Attend almost any NCAA committee meeting or legislative session and before long you'll hear the term "student-athlete welfare" bandied about.

That's not unusual; after all, student-athlete welfare has its own principle in the NCAA Constitution and it's often the fulcrum of legislative debate. What is curious, though, is the range of meanings the term takes on depending upon the matter at hand.

For example, one of the interesting sidebars that has emerged from discussions in all three divisions about playing and practice seasons and student-athlete time demands is the interpretation of student-athlete welfare by various constituencies. College presidents and faculty members who support restrictions on season lengths and out-of-season activities claim student-athlete welfare in defense of fewer infringements on academics, which is the primary reason student-athletes attend school. They say it's in the spirit of student-athlete welfare that student-athletes attend class.

But in the same discussion, student-athletes see their "welfare" as their right to play. They submit that cutbacks in the number of games or access to their coaches during the off-season are not in the best interests of student-athlete welfare at all.

Recruiting issues raise the same dichotomy. A recent issue in Division II divided administrators and student-athletes over a proposal that would permit athletics personnel to make unlimited telephone calls to all prospects after the National Letter of Intent signing date. The thinking was that the change would enable coaches, administrators and faculty athletics representatives to more easily advise walk-on athletes about matters that they needed to be made aware of and enhance student-athlete welfare. Student-athletes, however, maintained that the calls would become de facto recruiting calls for prospects who did not sign national letters, exposing them to excessive and unwanted telephone intrusion into their "welfare."

The term also is applied differently with regard to initial eligibility. Is student-athlete welfare best served by access to more prospects or by making sure those who do gain access are prepared to handle the rigors of college education? Research indicates that one of the best predictors of success in college is success in core courses in high school -- the more the better. Basing initial
eligibility on core courses then would seem to some to be in the best interests of student-athlete welfare.

College presidents certainly think so. In Division I, legislation has been changed twice in the past two years to increase the number of core courses, first from 13 to 14 and then from 14 to 16 beginning with the entering class of 2008.

But some groups -- the NCAA Minority Opportunities and Interests Committee, for instance -- would argue that prospects can't control the kinds of courses that high schools offer and thus in some cases are ill-equipped to meet more stringent core-course requirements. Accordingly, such groups would claim that initial-eligibility standards based on increased core-course requirements disadvantage prospects under the flag of student-athlete welfare.

Indeed, "student-athlete welfare" seems to be morphed more and more into a rallying cry for legislative proposals and philosophical decisions, even if opposing sides use the same terminology. Legislative sponsors seem to think that if they just have student-athlete welfare on their side, they must be right.

But what does student-athlete welfare really mean?

"Student-athlete welfare has a lot of different meanings to a lot of different people," said Big Ten Conference Commissioner Jim Delany. "It could take the form of additional financial support to athletes, of additional limitations to student-athletes' access to coaches, of fewer games, of shorter seasons. It's a term that's like 'fair' -- somewhat in the eye of the beholder.

"It probably confuses as much as it sheds light and is probably an overused term. In fact, it may get you into some discussions and out of some others without really having to evaluate the merits of the components."

Jeff Orleans, executive director of the Ivy Group, said that the words can be used nonconstructively to change the dynamics of debate.

"The term 'student-athlete welfare' allows whoever wants to command the high ground in any dispute to turn the matter into a moral question when maybe it's not," Orleans said. "The time-demands question is a perfect example. Student-athletes think it's in their welfare to have no restrictions whatsoever on practice and competition. But many of the rest of us think it is in their interests, in the same sense that as educators we think it's in their interests to tell them they have to take mathematics at the college level. That's an honest conflict of perspectives. But both groups would say they're talking about student-athlete welfare."

"It would seem," said former Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee Chair Dylan Malagrino, "that almost everything anyone does ultimately can be argued as being for the student-athletes' benefit. Anyone arguing for or against a proposal can hang their hat on student-athlete welfare."

The hat-hanging even comes from groups outside of the Association. The Collegiate Athletes Coalition (CAC), in its celebrated alliance with the United Steelworkers of America, cited student-athlete welfare as the reason for wanting increased benefits, even pay for play and being able to establish relationships with agents. Opponents, though -- including the NCAA SAACs -- warn that a pay-for-play environment favors only a small segment of the student-athlete population and is not in the best interests of what they would consider their welfare.

Birth of a term

Though the concept of addressing student-athletes' best interests has been at the core of NCAA rules and regulations since 1906, the term "student-athlete welfare" didn't start showing up in NCAA materials until the 1989-90 NCAA Manual when the first "Principle of Student-Athlete Welfare" was crafted. That came from a special committee to deregulate NCAA rules and stated that "intercollegiate athletics programs shall be conducted in a manner designed to protect and enhance the physical and educational welfare of student-athletes."

The term made regular appearances after that. The NCAA Presidents Commission included the principle of student-athlete welfare in its 1991 Statement of Guiding Principles and in its 1991 strategic plan. The Knight Foundation Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics referred to student-athlete welfare in its 1991 report. A Special Committee to Review Student-Athlete Welfare, Access and Equity was formed in 1992 and was responsible for further defining the principles of student-athlete welfare adopted at the 1995 NCAA Convention and which appear in the current Manual. Those state that each member institution is responsible for:

Establishing and maintaining an environment in which a student-athlete's activities are conducted as an integral part of the student-athlete's educational experience;

Establishing and maintaining an environment that values cultural diversity and gender equity among its student-athletes and athletics department staff;

Protecting the health of and providing a safe environment for each student-athlete;

Establishing and maintaining an environment that fosters a positive relationship between the student-athlete and coach;

Ensuring that coaches and administrators exhibit fairness, openness and honesty in their relationships with student-athletes; and

Involving student-athletes in matters that affect their lives.

So, though the term is amply defined, the interpretation of how NCAA legislation applies to student-athlete welfare can vary.

"For me, 'student-athlete welfare' means combining the student-athletes' academic future and athletics activities and personal and other activities -- what's the experience that will let them develop best?" Orleans said. "Does the NCAA do a good job with that? Our job as an Association is when we make rules, to try and remember the concept of student-athlete welfare."

Orleans believes the NCAA does a good job of remembering that, but he said the hard part is when the NCAA adopts a blanket rule that affects student-athletes' athletics lives and academic lives at various kinds of institutions and conferences.

"You can't easily find a rule that works all the time for everyone, and then leave every school and conference free to make what it thinks are the right decisions," he said. "Some schools heavily involve their students in making those decisions and some don't. It's not that we as an Association neglect the student-athlete-welfare principles or that our rules do a bad job of implementing them -- it's trying to apply that principle across 300 schools that are competing with each other that is challenging."

"The NCAA has improved over time in this regard," said Betsy Stephenson, associate athletics director at the University of California, Los Angeles, "but the term means different things to different people because we all have different perspectives about how we view this enterprise. One institution might have a missed-class-time policy and another might expect its coaches and administrators to use good judgment and balance student-athlete demands while they miss class. Neither one of those has a disregard for student-athlete welfare or a higher regard for it.

"But I put it into an educational context and try to help people at our institution understand that we have a role to play in the athletics and the academic experience that student-athletes receive. Their welfare is best served when we pay attention to all those elements."

Who decides best interests?

In many ways, perhaps the conflict is not in how the term is defined, but in who defines it. The issue is not unlike a parent-child relationship where house rules are established early on. But even in a parent-child relationship, the child grows and challenges the house rules more and more. Some student-athletes think they know more about student-athlete welfare than their "parents."

"Administrators often think they know what is best for the student-athlete," Malagrino said. "They think that because of their experience and because they've been around, they are able to understand more the matters that go into a particular proposal. Even though at first glance, a student-athlete may not realize what is best for him or her, many of us have been around, too. I disagree sometimes with administrators about which proposals are better for student-athlete welfare. As a former student-athlete, I'm more closely removed from the student-athlete environment than the administrators. We're not as naïve as you think."

Jamie Fluker, chair of the Division III SAAC, said administrators are likely to think they know what is in the best interests of student-athletes because it's their job to do so. The trouble comes in separating what truly is student-athlete welfare from special interests. Rules compliance, levels of conditioning and student-athlete time demands all have different champions.

"For example," she said, "the athletics director looks at student-athlete welfare one way while the coach can see it differently. It's their job -- they have different interests to protect as far as student-athlete welfare is concerned."

Fluker said there often are differences between student-athlete and coach, too.

"The coach might say, 'You need to be conditioned this much to be able to compete at a certain level,' " she said. "But the athlete may believe he or she is over-conditioned -- they're tired and they don't have enough time to do non-athletics things. But the coach is trying to get them ready to compete safely at a certain level."

At some point, Fluker said, the student-athlete -- the "child" in the previous metaphor -- needs to be more involved in the "parents' " decision.

"I understand the parent-child relationship, but even within that relationship, the child grows," Fluker said. "Our parents usually don't pick our schools for us and they don't pick our friends. The relationship is such that perhaps you start out being told what to do, but you get to a point where there's a discussion about what's in your best interests as opposed to telling you what's in your best interests. At 17 and 18, my parents might say, 'We're going to pay for this car and here are the rules,' but they're not saying, 'Joe and Stephanie are your friends and Katie and Kelly aren't.' At some point, your parents have to leave some of the decision-making up to you."

Robert Hemenway, chancellor of the University of Kansas and chair of the Division I Board of Directors, agrees with Fluker that athletes should be consulted more about their welfare on the athletics side, but he said there's a fine line in the relationship about what's in their best interests from an educational standpoint.

"We should presume to be telling student-athletes and students in general what is best for them in the classroom because we are academic institutions and we are about the business of educating students. That's part of what education is -- to place a student in the curriculum that will lead to a degree. It's appropriate for the student in that situation to defer to the professors to determine what might be best for their success," Hemenway said. "But I'm not sure that analogy holds when you look at things such as how much students practice, how much personal commitment they give to their sport or what defines the parameters of their weekly day off. Most young people in my experience don't like to have that kind of big-brother imposition.

"Yes, we ought to be concerned about students having time to complete their studies and having the opportunity to be successful as an athlete, but that doesn't mean that because we're older or because we're administrators of universities that we automatically know what is best for them as athletes. Let's listen to them and make sure if we're doing something that it's something student-athletes themselves think would help them be successful."

The student-athlete split

It would seem, then, that simply soliciting student-athlete input would solve many of the problems. But there are differences even among student-athletes about what may be in their best interests.

For example, during a legislative review session at the 2004 NCAA Convention, a debate ensued over a proposal that would prevent institutions from counting travel to and from competitions as the student-athletes' day off. The proposal seemed harmless -- it certainly seemed to support student-athlete welfare. One faculty athletics representative in fact told session participants that "those of us who travel frequently probably wouldn't describe our travel days as a day off, and we shouldn't expect student-athletes to, either."

But Division I SAAC members attending the session called for a timeout. They indicated that discussions about the proposal were divided. Some student-athletes liked the idea of taking the travel day off because it wouldn't eat into their practice time. But others from schools that frequently travel far distances or via bus instead of plane supported the idea because the travel day was not conducive to competing academic work.

There are other student-athlete splits when it comes to student-athlete welfare. The CAC, for example, contests the adage that participation in intercollegiate athletics is a privilege, not a right. The CAC and their student-athlete supporters see "student-athlete welfare" as "student-athlete exploitation" in many cases.

Ian Gray, a cross country and track student-athlete from the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, and vice-chair of the Division I SAAC, said there are many Division I student-athletes who would agree, but that they don't represent the majority.

"There are several individuals who feel we must throw the rules book away, since the rules are there to limit rather than allow," he said. "They would say that if we really want to address student-athlete welfare, student-athletes should be paid, there should be a free-agent market, and we should not have to maintain any classroom standards above and beyond what general students must maintain."

Though those concepts may be radical, Gray said, they are still concepts that a group of men's basketball and football players feel are relevant to the idea of student-athlete welfare. "But this group also does not represent the student-athlete population in these sports or the entire student-athlete population overall," he said.

Gray said the differences among student-athletes in how they define student-athlete welfare may depend on which comes first -- the student or the athlete. He said when student-athletes feel that it is their right to be athletes, then student-athlete welfare tends to mean more direct benefits -- similar to what a labor force might believe.

"For some student-athletes," he said, "it is apparent that to address and maintain student-athlete welfare, we must move toward more benefits, as the rigors of being a student-athlete merit more opportunity, more money, more of whatever it is that will 'do well' for student-athletes. Many men's basketball and football players I've spoken with feel that we have a 'right' to those things.

"But if you look at student-athlete welfare from the perspective of privilege, the focus shifts. Here the concept of 'doing well' is aimed at helping us balance our lives so that we can be students first and athletes second."

A new terminology

If what Gray said about student-athlete welfare being the balancing act that allows student-athletes to be students first is true, perhaps modifying the terminology would help the NCAA do a better job of accomplishing the goal.

Kansas Chancellor Hemenway said he would prefer using something like "student-athlete success" rather than student-athlete welfare.

"My objection to the term 'student-athlete welfare' is that it immediately evokes a sense of the welfare system," he said. "There's a presumption of superiority and knowing what is best for someone that is built into that traditional concept of welfare. I don't think anybody wants to be in the same position that our welfare system was in a few years ago when we were very much presuming to tell lower-income people how they should live their lives because they were welfare recipients.

"I would be much more inclined to say that what we ought to be looking at are the ways that we contribute to student-athlete success. If we think of it that way then we can take a look at how much time they spend in practices and the like. But if we're smart about it, we'll listen to the student-athletes themselves and not necessarily impose something upon them that we think is the best way for them to achieve this success."

NCAA President Myles Brand called "student-athlete welfare" an old-fashioned term.

"Perhaps a better one is 'student-athlete well-being,'" he said. "Welfare sounds like it's a handout. From the beginning when I was selected as NCAA president and talked about academics first, I said that student-athletes are the most important reason we're here. Just as universities and colleges exist because of the students, the NCAA wouldn't be anywhere without the student-athletes. Caring about student-athlete well-being is what I carry over from my university days."

University of Minnesota Duluth President Kathryn A. Martin, who is the Division II Presidents Council liaison to the Division II SAAC, agreed with Brand, saying that the way to care about student-athlete well-being is to care most about the student-athlete's education.

"We often make decisions or are put in a position to make decisions that affect the student part of student-athlete, and that has to be our priority," she said. "I don't think you'd find a president or a coach who didn't think winning wasn't of great importance, but on the other hand we need to realize that as institutions of higher education we cannot compromise the student side for the athlete side. Student-athletes are here to get an education and they don't want their education compromised by their involvement in athletics. That's what student-athlete welfare means."

UCLA's Stephenson said the NCAA needs to do a better job of "managing" the different perspectives of student-athlete welfare. For example, she said, on the issue of playing and practice seasons, administrators need to provide student-athletes with options to consider and then have healthy dialogue. And if the decision is to go against what student-athletes might recommend, that decision needs to be explained better than saying, "That's the way we've always done it."

"We may be approaching a point now where our focus should be on managing people's different perspectives," Stephenson said. "There is some disagreement from the CAC on what the principles for the conduct for intercollegiate athletics are. That's the basis for many of their arguments. The principles that the membership has passed are sound and we have a great deal of latitude to manage intercollegiate athletics within those principles. Listening to student-athletes is key, and when the decisions don't line up with their ideas we have a responsibility to educate them about why."

Such an approach would suit Nebraska's Gray. In the end, he said, student-athletes are adults and are autonomous enough to balance their own lives.

"However," he said, "we still need guidance, and like a good parent does not necessarily limit their child, they allow for greater opportunities and provide the proper tools to find success with those opportunities."

Hmm, that sounds like a good definition of student-athlete welfare, doesn't it?