Guest editorial -- Conference SAACs complete vital chain
By Heather Andrews
Missouri Southern State College
Some conferences are still without conference student-athlete advisory committees, despite a constitutional requirement that was approved at the 1998 NCAA Convention.
This is unfortunate because conferences that have implemented conference SAACs are finding them to be very effective.
Division II student-athletes stressed compliance with Constitution 3.3.4.7 at this summer's Division II Student-Athlete Summit. The national SAAC is convinced that the conference SAAC is the missing link in our communication chain with the estimated 80,000 Division II student-athletes that the 23 of us on the national body try to represent as effectively as possible.
The ideal student-athlete communication chain consists of three links. The link at the bottom is the campus SAAC, which has been mandated since 1995. By this point, all campuses should have a SAAC or some type of student-athlete forum.
The top link is the NCAA Student-Athlete Advisory Committee, which has existed since 1989, first as an Association-wide committee, then as three division committees after membership restructuring occurred. The national SAAC has been a dominating force in defining student-athlete involvement in all divisions.
In many cases, though, the middle link -- the conference SAAC -- is missing. Where conference groups do exist, it is evident that student-athlete communication has been enhanced. The conference SAAC allows representatives from each campus SAAC to come together and network on various important issues that arise from being a student-athlete. The forum permits them to share ideas with their peers and the NCAA representative. The conference SAAC gives student-athletes a higher level to appeal to, allows them to be active in the process and permits an idea or problem to get discussed or, ideally, resolved.
In designing an effective and efficient conference SAAC, it is important to include the NCAA student-athlete representative, the conference commissioner and the Management
Council representative.
Our conference -- the Mid-America Intercollegiate Athletics Association --has formulated a conference SAAC that can serve as a model for other conferences. In our case, campus SAACs nominate two females and two males whose names are forwarded to the conference commissioner who then can create a diverse committee with regard to gender, sports and ethnic backgrounds.
One female and one male are chosen from each school to serve on the conference committee. The NCAA SAAC representative chairs the committee and works closely with the conference office to identify agenda items and other materials that are sent to the institutional athletics directors. It is then the responsibility of the athletics directors to get the information to the appropriate student-athletes.
There are two meetings a year, one in the fall and one in the spring. Both are on Sundays to avoid missed classes, practice and competition. With a meeting time of about 11 a.m. to 4 p.m., most student-athletes should be able to commute by car without the expense of an overnight stay.
However, each conference will have to formulate a plan that is unique to its structure and its geographical make-up. Travel expenses should be covered by each representative's institution.
Along with the actual meeting comes this basic question: What do we do?
One word can summarize the greatest benefit that comes from these sessions: network.
Topics of concern that can and should be discussed among conference student-athletes include drug policies, missed-class policies, roles of faculty athletics representatives and compliance officers, training room and facilities questions, review of the 20-hour practice week, enhancement scholarships, fan support, and integration of student-athletes on campus.
Discussion of these matters allows everyone, including the national SAAC representative and ultimately the division's leadership, to have their opinions touched by the perspectives of others.
I have often been asked the question, "What do other student-athletes think about this issue?" When I respond, I am glad that I can answer not on my behalf, but on behalf of my campus, conference and NCAA SAACs -- on behalf of a diverse body of my peers.
It is our duty as national SAAC members to represent our athletics conference. That is why there are 23 of us on the Division II committee, one representative for each conference. By adding the essential link, the conference SAAC, we can unite on behalf of student-athletes and truly fulfill our role as conference representatives.
Heather Andrews is a fifth-year senior at Missouri Southern State College, where she completed her eligibility in tennis last spring.
Comment -- Move to Division I comes with pricey tag
By Robert Lewis
State University of New York at Albany
Recent announcements by the State University of New York's universities at Albany, Binghamton and Stony Brook that their athletics programs will move to Division I status have been met with the kind of mixed reaction that has characterized such moves at other institutions.
Campus communities and the surrounding public debate what will be the positive or negative impact of "upgrading" an athletics program by putting more emphasis and funds into basketball and football, the so-called "elite" sports.
Universities that have chosen to go the Division I route attempt to influence public opinion as well as their own constituency by presenting their cases for Division I in extremely positive terms. Indeed, if it's true that the university will become better known, make a great deal of money, attract a wider range of students, play against high-caliber teams, be seen on television and ultimately receive an invitation to "March Madness," why not take the plunge to Division I? And why don't all institutions of higher learning move to Division I? Aren't they passing up opportunities to become rich and famous?
The problem with that argument is that it is only a pipe dream for the majority of schools trying to succeed in Division I. The irrefutable truth is that only a precious few elite programs realize the type of benefits attributed to all institutions participating in Division I, especially in the area of balancing the budget.
In fact, probably one of the most compelling reasons for institutions opting for Division I status is their dream of the men's or women's basketball teams making it to the NCAA tournament. Consequently, their desire to reach basketball's March Madness often becomes a "march to madness." Unfortunately, most institutions seldom if ever are invited to the NCAA tournament. Yet, they continue to pursue their dream and continue to lose money. This is indeed madness.
A recently published survey, "Revenues and Expenses in Division I and II Intercollegiate Athletics Programs in l997," sheds some light on the continuing myth that Division I programs are profitable. Overall, 263 Division I institutions responded to the survey. Of them, 202 reported that expenses exceeded revenues, 58 reported that revenues exceeded expenses and three reported that they broke even. That means that almost 77 percent of all colleges and universities participating in Division I athletics lost money.
The news was even worse for Division I institutions participating in Division I-AA football, where more than 90 percent of the respondents reported deficits.
This information is significant. It totally refutes the notion that Division I athletics programs are money-making arms of the university. Quite the opposite is true. In fact, without additional institutional support, the deficit in these programs is even greater.
The price tag for glory in Division I is indeed extremely high, and very often those sports that are not at the top of an institution's sports pyramid suffer the consequences. Ramifications of Division I participation also may be felt by those not connected with or interested in the school's athletics program.
While we hear and read about all the glitz and glamour of Division I, an aspiring or an established Division I program also can have a profound and sometimes negative impact throughout the university and the surrounding community. Some administrators like to say that everyone wins and students, faculty, the community, coaches and athletes all benefit from being part of this great experience. Some would argue the point.
For example, if there is a finite number of dollars in the university universe and money is spent on athletics buildings, support services, scholarships, etc., is there less money available for academic buildings? Is there sufficient money for academics or academic resources such as computers, science labs or libraries? Are universities building arenas and stadiums and hiding behind their nonprofit status to avoid paying taxes?
E. Gordon Gee, former president at Ohio State University and current president of Brown University, said, "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."
Some may find it exciting when there is big game at the stadium, but not everyone on campus and in the surrounding community shares in this enthusiasm -- and for good reason. Students, who pay huge parking fees, may have difficulty finding places to park or may not even be allowed to park on campus during a big event. Also, students who are taxed with mandatory athletics fees are locked out of facilities that normally would be available to them. Sometimes it can cost the community a fortune to fund police and provide traffic control during stadium events.
It can be similar to having a professional team in town. What looks prestigious can end up bringing in less revenue than expected and can have a high human cost (money, congestion, disruption, etc.). If a city "gives away the farm" to help an institution to move to Division I, is it possible that they can later get caught with footing a substantial portion of the bill?
Among the questions needing answers when schools are deciding to move to Division I is, "Is the price of glory too high and is Division I for everyone?" Should the war cry of professional football's Oakland Raiders and their owner, Al Davis ("Just win, baby"), be the sound that echoes loud and clear through the halls and on the playing fields of our institutions of higher learning?
Admittedly, some of the big-time schools also are able to make a profit and can sustain a well-rounded program. The majority of Division I programs, however, are struggling financially, but it does not keep them from trying. To paraphrase the Nike commercial, "They want to be like Mike."
There are many levels of Division I sports. It is essential that administrators recognize the limitations of their own programs and operate accordingly. Judy Sweet, former director of athletics at the University of California, San Diego, says, "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."
Big-time collegiate athletics are here to stay. They provide entertainment, excitement and bragging rights for their institution, their community and their state. A few also are able to show a profit. In his book "Sports in America," James Michener pointed out that in all ages societies have looked to sports for entertainment, and some states demand that their universities provide first-class, big-time football. He probably could have said the same thing about basketball. Michener goes on to say, "I am completely in favor of public sporting spectacles, for they fill a timeless need, but I am confused as to who should provide them and under what type of public sponsorship."
Unfortunately, along with the obligation to provide entertainment, there also are demands to win. Pressure to achieve victory in the marquee sports can create a multitude of problems. The potential for wrongdoing in recruiting, academics and eligibility is constant. Sometimes eligibility becomes more important than education. It has been said by some that the ethics of sports and the ethics of education directly contradict one another. William E. Kirwan, president of Ohio State University, laments, "There is no question that Division I athletics has a dark side that causes institutions pain and embarrassment from time to time."
The point is, Division I is not for everyone. The traditional values of sports seem to coincide more closely with Division III. Winning also is important at this level, but it is one of many things, not the only thing. Success is not measured in victory alone and Division III athletes are not recruited (athletics scholarships are not allowed in Division III) to attempt to make money and improve the image of their "educational" institutions.
The "price for glory" is too steep for the majority of the nation's colleges and universities.
Most are unwilling to pay that price. More than two-thirds of the NCAA's member colleges participate in Divisions II and III. Excellence in performance can be achieved at any level of competition. It is fun and rewarding to win. It is not fun to have to win. Administrators at educational institutions need to recognize the difference.
Robert Lewis is a retired associate professor in physical education and retired men's tennis coach at the State University of New York at Albany. He can be reached by email at Tennis176@aol.com .
Opinions -- Education systems should be accountable in Prop 16 case
Kurt Malmros, columnist
Daily Pennsylvanian
Discussing potential ramifications of litigation regarding NCAA initial-eligibility standards (a federal judge in March ruled Division I standards illegal):
"There are those who argue that some students are discriminated against because they don't understand the English that is used on the (standardized) tests. But Proposition 16 doesn't prevent schools from granting scholarships to student-athletes -- it simply says that they must sit out a year and raise their academic levels before competing. ...
"If (Judge Ronald) Buckwalter's decision is upheld, we won't be forced to examine the other extremes -- the cases that brought this issue to national light in the first place. After all, the number of black students prevented from competing on the collegiate level their freshman year may in fact be caused by discrimination. But the educational system may be discriminatory, not the NCAA ....
"Shouldn't we be forced to ask why Tae Kwan Cureton and Leatrice Shaw -- the original plaintiffs -- were honors students at Simon Gratz High School in Philadelphia but could not score 820 on their SATs? By upholding the standards of the NCAA, we will force ourselves to continually probe the level of our high-school education as well. If Simon Gratz honors students are not performing to a minimal level, examination of the school needs to take place .... If a student has a 2.000 grade-point average and is the top half of his or her graduating class, but cannot score an 860 on the SAT, then we must question the value of his or her high-school education.
"(The judges involved in the case) have a responsibility to uphold the sanctity of education. Even if the NCAA requirements apply only to athletes, they are still symbolic of standards that we need to employ to our whole educational system.
"Whenever a large group of African-American, Latino-American or white American students fails to meet these standards, we need to question the reasons, not change the standards."
Bat standards
Dave Van Horn, head baseball coach
University of Nebraska, Lincoln
Daily Nebraskan
Discussing the newly adopted standards for baseball bats:
"What the new bats are going to do is make teams rely more on speed, defense and pitching and less on power. For us, depending on the effect of the bats, it may make us change things as far-ranging as the lineup, the batting order and even recruiting. The new bats are probably going to make the game more like it was in the past."
