Guest editorial -- Full terms needed for Division II SAAC
By Stormie Wells
University of Northern Colorado
When considering the terms for representatives on the Division II Student-Athlete Advisory Committee (SAAC), the Division II Presidents Council should do what makes sense for the student-athletes, not what looks good on paper.
Let me sum up the problem for readers who have not followed this issue. Before restructuring, the terms-of-service legislation for SAAC members basically stated that a student-athlete was to serve a two-year term. At the end of that term, he or she would be eligible for appointment to another two-year term.
After restructuring, Division II made the decision to add the requirement that a student-athlete must be enrolled at a Division II institution either as a graduate or undergraduate student in order to be eligible to serve at all. Realizing the problems that could arise, the Division II SAAC appealed to the Management and Presidents Councils, but to no avail.
The first Division II summit in Denver in July 1997 was filled with discussion, compromise proposals and even heated debate, and when all was said and done, the new legislation stood. Division II SAAC members would not be able to serve unless they were currently enrolled in a Division II institution.
Now, one might argue that this is good legislation. Would we want a baseball coach from a Division I baseball program to serve on the Division II Championships Committee? The answer seems obvious, but in trying to make legislation for all Division II committees consistent, we have missed the point.
The SAAC is different from other committees because of the simple fact that all of its members are student-athletes.
Just for the sake of argument, let's compare the SAAC to the Presidents Council. First, student-athletes are going to be student-athletes for no more than five years, a contrast to the length of service most presidents can anticipate. Secondly, one of the principal purposes of the SAAC is to provide advice about the best interests of student-athletes. To do this adequately, the Division II SAAC feels that a
student-athlete must have a minimum of two or three years experience in just being a student-athlete. Can you picture a Presidents Council made up of presidents who had all just become presidents within the last year?
In any case, advising is only one portion of the duties of a SAAC member. He or she must be able to formulate agendas, conduct meetings at the conference and campus level, organize functions, disseminate information and perform many other tasks. Does a college freshman or sophomore have the experience and maturity to do such tasks well? Probably not.
I could go on and on about what it takes to be an effective SAAC member, but what this boils down to is that under the current legislation, student-athletes are able to serve only one or two years, depending on their status at the time of selection and their estimated date of graduation.
But it takes at least half of that time to learn the ropes and figure out exactly what service on the committee means. By the time you understand what you're supposed to do and how you're supposed to do it, your term has expired.
The Division II SAAC has turned over two-thirds of its membership over the past two years. Some conferences' members have turned over twice. Is this a problem? Only if you are a student-athlete who wants to accomplish something and make a difference at the campus, conference and national levels.
I left out one important piece of information earlier when discussing the outcome of the Denver summit: The members who were appointed to the committee before federation were "grandfathered in" for transitional purposes. That is, they were able to complete their original term of service, whether or not they were enrolled at a Division II institution.
We thought that this was a great idea at the time because had these members not been grandfathered in, the committee would have been left in short order in the hands of very capable but very inexperienced new SAAC members. Again, for the sake of comparison, consider whether you can imagine a Presidents Council made up completely of members who had never been to a single Presidents Council meeting before.
Little did we know that this was a great opportunity not only to help the committee through restructuring but also to conduct an experiment about the effectiveness of the members who were no longer enrolled at a Division II institution.
The Presidents Council seems especially concerned that upon completion of enrollment at a Division II institution, student-athletes are too far removed from the campus to serve effectively. If student-athletes were only serving one campus, this might be valid, but since they serve each campus in their conference, they were "removed" from the majority of them in the first place.
Another concern is that non-enrolled student-athlete will be out of touch with campus issues.
This is absolutely not the case. Student-athletes do not lose the benefit of their experience simply by graduating. This is the modern world where communication is an integral part of our existence. If a member was able to be in touch while enrolled at a Division II institution, that person still would be able to be in touch after leaving the campus.
So what of the grandfathered members who were allowed to complete their term. How did they fare? Were they able to stay in touch or were they out of touch because they were not on campus? Many of them were able to attend even more meetings and become more active because their athletics eligibility was complete and they had the time to focus on the SAAC. Were they able to serve their conferences and campuses effectively or did they move on to other endeavors? These members served much more effectively than student-athletes who served for just a year before their term expired.
The members of the Division II SAAC want the turnover to diminish. They are willing to compromise by limiting service to one year after the completion of enrollment at the Division II institution, contingent upon approval from the conference that student-athlete represents.
The Division II Management Council has seen the light and realizes that this is really the only stumbling block currently facing the Division II SAAC and therefore endorses this proposal. It is my sincere hope that the Presidents Council will realize the same and do what is in the best interests of all student-athletes so that the Division II SAAC can pursue its goals and objectives for the next millennium.
Stormie Wells, a former volleyball student-athlete at the University of Northern Colorado, recently completed service as chair of the Division II Student-Athlete Advisory Committee.
Comment -- Foundation puts focus on student-athletes
By Marion B. Peavey
NCAA Foundation
The NCAA Foundation has one major priority: to enable student-athletes to obtain an education through which they can become outstanding and productive citizens.
The NCAA Foundation does not compete in bowl games, Final Fours or other athletics contests.
The Foundation does devote its energies and resources to a different type of competition -- building character, teaching leadership skills, enhancing educational opportunities and instilling high standards of ethical and moral conduct. More than 335,000 student-athletes at about 1,200 colleges, universities and athletics conferences benefit from Foundation programs.
With a nationally prominent governing board, the Foundation is a not-for-profit corporation that raises funds and receives gifts from the private sector (corporations, foundations and individuals). It is responsible for managing its investments and gift funds while also providing oversight and guidance to its many and diverse programs.
The Foundation is fortunate to have a strong national board of business, civic and athletics leadership (see the accompanying roster on page 5). The board is actively involved in expanding funding for the existing programs as well as accommodating demands for new programs.
These programs enable student-athletes to enhance or, in many cases, complete their education. For example, one of the major initiatives of the Foundation, the NCAA degree-completion program, last year provided more than $1 million to student-athletes who have completed their eligibility but who need financial assistance in order to complete their graduation requirements. More than 1,030 student-athletes have benefited from this program, and more than $6 million in scholarship funds have been awarded since 1988.
That is the good news. The bad news is that each year there are more than three times the number of student applicants seeking degree-completion scholarships than there are dollars available to fund the requests. As a result, the Foundation is making every effort through its national board, its member institutions and contacts with dozens of corporate, foundation and individual prospective donors to expand this financial base.
With more than 335,000 student-athletes participating annually in NCAA sports, we will need to dig deeper to provide adequate financial resources to further the work of the Foundation.
Success stories
It is very important to consider the good work that has been accomplished through the NCAA Foundation.
One example is that of LaToya Doage, a recent graduate of the University of Nebraska, Lincoln. She made the Big 12 Conference academic honor roll as an undergraduate, but Doage completed her five-year period of athletics eligibility short of a degree mostly because of junior college credits that did not transfer to Nebraska. She also was affected by a short stint in professional basketball in California.
"I didn't have money to return to school and didn't know what I was going to do," Doage said. "Without the NCAA Foundation grant, I would not have had the resources to continue."
With the help of the Foundation's degree-completion scholarship, Doage became the first member of her family to receive a college degree. She currently is pursuing a career in geriatric human resources and family science.
Another success story is that of Johnny Rodgers, a 1972 Nebraska Heisman Trophy winner, who returned to college to complete his degree work more than 20 years after his football eligibility expired. He went on to launch a successful sportswear business.
Tyrone Roy, a middle linebacker at Texas Christian University from 1992-95, had difficulty completing the university's five-year engineering program within the standard academic time frame.
"I needed the extra year," Roy said. "The NCAA Foundation kept me from going deeper into debt and let me focus on my schoolwork without having to consider another part-time job."
Tyrone completed his degree in May 1998 and now is employed by American Airlines as an electrical engineer in Fort Worth.
Thanks to funds provided through the Foundation, Doage, Rodgers and Roy are now college graduates and are successful leaders in their communities.
In a broader example, all 32 degree-completion recipients from Western Michigan University have graduated.
"This is a great program and we don't want to lose the support," said Jeff Stone, academic advisor at Western Michigan.
Programs that benefit young people
We could fill the pages of this publication with success stories from student-athletes who have competed the degree-completion program. But there are many other stories to be told about other programs that benefit student-athletes and other young people.
Other Foundation programs include:
CHAMPS/Life Skills Program: This program provides academic and personal development in areas such as leadership, career planning and nutrition. It also focuses on many other facets of good citizenship, including the involvement of young people in the community where the campus is located.
Citizenship Through Sports Alliance: This program promotes the value of citizenship realized through good sportsmanship and ethical play in all aspects of athletics. This, of course, carries over to business and personal lives.
CHOICES: This program is conducted on campuses all over America and helps deliver the challenging and meaningful message of alcohol education to entire college communities.
NCAA postgraduate scholarship program: Student-athletes are provided opportunities for further studies in graduate and professional schools.
NCAA Foundation Leadership Conference: The conference provides an annual leadership forum for student-athletes representing more than 300 colleges and universities. It is one of the more popular programs of the Foundation, and it involves five days of intensive leadership training and team building.
Walter Byers Scholarship program: This program recognizes outstanding academic achievement and potential for success in graduate study.
Freedom Forum/NCAA Foundation sports journalism scholarship program: These scholarships promote quality sports journalism for aspiring journalists in their final year of collegiate study.
Ethnic minority and women's enhancement program: This program awards scholarships to ethnic minorities and women entering the first semester of postgraduate studies in sports administration or a related field.
Many challenges remain
While participating in last May's Leadership Conference in Orlando, Florida, I was impressed with the diversity of the participants' backgrounds. There were nearly 300 student-athletes participating, but there was one common major characteristic throughout the group: Each had a strong desire to learn, to excel and to be the best.
Our student-athletes represent some of the finest leadership this country can provide. The NCAA Foundation is taking an active role in helping shape leadership qualities through outstanding educational programs, scholarship opportunities and other character-building initiatives.
The future is indeed bright for our student-athletes. However, no one should assume that there are no challenges or needs. The NCAA Foundation will continue to seek alliances with campuses and students to ensure that these opportunities are maintained and expanded.
During the Leadership Conference, one of the speakers, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, asked the student-athletes to respond to the following statements:
1. "If you are aware of a classmate in your school who has brought a weapon to class, please stand." Nearly one-half of the 300 students stood.
2. "If you are aware of a classmate who has indulged in drugs, please stand." Nearly two-thirds of the students stood.
3. "If you are aware of a classmate who has contemplated suicide, please stand." More than one-half of the room stood.
These problems and others must be addressed.
The Foundation, its board, its staff and its member institutions will be working diligently in the coming weeks and months to build more positive activities that impact our student-athletes and all of society.
Marion B. Peavey joined the NCAA Foundation as its executive director May 1, 1999. He has served at several colleges and universities, including Wofford College and Duke University. He also was vice-president for development and university relations at the University of Virginia; the University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa; and the University of Delaware.
NCAA Foundation Board of Directors
BOARD MEMBER POSITION CITY
James T. Morris (chair) -- Chairman/CEO, IWC Resources Corporation -- Indianapolis --
Roy J. Bostock -- Chairman/CEO, The MacManus Group, Inc. -- New York --
Kenneth I. Chenault -- President, American Express, Inc. -- New York --
Irvin A. Cross -- Director of Athletics, Macalester College -- St. Paul, Minnesota --
Thomas Curley -- President and Publisher, USA Today -- Arlington, Virginia --
Cedric W. Dempsey -- President, NCAA -- Indianapolis --
John A. DiBiaggio -- President, Tufts University -- Medford, Massachusetts --
Ann Meyers Drysdale -- Television broadcaster -- Huntington Beach, California --
Calvin Hill -- Consultant, Alexander & Associates, Inc. -- Washington, D.C. --
Robert Holland Jr. -- President/CEO, WorkPlace Integrators -- Bingham Farms, Michigan --
James L. Isch -- NCAA Vice-President/Secretary-Treasurer, NCAA Foundation -- Indianapolis --
Edwin Lupberger -- President, Nesher Investments, LLC -- New Orleans --
Edward A. Malloy -- President, University of Notre Dame -- South Bend, Indiana --
Bruce Nordstrom -- Director, Nordstrom, Inc. -- Seattle --
Charles L. Overby -- Chairman/CEO, The Freedom Forum -- Arlington, Virginia --
Marion B. Peavey -- Executive Director, NCAA Foundation -- Indianapolis --
Jerome J. Richardson -- Owner/Founder, Carolina Panthers -- Charlotte, North Carolina --
J. Stanley Sanders -- Lawyer -- Los Angeles, California --
George M. Steinbrenner III -- Principal Owner, New York Yankees -- New York --
Judith M. Sweet -- University of California, San Diego -- La Jolla, California --
Randall L. Tobias -- Chairman Emeritus, Eli Lilly and Company -- Indianapolis --
Ronald H. Walker -- Senior Partner, Korn/Ferry International -- Washington, D.C. --
Charles Wethington Jr. -- Chair, NCAA Executive Committee/President, University of Kentucky -- Lexington, Kentucky --
Gary L. Wilson -- Chairman of the Board, NWA Inc. and Northwest Airlines -- St. Paul, Minnesota
Letter to the Editor -- Magazine's hazing treatment raises concern
The following is in response to an article in the September 13 issue of Sports Illustrated regarding hazing in athletics.
As a national advisor on Alfred University's "Initiation Rites and Athletics: A National Survey of NCAA Sports Teams," I believe that Richard Hoffer's "Praising Hazing" essay in Sports Illustrated was deceptive, dishonest and potentially destructive.
It was deceptive because Hoffer labeled as hazing certain team-building activities (such as rookies carrying balls) that the Alfred survey had ruled out of the definition of hazing. He mocked and dismissed what the survey had dismissed -- all for cheap laughs.
It also was deceptive because Hoffer gave as a bad example of hazing the taping of Cleveland Browns rookies to the goalpost. His column implied that pro players have the common sense to know when not to let things get out of hand.
Yet, sports fans know better. Witness the New Orleans Saints' braining of rookies in a 1998 gantlet or the New York Mets' loss of a player's services in a 1999 initiation squabble.
Hoffer warns that high-school and college hazing activities ought to be forbidden, but he ignores the fact that younger, amateur athletes emulate the hazing they witness in pro sports. Plus, being immature, they take things to a dangerous extreme.
It would have been journalistically ethical for SI to run a rebuttal column mentioning the reports of high-school hazing-related sodomies/sexual attacks in Massachusetts, Texas, California, Washington, Pennsylvania and Canada as a counterpoint to Hoffer's smirky column.
I also cry foul that Hoffer ignored the scary over-ingestion of alcohol during hazings at the University of Michigan (hockey), State University College at Potsdam (women's lacrosse), and, yes, tiny Division III Alfred University, which (the writer failed to mention) did the survey in the first place because the school's football team experienced initiation-related alcohol problems during the 1998 season (and suffered the 1978 death of a fraternity pledge who was hazed, in part, by varsity lacrosse players).
Finally, Hoffer's column trivializes the deaths of Nick Haben (Western Illinois University lacrosse club) and John Davies (a University of Nevada football player who died in an alcohol-related hazing by a sub-rosa club of jocks).
The Sports Illustrated article trivializes the problems with alcohol specifically covered in the survey.
I find that destructive.
Hank Nuwer
Anderson, Indiana
Opinions -- Athletics funding still main challenge as millennium nears
Jim Livengood, director of athletics
University of Arizona
Athletics Administration magazine
"Without a doubt, the biggest challenge facing administrators in the future for intercollegiate athletics is finances and finding ways to continue operating the number of programs now offered at the same level. Funding is at the heart of many of the goals we try to achieve for our athletics programs."
Judy Sweet, former director of athletics
University of California, San Diego
Athletics Administration
"The real challenge comes in trying to contain costs and eliminate the 'keeping up with the Joneses' attitude that causes so many programs to spend much more than they can afford. The real responsibility needs to be with each campus living within its own resources and making decisions that are right for that program, not based on what is being done at another campus."
Natural grass
Jon Burianek, associate athletics director
University of Colorado, Boulder
Athletic Business
Discussing the new grass surface at the University of Colorado, Boulder, for football:
"We recruit against these other schools, we go after the same athletes. In the 1970s, there was a trend toward artificial turf, and if you had one, the athletes felt that the playing conditions would always be equal and they would have a fast surface -- which was true. But as we got into the mid-1990s, there's been a trend away from the artificial turf, and it has become a recruiting issue."
