Can we throw competitive equity out the window for a second? I know that goes against the grain of NCAA dogma and could lead to my excommunication, but is it so bad that the Division I Board of Directors backed the student-first philosophy when it adopted Proposal No. 05-54, otherwise known as the postgraduate transfer rule?

Competitive equity is, without a doubt, important to the integrity of everyone’s experience within collegiate athletics. But few rule changes in recent memory so effectively support the essence of what the membership says it is committed to supporting: getting our student-athletes a diploma.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the goal of the recently implemented Academic Progress Rate was to hold institutions accountable for educating student-athletes and keeping them on track to graduate. Prop 05-54 seemed like a logical step: Once a student-athlete with remaining eligibility has that diploma, he or she has reached the ultimate goal of the college experience and is free to pursue a graduate degree at a different institution without having to sit a year.

I know that many coaches and athletics administrators (and to my surprise, college sports analysts) think this is the end of the world that now their star athlete can shop around for a better offer after all the hard work (and money for redshirt season) they have committed to them.

But they are missing the point. Prop 05-54 is competitive-equity blind — the message here is that graduation is what’s important. A student-athlete has fulfilled his or her obligation to a school and themselves once they have graduated. It can’t be that hard to imagine that many student-athletes want to pursue a postgraduate degree in a program that best suits their academic and career ambitions, regardless of whether it is at their original institution. No matter the unintended consequences, we’re talking about a major step in many student-athlete’s lives and careers. Yet those opposed to Prop 05-54 would have us believe that student-athletes’ career paths should be dictated by athletics "obligations."

Of course abuse is always a concern. That’s why the Division I Manual is as large as it is. Sure, a star athlete from a mid-major could transfer to a power-

house with no intention of seriously pursuing a postgraduate degree. Sure, a national power could lose a depth player to a competing mid-major. Let’s not forget that it’s still an infraction for a school to recruit this student-athlete unless permission has been granted. Regardless of how many "what ifs" coaches and administrators have posed, let’s keep in mind the 99 percent of student-athletes who are solid athletes know that their education — not a professional sports contract — will pay the bills. People might argue that the loss of student-athletes’ final year of competition should be a worthy trade-off if their education is really that important to them. But do we really want to be punishing our student-athletes for graduating? Even if the new legislation does create a sort of "fifth-year free agency" in isolated situations, it still has helped achieve the educational mission. This legislation sends the message that NCAA members truly are doing what they say they will do.

After thoroughly vetting the pros and cons of Prop 05-54 in Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee meetings and hearing from student-athlete peers, it was almost a no-brainer for the SAAC to support the proposal. It was also surprising to hear afterward that the legislation caught many coaches and administrators by surprise. That’s hard to believe since it had been on our radar since at least last November.

Through my four years as a cross country student-athlete, I was given the privilege of interacting with hundreds of student-athletes, both within my athletics department and through my involvement with the SAAC. It has been my experience that the large majority of them were very loyal to their programs and their teammates. If at all possible, we usually wanted to complete our eligibility with the program that had afforded us so much opportunity, assuming congruent academic ambitions. If coaches really are that concerned about their student-athletes’ loyalty, then maybe they should be asking why that is, and not why the NCAA will allow them to escape.

A year of coaching experience after four years as a student-athlete has yet to jade me or make me blind to the fact that a diploma in my runner’s hand is much more valuable than a medal. Sure, cross country doesn’t carry the same stakes as football or basketball, but the stakes don’t change the principles.

In the end, the Management Council and Board of Directors chose to send the right message: that student-athletes attend college first and foremost to earn a degree and that they should be able to proceed with their lives once that is complete. It is unfortunate that some now believe that the interests of the athletics department and coach trump those of the student-athlete at a critical time in their lives.