any more than they already are? What value is it for an athlete to be restricted to a certain school and potentially get a less valuable master’s degree just so he or she can play one or two more years for good old State U.?

The clamor for overriding the legislation is coming from the very people who claim that education is first —-the coaches and athletics administrators. It is a matter of maintaining continuing control over the athlete in a pseudo-form of indentured servitude. The coach who is earning a six- or seven-figure salary seems to care only about the moment and winning, and not about the well-being of the athlete. Some coaches want to force an athlete to get a master’s degree at the same institution as the baccalaureate, if they still want to play. Apparently that is fine, so long as the athlete does not have the freedom to pursue his or her educational goals and of course also give another team that dreaded "competitive advantage."

Many opponents are worried about "double recruiting" should this measure stay on the books. But those arguments are shortsighted and not in the best interests of the athlete. "Double recruiting" has been going on for almost 100 years. Kids contemplate transferring all the time. Many times coaches and others are tampering with kids under obligation to other schools. No one honors a verbal commitment, including the coach who leaves before his or her employment contract expires. Athletes will renege on a promise to sign a National Letter of Intent with a school because other institutions are still going after them. Prop 05-54 will not lessen or increase that dynamic, but it will increase the educational opportunity for the athlete.

Athletes able to take advantage of the rule will be few, but all in the industry should encourage those who can. After all, are we not about education and in the end, giving the athlete the best opportunity to succeed in life?

I urge the Division I Board of Directors to not wilt under pressure from those who cannot see the forest through the trees and reject any attempt to override this proposal. Do not deny the benefits of competing in sports to someone just because they have the educational aptitude to pursue a graduate degree, and certainly do not deny them the chance to go to the best graduate school for his or her chosen vocation. So what if the athlete plays for another team? Ultimately, we are not about winning and money, but about education — right?

The five or six years out of their lives playing college sports and winning a few games for a highly paid coach is negligible when talking about the impact a legitimate graduate degree can have on the many remaining years after their playing days are over.