The Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee's meeting with the Division I Management Council January 9 began as an opportunity to address a laundry list of initiatives but quickly turned into a forum for debate regarding the overall philosophies of the education process.<

While a number of practical matters were addressed at the meeting, including how to improve student-athlete involvement in the Division I conference legislative process, more discussion was focused on what have been ongoing student-athlete welfare issues, such as countable athletically related activities and initial- and continuing-eligibility requirements.

Student-athletes have long been concerned about the issue of countable athletically related activities, also known as the "20-hour rule," as well as voluntary summer workout programs that many student-athletes believe aren't really voluntary. The SAAC believes that violations of this legislation occur frequently and that the culture of intercollegiate athletics is not consistent with the legislation. At issue is not only whether to mount a charge to modify the legislation, but to establish protocol on campuses for monitoring abuses and imposing penalties in cases where abuses occur.

Also of concern is whether all student-athletes understand the rule in the first place. And if they do -- and if they choose to confront a coach believed to be abusing the rule -- what are the consequences? Some SAAC members believe there are risks in confronting a coach: Instead of acknowledging the athlete's legitimate concern, the coach might be inclined to question that athlete's commitment to improving his or her ability to perform. The SAAC also said that the issue can become a health concern.

"Most student-athletes enjoy putting in 20 or even more hours per week because they love their sport," said Bola Bamiduro, a women's lacrosse student-athlete at Columbia University and newly elected SAAC vice-chair. "But the problem comes when a coach forces the extra time."

There was some discussion of developing ways to enforce the rule, but most of the participants in the meeting agreed that educating student-athletes -- as well as coaches and administrators -- about the ramifications of the rule was the best way to make the most out of a challenging situation. Rob Aronson, faculty athletics representative at the University of Washington and a member of the Management Council, said student-athletes should not forget the faculty athletics representative as a resource in helping to solve the problem.

"Use your faculty representative to talk with coaches who might be abusing the rule," Aronson urged. "Part of our job is to serve as a link with coaches regarding academic concerns."

Aronson said he was able to persuade a coach on his campus who was using summer workouts as a benchmark to a student-athlete's status on the team to encourage off-season training in a different way that was within the rule.

Continuing eligibility

Another item discussed was the issue of continuing-eligibility standards, otherwise known as the "25-50-75" rule, to monitor student-athletes' progress toward graduation. At issue is whether the goal of the current legislation should be to improve graduation rates and, if so, whether the rule is accomplishing the goal.

The SAAC said up front that it had not reached a consensus with either question, though there was some sentiment that the continuing-eligibility standards encourage student-athletes only to achieve the minimum to remain eligible and not work toward graduation. For that reason, some sentiment was expressed that they may not be strong enough.

"The way the legislation is structured, I could enter my fourth year of eligibility and have completed only 50 percent of the requirements," said Nigel Burton, former student-athlete at the University of Washington. "The legislation is written to not complete the goal -- it's like it's OK to reach the five-yard line but not score a touchdown."

The issue launched a more philosophical discussion about graduation rates. The SAAC, in fact, asked the Council to decide if it indeed believed that graduating student-athletes was the primary goal. Several student-athletes spoke about how the continuing-eligibility rules encouraged coaches and administrators to steer student-athletes into less challenging curricula to make sure the athletes remain eligible. That kind of thinking can shortchange some student-athletes, the SAAC claimed.

One member, football player Kofi Bawuah of the University of Virginia, said one of his peers at another school was surprised to find out that he was an engineering major and said that he would never be allowed to pursue such a path at his institution.

"The issue is whether coaches challenge student-athletes to obtain an education or whether they steer them into less stressful avenues in order to 'protect the student-athlete's inter- ests,' " Bawuah said.

Other committee members speculated that in fact coaches may be more inclined to protect their own interests by ensuring that student-athletes remain eligible in order to help their teams win.

"It's a trust-factor issue," said Jake Locklear, a football and track student-athlete from Stephen F. Austin State University. "Is the coaches' goal to make sure we get the best education we can or is it to make us the best athletes we can be so we can win?"

Both groups agreed that if nothing else, the issue presents several complex challenges. Not only
is it difficult topinpoint whether continuing-eligibility legislation helps student-athletes graduate, but it's also difficult to determine if just graduation alone is the ultimate goal.

"It's not so much about a number or a rate," said the Management Council's Jeffrey H. Orleans, executive director of the Ivy Group. "It's about what can we teach ourselves about educating student-athletes."

"It's dangerous to emphasize graduation rates," said Doug Fullerton, commissioner of the Big Sky Conference, "but we do so because it's an easy number to understand. But it may become the wrong measuring stick if we're not careful -- it's kind of like an RPI."

Other business

One of the primary agenda items was how to better involve student-athletes, particularly at the conference level, in the Division I legislative process. Now that national SAAC members have input into all three divisions' legislative processes, the SAAC is looking for ways to get student-athletes to the conference table as leagues develop proposals to submit to the Councils.

In other words, now that there is legislation stipulating that conferences create SAACs, the next step is for those groups to be represented during conference legislative meetings. That way, student-athletes will have more of a direct input when it comes to taking a position on proposed legislation.

However, the Division I SAAC has been concerned with the communication links with Division I conferences, not only in assuring that all conferences establish their own SAACs, but in assuring that the flow of information between the conference and national levels is consistent.

The SAAC is suggesting that it be up to individual conferences to determine when to bring their representative to the table, but that it should be before or as legislation is being developed instead of after.

Other issues discussed at the joint meeting included Management Council priorities for the coming year, and the length of terms for SAAC members.

It was the second year that both groups conducted the joint meeting.

"This meeting isn't something that the Council has to be encouraged to attend," said Robin J. Green, assistant chief of staff for Division I. "They're there because they enjoy the sharing of ideas and information. All of the Council members are educators and most are former student-athletes. There's a tendency sometimes to think that administrators and student-athletes don't have enough in common, but that student-athlete link means a lot to the Council."