I Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet has explored the state of amateurism. The subcommittee's discussions have focused solely on issues related to the period before an athlete's initial collegiate enrollment. It should not be presumed that the subcommittee would support or propose similar changes for the postenrollment period.
Throughout its examination of the issues, the subcommittee continually returned to two basic guiding principles: prospective student-athlete welfare and competitive equity. The subcommittee placed primary importance on the welfare of student-athletes and concluded that deregulation of certain portions of NCAA Bylaw 12 would best serve the prospects' interests. Secondarily, the subcommittee examined the current state of competitive equity and addressed issues that may result from deregulation.
The subcommittee firmly believes that its work maintains the values of the Association while recognizing the changing environment of intercollegiate athletics. In fact, after reviewing student-athlete reinstatement cases involving prospects who have violated current amateurism legislation and the accompanying strong cases made by the institutions involved in these reinstatement cases that these athletes should be permitted to compete in their programs, the subcommittee believes its new direction accurately reflects the current culture of athletics and trends in recruiting.
During its June 8 presentation to the AEC Cabinet, the subcommittee introduced two primary concepts: (1) allowing prospects to accept prize money based on place finish before initial enrollment, and (2) broadening the application of NCAA Bylaw 14.2.4.2 to all sports (it currently is applied only to the sport of tennis) and to include practice with a professional team (as defined in Bylaw 12.02.4).
As to the first concept, the subcommittee concluded that the acceptance of money does not lend itself to a true evaluation of the extent of the competitive advantage gained by
the athlete through participation in organized sport before initial enrollment. To the contrary, the subcommittee found that the acceptance of money was a poor indicator as to the nature of the athlete's abilities and concluded that any competitive advantage comes from the level of competition engaged in and the length of time the athlete is involved in the activity, not the mere acceptance of prize money.
Therefore, the subcommittee concluded that an athlete should be permitted to accept prize money. Not only is this in the best interests of the athlete (especially when one considers the high costs associated with participation in many sports and the fact that the expense of participation at the precollegiate level excludes most disadvantaged youths from the possibility of participating), but the acceptance of prize money itself does not impact competitive equity. (The subcommittee also has considered the possibility of allowing prospects to enter the draft, sign a contract with a professional team and engage in competition with professionals.)
While the subcommittee determined that the acceptance of prize money itself should not render an athlete ineligible for our programs, the subcommittee does recognize the numerous athletes who engage in organized sport for some period of time before initial enrollment and the competitive advantage that may result from this participation. Accordingly, the subcommittee concluded that application of Bylaw 14.2.4.2 to all sports would diminish the competitive advantage.
Under this proposal, a prospect would have one year from the date of high-school graduation through the following summer in which to compete in organized competition and retain the possibility of four years of eligibility upon initial, full-time enrollment.
For every year of participation in organized sport beyond this one-year period, the prospect is charged with the loss of a season of competition and must fulfill an academic year in residency upon enrollment. The subcommittee also determined that Bylaw 14.2.4.2 should be applied to those athletes who practice with a professional team (pursuant to Bylaw 12.02.4).
The subcommittee believes that the application of Bylaw 14.2.4.2 in this manner would negate any competitive advantage and strengthens the competitive equity. This fosters a level playing field among student-athletes and, in turn, NCAA colleges and universities.
The subcommittee understands that this can be an emotional issue and we all can devise worst-case scenarios that inhibit our ability to feel comfortable with change.
In working through these same feelings, the subcommittee has come to understand that the deregulation of our amateurism rules will benefit a great number of athletes and should not be rejected based on isolated fears. We intend to keep the membership fully informed as we continue our exploration and welcome your thoughts and ideas.
Christine H. Grant is the director of women's athletics at the University of Iowa and chair of the Division I Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet's amateurism and agents subcommittee.
Comment -- Accountability is key to athletics success
BY SHANNON E. BROWN
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN, MADISON
Now that my college years are at an end, I look back on the last five years -- I was injured and redshirted my freshman season -- with mixed emotions.
The one thing I don't have are regrets. I have made the most of my time and opportunities and I am ready to move on. I really am fortunate: fortunate to have had the athletic and academic ability to get through an elite institution like the University of Wisconsin, and fortunate to have had people around me throughout my life who have held me to high standards, both as a student and as an athlete.
My father coached my youngest brother, Shelton, and me in soccer until we went to high school; and while I never missed a game or practice because of academic trouble, I clearly remember Shelton watching from the sideline, barred from practice and games because his grades had slipped below what was an acceptable level to Coach Dad.
My parents were committed to education; no exceptions, no excuses. I have only begun to realize the benefits of the education I've received. But other student-athletes, especially student-athletes of color, have not been so lucky. They have not had people looking out for them, people who wanted the best for them, both academically and athletically.
We all know that college athletics in general have not had, nor deserved, a squeaky clean image. Many student-athletes are being shortchanged. Their athletic ability is being developed at the cost of their academic potential. Too many student-athletes, too often student-athletes of color, are leaving institutions of higher education without just that -- an education. Colleges and universities have become not places to grow but factories churning out half-educated athletes who have perhaps fewer opportunities than they had before they entered college.
The solution is not easy. But I believe the problem will never be solved until coaches -- educators -- realize their role is much greater than to just turn out the next first-round draft pick. And student-athletes must realize they are much more than a 40-yard dash time or a bench-press number. Student-athletes must learn to make the most of this dual identity. But they never will unless they are held accountable, just as my brother was.
In April, I received the Arthur Ashe female sports scholar of the year award from the magazine Black Issues in Higher Education. Arthur had a deep commitment to both athletics and education, which manifested itself in his accomplishments as a tennis player and in his efforts to aid education causes. I won this national award on the basis of criteria consistent with high standards of sportsmanship, educational achievement and humanitarianism.
Other student-athletes of color are succeeding as well, many against tremendous odds. A friend of mine, Cecil Martin, for example, has managed to overcome a kind of poverty I have never known and received his degree with me recently. He was also drafted as a running back by the Philadelphia Eagles.
A reporter recently asked Cecil why he bothered to maintain his focus on education when it was apparent that he would be going to the National Football League. "A degree is what's going to be with me for the rest of my life," Cecil said. "That's an accomplishment that can never be taken away from me. Going to the NFL. is up to someone else. You get a degree, it's all up to you."
Knowing Cecil and winning the Ashe award brought home to me what the real meaning of sports should be: a way to grow and connect with others, often very different from ourselves; to connect in a way that destroys barriers and heals hatred.
Arthur Ashe translated his talent into something that transcended the tennis court, indeed, transcended sports. Arthur made a difference. I see in Arthur a unique life force. I was wondering aloud to a friend, with some frustration, how I, too, could make a difference in the world.
She gave me a quotation that was a revelation. I realized that my energy, translated into even small acts of kindness, of courage, constitutes a unique and positive force in the world. I read this quotation, from the modern-dance pioneer Martha Graham to Agnes de Mille, as I accepted the 1999 award in Arthur's name:
"There is a vitality, a life force, a quickening that is translated through you into action, and because there is only one of you in all time, this expression is unique. And if you block it, it will never exist through any other medium and be lost. The world will not have it. It is not your business to determine how good it is; nor how valuable it is; nor how it compares with other expressions.
It is your business to keep it yours, clearly and directly, to keep the channel open. You do not have to believe in yourself or your work. You have to keep open and aware directly to the urges that motivate you. Keep the channel open.
No artist is pleased. There is no satisfaction whatever at any time. There is only a queer, divine dissatisfaction, a blessed unrest that keeps us marching and makes us more alive than the others."
Reprinted with permission from the New York Times. Shannon E. Brown is a former soccer student-athlete at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Letter to the Editor -- Coach's involvement shapes 'good people'
In reference to coach David Adelman's editorial from the May 24 issue of The NCAA News ("Columbine coach's act should be remembered"), I agree wholeheartedly with coach Adelman's assertion that Dave Sanders' acts of courage should not be forgotten.
Indeed, Sanders' family, his friends, his pupils and his athletes will never forget those acts of boundless courage that cost him his life. As Adelman states, neither should teachers, and neither should coaches nationwide.
Adelman is no hypocrite. I played basketball for him for three years at Loyola (Illinois). The reason I played basketball at the Division I level, the reason I got a shot after struggling through a difficult year of junior college ball, and the reason I am where I am today -- in Hong Kong, working in international basketball development for the Asian Basketball Confederation -- is because Adelman was around to lend his attention, his time, and the remnants of energy he had after a dawn 'til dusk day in the office to a bunch of young men who all had dreams, who all wanted more minutes, who all wanted the easier schedule, etc.
Adelman was--and I am sure still is--the man whose door was never closed to our problems. He was an assistant coach; I was a first-year former junior college failure turned Division I walk-on. We each had something to prove. Our friendship flourished.
Adelman was the X's and O's coach at Loyola. He'd sit up in that little office and watch Roy Williams tapes all night, trying to analyze every nuance of the secondary break. In practice, it wasn't a veteran head coach who was walking us through the offense -- it was a 25-year-old assistant who'd just served time as Pittsburgh's team manager.
"Adels" was our coach. We saw how hard he worked. We saw how little credit he received, and how he would always go off as if none of it bothered him, though he was a fierce competitor himself. He showed us what integrity was about.
At study table, Adels would supervise us three nights a week. At first, it was no fun for anyone, to be sure. Most of the time, the team and our coach would sit around a table and rap about various issues: sociology, history, human relationships. Then, the unit cohesion that all coaches long for began to take shape. Adelman brought us together, whether he knew he had or not. He was the catalyst. From each other we learned about what is important in our lives; from Adelman we learned how we could interact and be rational and realistic. His forum was the key.
In his assertion that coaches need to step up to the plate and become more personally involved with their athletes, he is right on. He has done it, and a lot of good things have resulted. His players who had only dreamed of playing at the level beyond college are doing so. Our accomplishments are direct results of A's ardent-hearted approach to shaping good people -- not just good players.
My gratitude goes out to coach Adelman for his incessant work behind the scenes, and his outcry for justice. We must never forget the tragedy that occurred in Littleton, Colorado, where a coach exemplified heroism; and we will never forget those coaches who showed us the possibilities.
Matt Jung
Loyola University (Illinois)
Class of 1997
Opinions -- No consensus on freshman ineligibility as draft deterrent
Rudy Davalos, director of athletics
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque Journal
"The rationale behind not playing freshmen is that they get to be more mature and concentrate on academic work. I'm not totally convinced that would happen. Basketball has 26 games a year, and the coaches would still want them there six days a week for practice."
Terry Holland, director of athletics
University of Virginia
Richmond Times Dispatch
"The emphasis today in every sport is so much on winning and being competitive that we need to change our culture. We need to say, and only the presidents can do it, academics do come first. We don't send premed students out to operate their first year."
Howie Dickenman, men's basketball coach
Central Connecticut State University
Hartford Courant
"For some of the better players at the highest levels, they may think about taking more of a chance and entering the draft. Playing freshman basketball means no exposure and no TV during that one year. Superstar players want to play against the best. It may lead to some bad decisions."
Jim Haney, executive director
National Association of Basketball Coaches
Houston Chronicle
"It's hard to tell if there is a consensus (in favor of freshman ineligibility). My position is that there are other ways besides making freshmen ineligible in which to improve graduation rates, perhaps by changing the academic requirements for eligibility in the sophomore, junior and senior years."
Bill Guthridge, men's basketball coach
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Greensboro News & Record
"I think (freshmen ineligibility) would be a great thing for college basketball. The first year of college is challenging enough for any incoming student, let alone a student-athlete playing a sport with tremendous interest and exposure. It would take them out of the limelight and give them a year to adjust socially and academically. At North Carolina, we have long been in favor of freshmen ineligibility, even though we have been fortunate to have a number of freshmen start and play a prominent role for us. ... But for the overwhelming majority of incoming students, it would certainly be in their best interests not to play. It also might stabilize the flow of young players leaving college and even high school for the NBA."
Jeremy Foley, director of athletics
University of Florida
Orlando Sentinel
"A lot of people are going to think (freshman ineligibility) is not quite the answer. We signed (New Hampshire forward) Matt Bonner, the valedictorian of his high-school class. Should he have to sit out a year?"
