Playing field is athlete's best textbook

The following is a letter that Davidson College soccer student-athlete Soren Johnson wrote to Pirie McIndoe, assistant vice-president at TIAA-CREF, regarding the organization's partnering with the Southern Conference to award an annual $5,000 postgraduate scholarship to a student-athlete and a $1,000 honorarium to a professor of the student-athlete's choice.

Thank you for sponsoring the TIAA-CREF/Southern Conference Student-Athlete of the Year postgraduate scholarship.

I applaud your commitment to academic excellence in the world of sports, a sector of our society that is all too often corrupted with selfishness and greed. I am proud to know that TIAA-CREF and the Southern Conference support my efforts to achieve greatness not only athletically, but academically as well. Your gift not only makes this kind of support possible, but it means that the Southern Conference can do more than merely pay lip service to the academic ideals that other conferences only wish they could uphold.

I have had the privilege of playing intercollegiate men's soccer for four years. I have learned countless facts in the classroom, from northern Renaissance art to neuroscience, but on the playing field is where I have learned the most about myself -- composure, accountability, consistency, attitude, teamwork, leadership, the thrill of victory, and dealing with failure. You don't learn about these things from books, only from experience. The competition found in intercollegiate athletics provides this experience, and, I believe, creates better people because of it. Intercollegiate athletes are more than just students -- they're well-rounded, goal-oriented team players who live to achieve success.

I also applaud the component of this scholarship that allows me to recognize Dr. Julio Ramirez with an honorarium. The honorarium provides me with a unique opportunity to say "thank you" with more than just a smile and a shiny apple on the desk. The professors are really the people who have made a difference in my education, and without them my studies would be far less directed, and I would be far less capable than I am today. Please continue to honor the educators who have been critical in the development of the Southern Conference's future student-athletes.

Thank you for your magnanimous donation of this scholarship.

Soren Johnson
Davidson College

Blanket assertion concerning financial relationships misguided

In the September 1 issue of The NCAA News, Donna Lopiano was quoted in the Opinions section on page 4 as saying, "(Division I-A) Athletics spends everything that it brings in. Nobody's putting anything back into the university."

That statement is incorrect. At the University of Kentucky, for example, the annual athletics budget is $48 million. About one-fourth of the budget -- about $12 million -- goes back into the university in the form of scholarship payments, physical plant operations, food services, etc. Included in that $12 million is a $1 million outright grant to the university's academic programs.

The assertion that "nobody's putting anything back into the university" is incorrect at the University of Kentucky, and most likely at other Division I-A schools as well.

Tony Neely
Media Relations Director/Football
University of Kentucky

Division I-AA the forgotten option in BCS discussions

Remember Division I-AA?

The NCAA made a promise to its members when it created Division I-AA football in the 1970s. The "charter" of the subdivision was to provide a cost-containment option for Division I institutions that wish to give their student-athletes an opportunity to compete in intercollegiate football.

As Division I-AA programs competed for the NCAA's premier football championship, the standards intended to maintain a "level playing field" by separating I-A and I-AA proved inadequate. Waivers were freely granted, and the loophole-riddled membership standards were virtually unenforceable. In retrospect, this is understandable, considering the climate of change and the fact that the NCAA had never before embarked upon a comparable initiative.

However, the recent NCAA football study, conducted by a group composed primarily of NCAA presidents, addressed the problems of college football from a wide perspective. After exhaustive analysis, extensive input and careful consideration, the membership spoke. The participatory process concluded with the enactment of modest enforceable I-A membership standards.

The current discussions and/or disagreements among Bowl Championship Series conferences and non-BCS leagues are working against the will of the membership that was conveyed with the formation of Division I-AA. Indeed, the discussions seem to be portrayed as more of a "good vs. evil" decision rather than a thorough examination of where various institutions belong when it comes to football.

NCAA research has demonstrated that the fourth quartile of Division I-A brings in an average of about $5,000 more per year in football revenues than the first quartile of Division I-AA. However, the I-A group spends $1,000,000 more annually on football, and that doesn't include extra spending to remain compliant with Title IX.

Yet, rather than make the move to Division I-AA, the non-BCS representatives are calling for "higher academic standards and lower I-A requirements."

What does one have to do with the other? I believe they are unrelated, but perhaps we should find an Ivy Group representative to answer that question. The last I heard, the Ivy schools were handling their academic standards and responsibilities quite well in Division I-AA, thank you.

For I-AA football to continue to grow and thrive, there must be a clear line of separation between I-A and I-AA. Think of the difference between Major League Baseball and the community-centered game in the minor leagues. Both levels are highly competitive and financially successful because there is clear separation between them. Recall also the proposal several years ago to eliminate the subclassification names altogether. The idea had support in Division I-AA circles and also from within the equity conferences. Why did the non-equity folks oppose it? What's really going on here?

If a small special-interest group succeeds in tabling new institutional and/or conference I-A requirements, what message is the NCAA sending to its Division I majority? At some point, I-AA schools may be forced to wonder why they have chosen to act responsibly in maintaining a better academic/athletics balance.

Academic reform is in progress. Gender equity is in progress. It's time now for progress and fairness for the NCAA's premier football championship classification. The market created the BCS, but the NCAA created I-AA.

How about a little help?

Otto C. Fad
Lakeland, Florida