A spirited, presidential-style debate on academic reform highlighted the 2004 NCAA Conference Intern Seminar conducted January 29 at the national office in Indianapolis.

The debate featured Todd Turner, former athletics director at Vanderbilt University and chair of the Division I Working Group on Incentives/Disincentives, and prominent intercollegiate athletics critic Murray Sperber, professor of English and American studies at Indiana University, Bloomington.

The debate centered on reconnecting intercollegiate athletics with higher education through the incentives/disincentives structure, a system of rewards and penalties based on team and individual academic performance that will be voted on by the Division I Management Council and Board of Directors in April. The incentives/disincentives structure is the second stage of an academic-reform package that includes enhanced initial- and continuing-eligibility standards that were implemented with this year's entering class.

Turner began the session by noting that intercollegiate athletics was tightly controlled before the 1970s and that television and media did not play a significant role in the pre-Title IX era. However, after Title IX was implemented, athletics departments were required to create opportunities for women without additional finances.

"Title IX called for a reallocation of resources that resulted in a marketing approach toward television and the media," Turner said. "That created a new level of scrutiny, as 24-hour news stations became a modern way of life. The media scrutiny caused institutions to invest more in academics and compliance programs. Soon, there were new standards of initial and continuing eligibility, the CHAMPS/Life Skills program was implemented and a branding concept emerged. The 21st century response is a re-energized effort to re-integrate intercollegiate athletics with higher education."

Sperber provided his own view of intercollegiate athletics history, saying that NCAA rules in recent years have exacerbated the challenge of balancing academics and athletics.

"The 20-hour rule is a good concept, with a large loophole," Sperber said. "The difference between mandatory athletics participation versus voluntary athletics participation creates a gray area."

Sperber said there are "very few dumb jocks" and the reality is that student-athletes are physically and mentally exhausted after practice or competition, which leads to poor academic performance.

"To perform at a higher level both athletically and academically is difficult for student-athletes, but yet the NCAA had not solved this age-old problem," Sperber said.

Turner and Sperber disagreed as to who would be involved in helping implement the incentives/disincentives program, if passed. Sperber said he believed the incentives/disincentives program incorrectly puts pressure on institutions' faculty.

Sperber also said that coaches' behavior will not change as a result of the program, unless the changes target financial resources. He believes coaches are paid too much, especially when compared with faculty members and university administrators.

"But it is not the coach's fault as much as the institution's fault," he said. "It is the responsibility of the institution to say, 'No.' "

Forwarding the academic mission

Sperber also said that most presidents have more loyalty to their career than to the institution or intercollegiate athletics.

"We need them (presidents) to march together, on the same note, in order to make academic reform work," he said.

Turner offered another perspective. He said coaches will pay attention to the incentives/disincentives program because they are competitive. Coaches will continue to emphasize the academic side of the prospective student-athlete, but at a much higher level.

"The people in charge of the integrity and mission of higher education, such as the university presidents and faculty, will have a greater role than in the past," Turner said. "The accountability for everyone involved, including the student-athlete, will rise, with the end goal of encouraging and improving student-athlete academic performance."

The debate ended with Sperber saying the academic-reform package is good in concept, but there are more practical and functional ways of implementing the package.

Conference interns who attended the seminar said the debate was beneficial.

"The academic-reform debate deepened our awareness and understanding of one of the most critical issues in intercollegiate athletics," said Christine Halsey, West Coast Conference intern.

Neil Sullivan, Big Ten Conference intern, said, "I don't think anyone is naive enough to believe that intercollegiate athletics does not have some problems, but I think Dr. Sperber's cynicism is misguided and a bit excessive.

"There are a lot of smart people working hard to strike the proper balance between academics and athletics, and progress is being made. I think Mr. Turner and the Working Group on Incentives/Disincentives have a more realistic vision of academic reform than Dr. Sperber."

Diverse programming

In addition to the debate, the 2004 Conference Intern Seminar offered a diverse set of breakout sessions, including one that permitted interns to move from table to table, speaking with representatives within different areas of athletics, professional-development workshops, mock interviews and panels featuring a variety of topics.

NCAA President Myles Brand welcomed the interns and emphasized the importance of academic reform and student-athlete welfare.

Other segments of the seminar included remarks from the keynote speaker, Richard Lapchick, director of the Sports Business Management Program at the University of Central Florida, and a session featuring the Athletics Business Panel, led by Andy Geiger, athletics director at Ohio State University. Katie Hill, senior associate athletics director at Clemson University, and Nona Richardson, associate athletics director/senior woman administrator at Ball State University, also served as panelists.

Lapchick's keynote address focused on making ethical decisions in the face of adversity. He challenged the interns, as future leaders, to be as active as possible to help lessen the adversity that many youth face.

"Your leadership can make a difference, change lives, and save lives," he said. "Be unique; manage diversity, mentor to understand consequences."

The Athletics Business Panel included a discussion of the growing trends of increasing budgets, the gaps between revenues and expenditures, and several assumptions that were addressed by the recently released baseline economic study on athletics operating budgets.

"Budget cuts in state support for tuition, an increased support in the area of employee benefits, and an increase of staff due to a growth in specialties have all been components in the increase of an athletics department's budget," Geiger said.

Overall, the conference interns thought the annual seminar was an experience they would remember.

"The seminar was the Super Bowl event of the year for intern networking," said Michael Gibbons of the Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference. "It allowed interns to meet a variety of athletics-focused personalities from around the country and to share ideas, past experiences, and thoughts about athletics administration."