National Collegiate Athletic Association
NCAA News Archive - 2007
« back to 2007 | Back to NCAA News Archive Index
- 02-12-07 NCAA News
|
By Sameer Khan and Doug Tima
Division III Student-Athlete Advisory Committee
Division III Student-Athlete Advisory Committee
The 2007 NCAA Convention in Orlando was both informative and beneficial for Division III because it provided the Student-Athlete Advisory Committee, the Presidents and Management Councils, and other voices for the Division III membership the opportunity to represent student-athletes, institutions and conferences in elevating the division to a higher and healthier state.
Overall, we were pleased with the results of this year’s Convention — especially delegates’ approval of the eight-hour limit on athletics activity during the nontraditional season’s date of competition, and the action to permit practice during both the fall and spring nontraditional seasons without losing a season of participation. SAAC helped originate the eight-hour-limit proposal through the Division III Playing and Practice Seasons Subcommittee and strongly supported the season-of-participation proposal that originated from three Division III conferences. We appreciate the decisive votes by the membership to support those measures.
As in the past, the Division III SAAC focused at the Convention on the impact of and concerns about proposed legislation. Several key issues and proposals were discussed at the Convention; however, two proposals were of great significance because they directly affected student-athlete well-being.
Proposal No. 2 intended to specify that at least one individual certified in first aid, CPR and use of an AED be present at each practice, competition, and strength and conditioning session involving student-athletes. The individual also must be familiar with the emergency plan activation policies of that institution. Proposal No. 2, more then any other on the voting block, focused on student-athlete well-being by protecting their health and safety — and by no means should that fact be overlooked.
After spending the past year discussing the issue at the campus, conference and national levels, SAAC concluded that Proposal No. 2 is in the best interests of student-athlete well-being. Many student-athletes expressed concern about a rising number of heart-related fatalities over the last few years among athletes. There are instances where further medical examination showed that if an AED had been used immediately, the probability of survival would have increased dramatically. Additionally, having an individual present who has sufficient knowledge of the institution’s emergency activation plan and policies also could help alleviate life-threatening situations.
In the course of gathering input and reaction to the proposal, we also heard the concerns from institutions about financial implications. SAAC concluded that most athletics directors are willing to seek the necessary funds (through NCAA conference grants or other sources) to cover the costs associated with training classes or even the purchasing of AEDs. One athletics director in particular told us he willingly would seek out alternative funding before another tragic incident occurred.
Because the proposal was referred to the NCAA Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports for review and possible resubmission at next year’s Convention, SAAC will broaden its communication with student-athletes and athletics administrators, and come back with an even greater understanding of all the compelling arguments surrounding this vital piece of legislation.
Proposal No. 6 and a proposed amendment-to-amendment (6-1), which dealt with male practice players and proposed limits on their use, also was in the hearts and minds of our committee. Proposal No. 6 actually originated from SAAC, which closely has studied the impact of the practice on the Division III student-athlete experience.
It is SAAC’s charge to represent all student-athletes, and in doing so it is our responsibility to gather all relevant opinions, comments and questions from our peers. Our constituents indicated that the use of male practice players could help enhance practice, but it also decreases participation opportunities for some female student-athletes. Proposal No. 6 was designed as a compromise. It would permit institutions to use male practice players, but also would limit the frequency and number used in an effort to protect female student-athlete opportunities.
The proposed amendment-to-amendment did not go far enough to protect participation opportunities for female student-athletes. When you consider that student-athletes often compete two or three times a week during a traditional season and are required to take one day off each week, there are typically only two or three practice opportunities remaining in a seven-day period. Proposal No. 6-1 essentially would allow male practice players to attend every practice during the season. Allowing a full starting unit of male practice players to compete in practice further diminishes opportunities for female student-athletes.
Last year marked the 25th anniversary of NCAA women’s championships. As student-athletes, we take tremendous pride in the growth of women’s athletics. We believe that the amendment-to-amendment would not provide appropriate restrictions on the use of male practice players and significantly would undermine the abilities and successes of women’s athletics.
However, with Proposal No. 6 now being referred to the Management Council, it becomes SAAC’s responsibility to gain an even clearer picture of where Division III student-athletes stand on the issue, as well as to understand the views of coaches. We intend to use our conference-partner program, various leadership conferences, and campus and conference SAAC meetings as opportunities for feedback. Our committee also plans to take an in-depth look into how the issue affects not only Division III, but the entire NCAA membership.
Nothing is more important to our committee than the well-being of student-athletes, who we think are striving for success in the classroom first, then aiming for perfection on the playing field.
In keeping with our primary interest, we are vitally interested in the future of Division III athletics, on behalf of all student-athletes who will be called on to embrace the division philosophy in the future. We recognize that these proposals may not affect our own teams, but that they will directly impact prospective student-athletes who have yet to receive their first college grade or put on that jersey for the very first time.
During the coming year, we hope that not only SAAC but the Division III membership will work, learn and grow together in addressing these two vital issues before next year’s Convention in Nashville, Tennessee.
Sameer Khan is chair of the Division III Student-Athlete Advisory Committee and a former golf student-athlete at Fairleigh Dickinson University, Florham. Doug Tima is vice chair of the committee and a football student-athlete at Otterbein College.
Overall, we were pleased with the results of this year’s Convention — especially delegates’ approval of the eight-hour limit on athletics activity during the nontraditional season’s date of competition, and the action to permit practice during both the fall and spring nontraditional seasons without losing a season of participation. SAAC helped originate the eight-hour-limit proposal through the Division III Playing and Practice Seasons Subcommittee and strongly supported the season-of-participation proposal that originated from three Division III conferences. We appreciate the decisive votes by the membership to support those measures.
As in the past, the Division III SAAC focused at the Convention on the impact of and concerns about proposed legislation. Several key issues and proposals were discussed at the Convention; however, two proposals were of great significance because they directly affected student-athlete well-being.
Proposal No. 2 intended to specify that at least one individual certified in first aid, CPR and use of an AED be present at each practice, competition, and strength and conditioning session involving student-athletes. The individual also must be familiar with the emergency plan activation policies of that institution. Proposal No. 2, more then any other on the voting block, focused on student-athlete well-being by protecting their health and safety — and by no means should that fact be overlooked.
After spending the past year discussing the issue at the campus, conference and national levels, SAAC concluded that Proposal No. 2 is in the best interests of student-athlete well-being. Many student-athletes expressed concern about a rising number of heart-related fatalities over the last few years among athletes. There are instances where further medical examination showed that if an AED had been used immediately, the probability of survival would have increased dramatically. Additionally, having an individual present who has sufficient knowledge of the institution’s emergency activation plan and policies also could help alleviate life-threatening situations.
In the course of gathering input and reaction to the proposal, we also heard the concerns from institutions about financial implications. SAAC concluded that most athletics directors are willing to seek the necessary funds (through NCAA conference grants or other sources) to cover the costs associated with training classes or even the purchasing of AEDs. One athletics director in particular told us he willingly would seek out alternative funding before another tragic incident occurred.
Because the proposal was referred to the NCAA Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports for review and possible resubmission at next year’s Convention, SAAC will broaden its communication with student-athletes and athletics administrators, and come back with an even greater understanding of all the compelling arguments surrounding this vital piece of legislation.
Proposal No. 6 and a proposed amendment-to-amendment (6-1), which dealt with male practice players and proposed limits on their use, also was in the hearts and minds of our committee. Proposal No. 6 actually originated from SAAC, which closely has studied the impact of the practice on the Division III student-athlete experience.
It is SAAC’s charge to represent all student-athletes, and in doing so it is our responsibility to gather all relevant opinions, comments and questions from our peers. Our constituents indicated that the use of male practice players could help enhance practice, but it also decreases participation opportunities for some female student-athletes. Proposal No. 6 was designed as a compromise. It would permit institutions to use male practice players, but also would limit the frequency and number used in an effort to protect female student-athlete opportunities.
The proposed amendment-to-amendment did not go far enough to protect participation opportunities for female student-athletes. When you consider that student-athletes often compete two or three times a week during a traditional season and are required to take one day off each week, there are typically only two or three practice opportunities remaining in a seven-day period. Proposal No. 6-1 essentially would allow male practice players to attend every practice during the season. Allowing a full starting unit of male practice players to compete in practice further diminishes opportunities for female student-athletes.
Last year marked the 25th anniversary of NCAA women’s championships. As student-athletes, we take tremendous pride in the growth of women’s athletics. We believe that the amendment-to-amendment would not provide appropriate restrictions on the use of male practice players and significantly would undermine the abilities and successes of women’s athletics.
However, with Proposal No. 6 now being referred to the Management Council, it becomes SAAC’s responsibility to gain an even clearer picture of where Division III student-athletes stand on the issue, as well as to understand the views of coaches. We intend to use our conference-partner program, various leadership conferences, and campus and conference SAAC meetings as opportunities for feedback. Our committee also plans to take an in-depth look into how the issue affects not only Division III, but the entire NCAA membership.
Nothing is more important to our committee than the well-being of student-athletes, who we think are striving for success in the classroom first, then aiming for perfection on the playing field.
In keeping with our primary interest, we are vitally interested in the future of Division III athletics, on behalf of all student-athletes who will be called on to embrace the division philosophy in the future. We recognize that these proposals may not affect our own teams, but that they will directly impact prospective student-athletes who have yet to receive their first college grade or put on that jersey for the very first time.
During the coming year, we hope that not only SAAC but the Division III membership will work, learn and grow together in addressing these two vital issues before next year’s Convention in Nashville, Tennessee.
Sameer Khan is chair of the Division III Student-Athlete Advisory Committee and a former golf student-athlete at Fairleigh Dickinson University, Florham. Doug Tima is vice chair of the committee and a football student-athlete at Otterbein College.
© 2010 The National Collegiate Athletic Association
Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy