National Collegiate Athletic Association
NCAA News Archive - 2006
« back to 2006 | Back to NCAA News Archive Index
Student-athlete celebration
Centennial theme keeps Association focused on most important constituency
Centennial theme keeps Association focused on most important constituency
|
By Michelle Brutlag Hosick
The NCAA News
The NCAA News
In his State of the Association address at the 2006 Convention, NCAA President Myles Brand called on the membership to celebrate the student-athlete.
“The student-athlete is to be at the center of all that we do,” he said. “The participants of intercollegiate athletics are students enrolled in our universities and colleges. The contests in which they compete are to be safe and undertaken with integrity. And intercollegiate athletics is to be embedded into the mission of higher education on each of our campuses, and within the NCAA. The values of higher education are to be the values of intercollegiate athletics.”
As the year progressed, the membership took note of Brand’s words and set the Association on a course that would take the celebration of its most important members more seriously, turning an eye toward issues that would affect student-athlete well-being in a number of areas, including health and safety, academics and competition.
In some areas, a specific division took the lead, while other initiatives were clearly Association-wide. What is certain, however, is that Brand’s words were taken to heart, and the membership honored its commitment to the student-athlete by tackling sometimes difficult issues that would improve the college experience — and in some cases, the lives — of student-athletes.
That commitment began with the presidents Brand asked to serve on a special task force examining the future of Division I athletics.
One of the most publicized actions of the year came in late October, when the Presidential Task Force on the Future of Division I Intercollegiate Athletics released its report. While most media attention focused on the Task Force’s financial recommendations, the report also included many student-athlete well-being issues, several of which are positioned to become legislative proposals in the coming years. While stopping short of advocating for specific outcomes, the report indicated that legislative and policy changes could be a natural evolution of the student-athlete well-being agenda.
The report called for “the assimilation of student-athletes into campus life, an examination of financial aid practices, methods of ensuring student-athlete academic success, a discussion of health and safety issues, and an assessment of competition opportunities and possible enhancements,” with an emphasis on the first three items.
The report supported the Academic Performance Program and suggested that further comparative analysis of academic data of student-athletes at individual institutions would help determine the level of academic and life-skills support required.
Task Force members also encouraged the Association to review student-athlete access to non-athletics-based financial aid and to examine issues concerning canceled or reduced athletics aid and the methods by which aid is awarded.
Integrating the student-athlete into the student-body was another Task Force concern, and members supported a further assessment of the “20-hour rule.”
Perhaps most important for the student-athlete well-being component of the Task Force report is the focus on the student-athlete’s academic pursuits over competitive pursuits.
“Student-athletes are students first and should have the opportunity to participate in campus life,” the report sais. “The primary product of intercollegiate athletics is not entertainment, nor is it the exposure athletics brings to the university — it is the education of those who participate. The student-athlete is to be at the center of the collegiate model, and the NCAA’s actions must match its written principles.”
Reform as well-being
Division I began matching action to principle with its academic-reform effort in 2004, and division leaders built upon that initial endeavor in 2006, strengthening the Academic Performance Program with a historically based penalty structure that will require teams with a multi-year Academic Progress Rate lower than 900 to be subject to a further review of several factors before any historically based penalty is imposed. The factors, which will be applied simultaneously, include examinations of institutional mission and team improvement, and a national comparison of the team with other teams within the same sport.
Brand commended both the Committee on Academic Performance, which analyzed and researched academic performance to devise the APP, and the Division I Board of Directors, which reviewed the recommendations and approved various components of the plan, for their work on ensuring that academics was the top priority.
“The CAP and Board have responded in terms of the academic performance expected of student-athletes,” Brand said. “Their actions reinforce the idea that student-athletes are students first, and that they are expected to make progress toward a degree and to graduate.”
Another academic success in 2006 was the increase of the Division I student-athlete Graduation Success Rate to 77 percent, up from 76 percent in 2005. That one percentage point represents about 200 new student-athlete graduates. University of Hartford President Walter Harrison, who chairs the NCAA Executive Committee and CAP, said the GSR provides evidence that those involved in athletics — from presidents to coaches — are supporting the academic success of student-athletes.
“The results show that presidents, athletics directors and coaches are paying attention to academic concerns,” he said when the data were released. “These reports provide an important management tool for presidents to celebrate the academic success of teams that achieve high marks and to raise questions of those that don’t.”
More student-athlete well-being
Also in 2006, the Association established an amateurism certification process for prospective student-athletes in Divisions I and II. The certification process not only will educate prospects about amateurism rules before they become student-athletes, but also will level the playing field for institutions recruiting international student-athletes.
Bill Saum, NCAA director of amateurism issues, said the new process would provide a “consistent interpretation of a prospective student-athlete’s eligibility status.”
The process opened to registrants in fall 2006 and will certify the amateur status of all Division I and II prospects scheduled to enroll in a member institution in fall 2007 or later.
Division II spent much of the year developing a strategic-positioning platform that focuses on the student-athlete. Called “Life in the Balance,” the platform urges Division II institutions to create service-learning opportunities for student-athletes that will build their development as a person. The platform also identifies six major attributes of Division II that correlate to similar NCAA attributes: learning, service, passion, sportsmanship, resourcefulness and balance.
The campaign also highlights advantages Division II student-athletes have, including generous championship access ratios, personal attention from instructors due to an “exceptional teacher-to-student ratio,” a consistently higher graduation rate than the total student body, a regionalization philosophy that limits missed class time for student-athletes and strong community partnerships.
Dave Brunk, commissioner of the Northeast 10 Conference and incoming chair of the Division II Management Council, said the entire strategic-positioning platform is designed to enhance student-athlete well-being.
“It gives everyone the opportunity to say, ‘This is who we are, this is where we end up.’ The platform really talks about bringing together everybody, including our student-athletes, for societal good,” Brunk said. “It’s a picture of who we are and what we are in Division II. It provides consistency within our division.”
Brunk said the service portion of the strategic-positioning platform was particularly enhanced by another Division II proposal this year. The community-engagement initiative, which would allow institutions relief from standard recruiting, promotional and awards and benefits regulations when they engage in activities with a community purpose, allows student-athletes to attend events designed to enhance the community instead of their institution.
While requiring more trust between often competing Division II institutions, the proposal at the 2007 Convention would help build relationships among Division II schools and the communities in which they operate. Student-athletes will play a large part in the plan, and advocates hope it will build a sense of community pride that will last a lifetime.
“Community engagement is something that will be invaluable to student-athletes,” Brunk said. “The timing is right for an institution to help enhance the quality of the community instead of the community coming out and focusing its support on the institution. It’s reciprocal. It’s such a key part of the student-athlete’s development and the experience they’re going to take with them and use for the rest of their lives.”
Division II also worked to improve the student-athlete experience at championships by conducting a second National Championships Festival, this one for fall sports in Pensacola, Florida. The division piloted the idea with a spring festival in 2004.
In addition to crowning six national champions, student-athletes participated in numerous social and community events throughout the four-day festival, including a beach party and a Habitat for Humanity home build. The event brought student-athletes together for more than just the competition. Nathanial Petrich, a cross country runner from Augustana College (South Dakota), said spending the week with other student-athletes while competing for a national championship was memorable.
“I had so much fun,” he said. “It was an experience I will remember for the rest of my life.”
Division III initiatives
In 2006, Division III turned its attention to the health and safety of student-athletes by deciding to provide institutions with more educational resources to combat alcohol, tobacco and other drug use and approving a pilot program that will drug-test student-athletes year-round. The pilot program will involve nearly one-quarter of the division’s schools. Institutions were asked to volunteer for the testing program, set to begin in fall 2007. Colleen McCullough, a member of the Division III national Student-Athlete Advisory Committee, said student-athlete well-being is at the heart of the proposal.
“Education gives student-athletes the ability to make their own informed decisions. Most athletes get information from their peers, more specifically their fellow teammates, and coaches. They do not always know the side effects and many are not even aware that some of the substances they use are banned or harmful to their bodies,” said McCullough, a former student-athlete at Chapman University. “It is about getting the information out there more effectively and giving student-athletes the tools and resources to make informed decisions and know the consequences. The SAAC believes drug testing would promote student-athlete well-being and help deter student-athletes from taking banned substances.”
Division III also struggled with membership growth in 2006, an issue that could affect student-athlete well-being in a variety of ways, including reduced championship access or lengthy championships that could increase missed class time.
While the Management and Presidents Councils did not support a North Coast Athletic Conference proposal to cap the Division III membership, they did acknowledge the need to address the issue of membership growth. The Councils propose limiting growth by imposing higher barriers for acceptance of new members — restrictions they believe will limit membership to an average of four new schools annually — while also holding current members more accountable for compliance with Division III standards. Those proposals and the membership cap will be considered at the Convention.
Ultimately, the Executive Committee noted that the issue had implications beyond Division III and appointed a working group of presidents and chancellors from all three divisions.
Another issue all three divisions began to confront in 2006 was that of males practicing with women’s teams. First discussed as a health and safety concern in 2004, discussions shifted to the possible loss of opportunities for female student-athletes when male practice players participate.
All three Management Councils discussed the issue last spring, but so far only Division III has a proposal on the table to limit the practice. The Committee on Women’s Athletics developed a position paper citing its preference to ban the practice.
Throughout 2006, the NCAA membership celebrated the student-athlete by working on issues that would improve their experience on campus, at national championships and even after graduation. That work will continue, even though the Association will not have the luxury of “celebrating the student-athlete” being a thematic charge this year as it was with the Centennial.
Student-athlete well-being is inherent in the NCAA mission and in the collegiate model of athletics. With such a strong foundation, the membership figures to always be committed to improving and protecting the lives of student-athletes and providing them with the tools they need to become successful adults. That should be as apparent in 2007 as it was in 1997, 1957 and 1907.
“The student-athlete is to be at the center of all that we do,” he said. “The participants of intercollegiate athletics are students enrolled in our universities and colleges. The contests in which they compete are to be safe and undertaken with integrity. And intercollegiate athletics is to be embedded into the mission of higher education on each of our campuses, and within the NCAA. The values of higher education are to be the values of intercollegiate athletics.”
As the year progressed, the membership took note of Brand’s words and set the Association on a course that would take the celebration of its most important members more seriously, turning an eye toward issues that would affect student-athlete well-being in a number of areas, including health and safety, academics and competition.
In some areas, a specific division took the lead, while other initiatives were clearly Association-wide. What is certain, however, is that Brand’s words were taken to heart, and the membership honored its commitment to the student-athlete by tackling sometimes difficult issues that would improve the college experience — and in some cases, the lives — of student-athletes.
That commitment began with the presidents Brand asked to serve on a special task force examining the future of Division I athletics.
One of the most publicized actions of the year came in late October, when the Presidential Task Force on the Future of Division I Intercollegiate Athletics released its report. While most media attention focused on the Task Force’s financial recommendations, the report also included many student-athlete well-being issues, several of which are positioned to become legislative proposals in the coming years. While stopping short of advocating for specific outcomes, the report indicated that legislative and policy changes could be a natural evolution of the student-athlete well-being agenda.
The report called for “the assimilation of student-athletes into campus life, an examination of financial aid practices, methods of ensuring student-athlete academic success, a discussion of health and safety issues, and an assessment of competition opportunities and possible enhancements,” with an emphasis on the first three items.
The report supported the Academic Performance Program and suggested that further comparative analysis of academic data of student-athletes at individual institutions would help determine the level of academic and life-skills support required.
Task Force members also encouraged the Association to review student-athlete access to non-athletics-based financial aid and to examine issues concerning canceled or reduced athletics aid and the methods by which aid is awarded.
Integrating the student-athlete into the student-body was another Task Force concern, and members supported a further assessment of the “20-hour rule.”
Perhaps most important for the student-athlete well-being component of the Task Force report is the focus on the student-athlete’s academic pursuits over competitive pursuits.
“Student-athletes are students first and should have the opportunity to participate in campus life,” the report sais. “The primary product of intercollegiate athletics is not entertainment, nor is it the exposure athletics brings to the university — it is the education of those who participate. The student-athlete is to be at the center of the collegiate model, and the NCAA’s actions must match its written principles.”
Reform as well-being
Division I began matching action to principle with its academic-reform effort in 2004, and division leaders built upon that initial endeavor in 2006, strengthening the Academic Performance Program with a historically based penalty structure that will require teams with a multi-year Academic Progress Rate lower than 900 to be subject to a further review of several factors before any historically based penalty is imposed. The factors, which will be applied simultaneously, include examinations of institutional mission and team improvement, and a national comparison of the team with other teams within the same sport.
Brand commended both the Committee on Academic Performance, which analyzed and researched academic performance to devise the APP, and the Division I Board of Directors, which reviewed the recommendations and approved various components of the plan, for their work on ensuring that academics was the top priority.
“The CAP and Board have responded in terms of the academic performance expected of student-athletes,” Brand said. “Their actions reinforce the idea that student-athletes are students first, and that they are expected to make progress toward a degree and to graduate.”
Another academic success in 2006 was the increase of the Division I student-athlete Graduation Success Rate to 77 percent, up from 76 percent in 2005. That one percentage point represents about 200 new student-athlete graduates. University of Hartford President Walter Harrison, who chairs the NCAA Executive Committee and CAP, said the GSR provides evidence that those involved in athletics — from presidents to coaches — are supporting the academic success of student-athletes.
“The results show that presidents, athletics directors and coaches are paying attention to academic concerns,” he said when the data were released. “These reports provide an important management tool for presidents to celebrate the academic success of teams that achieve high marks and to raise questions of those that don’t.”
More student-athlete well-being
Also in 2006, the Association established an amateurism certification process for prospective student-athletes in Divisions I and II. The certification process not only will educate prospects about amateurism rules before they become student-athletes, but also will level the playing field for institutions recruiting international student-athletes.
Bill Saum, NCAA director of amateurism issues, said the new process would provide a “consistent interpretation of a prospective student-athlete’s eligibility status.”
The process opened to registrants in fall 2006 and will certify the amateur status of all Division I and II prospects scheduled to enroll in a member institution in fall 2007 or later.
Division II spent much of the year developing a strategic-positioning platform that focuses on the student-athlete. Called “Life in the Balance,” the platform urges Division II institutions to create service-learning opportunities for student-athletes that will build their development as a person. The platform also identifies six major attributes of Division II that correlate to similar NCAA attributes: learning, service, passion, sportsmanship, resourcefulness and balance.
The campaign also highlights advantages Division II student-athletes have, including generous championship access ratios, personal attention from instructors due to an “exceptional teacher-to-student ratio,” a consistently higher graduation rate than the total student body, a regionalization philosophy that limits missed class time for student-athletes and strong community partnerships.
Dave Brunk, commissioner of the Northeast 10 Conference and incoming chair of the Division II Management Council, said the entire strategic-positioning platform is designed to enhance student-athlete well-being.
“It gives everyone the opportunity to say, ‘This is who we are, this is where we end up.’ The platform really talks about bringing together everybody, including our student-athletes, for societal good,” Brunk said. “It’s a picture of who we are and what we are in Division II. It provides consistency within our division.”
Brunk said the service portion of the strategic-positioning platform was particularly enhanced by another Division II proposal this year. The community-engagement initiative, which would allow institutions relief from standard recruiting, promotional and awards and benefits regulations when they engage in activities with a community purpose, allows student-athletes to attend events designed to enhance the community instead of their institution.
While requiring more trust between often competing Division II institutions, the proposal at the 2007 Convention would help build relationships among Division II schools and the communities in which they operate. Student-athletes will play a large part in the plan, and advocates hope it will build a sense of community pride that will last a lifetime.
“Community engagement is something that will be invaluable to student-athletes,” Brunk said. “The timing is right for an institution to help enhance the quality of the community instead of the community coming out and focusing its support on the institution. It’s reciprocal. It’s such a key part of the student-athlete’s development and the experience they’re going to take with them and use for the rest of their lives.”
Division II also worked to improve the student-athlete experience at championships by conducting a second National Championships Festival, this one for fall sports in Pensacola, Florida. The division piloted the idea with a spring festival in 2004.
In addition to crowning six national champions, student-athletes participated in numerous social and community events throughout the four-day festival, including a beach party and a Habitat for Humanity home build. The event brought student-athletes together for more than just the competition. Nathanial Petrich, a cross country runner from Augustana College (South Dakota), said spending the week with other student-athletes while competing for a national championship was memorable.
“I had so much fun,” he said. “It was an experience I will remember for the rest of my life.”
Division III initiatives
In 2006, Division III turned its attention to the health and safety of student-athletes by deciding to provide institutions with more educational resources to combat alcohol, tobacco and other drug use and approving a pilot program that will drug-test student-athletes year-round. The pilot program will involve nearly one-quarter of the division’s schools. Institutions were asked to volunteer for the testing program, set to begin in fall 2007. Colleen McCullough, a member of the Division III national Student-Athlete Advisory Committee, said student-athlete well-being is at the heart of the proposal.
“Education gives student-athletes the ability to make their own informed decisions. Most athletes get information from their peers, more specifically their fellow teammates, and coaches. They do not always know the side effects and many are not even aware that some of the substances they use are banned or harmful to their bodies,” said McCullough, a former student-athlete at Chapman University. “It is about getting the information out there more effectively and giving student-athletes the tools and resources to make informed decisions and know the consequences. The SAAC believes drug testing would promote student-athlete well-being and help deter student-athletes from taking banned substances.”
Division III also struggled with membership growth in 2006, an issue that could affect student-athlete well-being in a variety of ways, including reduced championship access or lengthy championships that could increase missed class time.
While the Management and Presidents Councils did not support a North Coast Athletic Conference proposal to cap the Division III membership, they did acknowledge the need to address the issue of membership growth. The Councils propose limiting growth by imposing higher barriers for acceptance of new members — restrictions they believe will limit membership to an average of four new schools annually — while also holding current members more accountable for compliance with Division III standards. Those proposals and the membership cap will be considered at the Convention.
Ultimately, the Executive Committee noted that the issue had implications beyond Division III and appointed a working group of presidents and chancellors from all three divisions.
Another issue all three divisions began to confront in 2006 was that of males practicing with women’s teams. First discussed as a health and safety concern in 2004, discussions shifted to the possible loss of opportunities for female student-athletes when male practice players participate.
All three Management Councils discussed the issue last spring, but so far only Division III has a proposal on the table to limit the practice. The Committee on Women’s Athletics developed a position paper citing its preference to ban the practice.
Throughout 2006, the NCAA membership celebrated the student-athlete by working on issues that would improve their experience on campus, at national championships and even after graduation. That work will continue, even though the Association will not have the luxury of “celebrating the student-athlete” being a thematic charge this year as it was with the Centennial.
Student-athlete well-being is inherent in the NCAA mission and in the collegiate model of athletics. With such a strong foundation, the membership figures to always be committed to improving and protecting the lives of student-athletes and providing them with the tools they need to become successful adults. That should be as apparent in 2007 as it was in 1997, 1957 and 1907.
© 2010 The National Collegiate Athletic Association
Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy