Many students around the country have expressed concern with the amount of time they spend practicing in their sport. Students say they are violating the limits set by the “20/8-hour” rule, which precludes student-athletes from spending more than 20 hours a week in countable athletically related activities (and no more than eight hours during the off-season).

The 20/8 hour rule is the guideline the NCAA set to limit hours spent on athletics and to ensure that athletes remain “student-athletes.” Unfortunately, many student-athletes have discovered that their schools find ways around those rules.

According to one Division I student-athlete, “We were coming in for film, practicing, lifting and playing three games in a week. Practices were counted as two and a half hours but they were really three hours long because our coach would not come to the half-hour warm-up, though it was still mandatory. With three games per week and individual film sessions, many weeks our freshman were up around 25 hours and the upperclassman were over 20. But coaches were just finding ways to say that we were not.”  

To better understand concerns about the 20/8-hour rule, the NCAA formed a task force in 2003 to study the issue in depth. Among the conclusions was that student-athletes, coaches and administrators needed more education about what was permissible within the 20/8-hour rule and what was not. In many cases, coaches are not even aware they are violating any rules.

Another finding was a lack of support from athletics departments in the areas of enforcement and compliance. It is a more serious problem when coaches violate the rules deliberately — the athletics department must step in and take control. That is not happening often enough.

Another concern is the potential for fallout from the coach if the student-athlete notifies officials about a violation. The athlete quoted above, for example, felt that during the weeks he and his peers were exceeding the 20-hour limit, they were unable to complete their schoolwork. The pressure was affecting their mental state as well. But none was willing to say anything to administrators.

“There was a week where I felt burnt out and really disappointed with my grades,” the athlete said. “As a team we were burnt out physically, mentally and emotionally. It’s one thing to be a student athlete, but we’re at an age when we can only handle so much.”

An administrator at the school eventually discovered the violation and talked to the coach, but it may have been too little too late for the students. Too many athletes already were too far behind in schoolwork.

That athlete, like many others in similar situations, wanted to say something to the coach, but  he was worried about the potential repercussions.

“There’s a point where as players we don’t know if it’s OK to say something; in my head it makes me look bad to my coaches and I’d rather tough it out than feel the possible repercussions of being a tattle-tale,” the athlete said.

It is an all-too-familiar scenario. At the 2005 NCAA Leadership Conference, the Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee asked student-athletes to voice any concerns they had in athletics. Student after student stood up and said they were going over the limits of the 20/8 hour rule, and were afraid to tell anyone.

Director of Academic Advisement at Marist College Alyssa Gates understands that students have real concerns that need to be addressed on the 20-hour rule. She feels that students are not receiving the support they deserve. “If this is an issue at Marist,” she said, “chances are that student-athletes would be too intimidated to say anything, to step up.”

Other groups have studied the issue as well. The Division I Championships/Competition Cabinet’s playing and practice seasons subcommittee found that the problem was not with the amount of hours allowed, but with the lack of education about the rule. Members said they considered having a period of time during the off-season when athletes would not be allowed to participate in any athletics activity at all — essentially locking the gym. Student-athletes, though, reacted against it. Thus, educating constituents was the subcommittee’s recommendation.

Complicating the issue further, though, is the fact that student-athletes want to practice and compete in their sports, which makes them susceptible to breaking the limits.

“I love playing,” said Trevor Gavin, a football student-athlete at Marist. “During the season, as long as I can balance the demands, it helps me keep to a schedule. I do not go out as much, I go to bed earlier and I’m able to manage. As long as the coaches keep the time demands in reason, I enjoy it.”

In the last three years, the NCAA has prepared educational material explaining the rule, how to comply and ways to provide support to the athletes. Materials were made available online and were sent directly to athletics directors, faculty athletics representatives and compliance officers. Included was a list of ideas to protect student-athletes, including the establishment of a “drop box” in which student-athletes could provide anonymous comments, or having a group of students fill out real-time practice logs. The Division I SAAC supports those ideas.

Still, though, student-athletes are saying too many violations go unnoticed. The NCAA has tried education as a tool to stem the pressures, but I think stronger measures are necessary. Some coaches are looking for chances to bend the rules; therefore, athletics departments and the NCAA need to work to stop those coaches and support their athletes. Athletes should not have to endure coaches violating their rights simply because the chances of repercussions are too strong.

Ray Josephs, a member of the Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee, is a tennis student-athlete at Marist College.