Latest News

« back to 2010 | Back to NCAA News Archive Index

Student-Athlete Advisory Committee alumni cherish their participation

Crissy Kaesebier Schluep

SAAC Role: Division II vice chair, 2001 (Drury University)

Currently: NCAA assistant director of public and media relations

Our issue involved limits on telephone calls to signees during the period before they were enrolled. At the time, we used legislative grids that enabled us to get “votes” from each campus and conference. This was the first year we had implemented that system.

I remember the student-athletes were really passionate about this, and because of the grids, we felt like the support was well documented. But after the Legislation Committee and governance structure heard what we had to say, their response was like: “Thank you, but we’ve decided to go in a different direction.”

I remember we wrote down talking points that we were going to use at Convention. How funny is that? I remember being really anxious about maybe having to stand up and talk in front of several hundred people.

For the Convention business session, we all had debating points assigned to us. I remember standing there like it was yesterday. Front row, right side, maybe a couple of rows in. I remember what I was wearing. I don’t think I’ve ever been that nervous in my entire life.

SAAC prepared lots of responses for points that no one ended up speaking on. But my particular topic did come up. I remember that moment of “Oh, I’m going to have to get up there and do this.”

I remember looking at Mike Racy, the Division II vice president, who was smiling at me to reassure me. It was like he was saying, “I promise you you’re going to be able to sit down eventually.”

The vote ended up going our way. We had been prepared to show no emotion about it, but there was a huge sense of relief. Everybody was very composed. We shared some side glances.

We thought that there was this system that had been put in place to hear the student-athlete voice, and it really never had been necessary, and then it was. I felt like we did a good job of preparing and articulating. Things went the student-athletes’ way, and it was just a nice feeling.

 

Doug Tima

SAAC Role: Division III vice chair, 2008 (Otterbein College)

Currently: Teacher and coach, Dublin (Ohio) Scioto High School

One of our most important issues was whether Division III coaches should be required to be trained in first aid and CPR.

SAAC members couldn’t believe this wasn’t already required. I’m a high school coach now, and I’m required by the state to be trained. Yet Division III athletes, competing at a higher level, didn’t have the same protection.

The legislation itself was simple. Today, it takes up only two lines in the Division III Manual. But when we put it up at the 2007 Convention, there was a lot of concern about legal liability. But we said, “What if a kid dies?” I told this to some presidents. I don’t know if it made them happy, but if I was a coach and was talking to a parent, I would want to say that
this horrible thing happened, but at least we had done as much as we could to be prepared.

The proposal was debated at length in 2007
before it was referred back to the competitive-safeguards committee. The next year, it came up again and was defeated.

I don’t think anybody objected to the spirit of the legislation. They just wanted to make sure they understood the legal ramifications.

But kids don’t care about legalities. They wanted to know that if they had a heart attack or collapsed on the field, someone there would be trained to save their life.

I was off the SAAC when the legislation finally passed in 2009. I had just proposed, and my wife and I were coming back from Niagara Falls. I was getting in the car for the ride home, and I got a phone call and someone told me, “You’re never going to believe what passed.”

It was a great day, all the way around.

 

Mike Piscetelli

SAAC Role: Division I chair, 2006 (Wake Forest University)

Currently: Assistant director of athletics, Wake Forest

In 2006, the Division I SAAC was convinced that text messages didn’t belong in the recruiting process. Texting has its place, but as a recruiting tool, it was perceived as intrusive and at times superficial. As SAAC chair, I felt a responsibility for us to deal with this matter.

The issue attracted so much media attention that our opposition was apparent to even casual observers. The not-so-obvious part was how seriously we took our responsibility. Before we talked with the likes of Management Council or Board of Directors, we would spend significant time in meeting rooms developing the student-athlete stance. How we articulated our position and the examples we used for lobbying on behalf of our peers were crucial to our success. We worked hard.

One other fact: The text-messaging issue had nothing to do with current student-athletes. After all, we had already been recruited. The issue involved prospective student-athletes. It’s one thing to care about factors that are pressing in your current situation, things like per diem or practice hours, but this proposal required us to step back and recognize that the committee was a part of something bigger than itself. That maturity came with the education the NCAA provided us and the comfort of working with passionate student-athlete advocates.

In the end, we were happy that the legislation passed and stood up to an override vote, but it was only one of many proposals we dealt with that year. We kept a close tally of the proposals that went in our favor, like pieces of a game. In a sense, it was like a competition. And we thrived on the competition. We never got too emotional after learning the results on a proposed piece of legislation as there was always more work to be done.

 

Stormie Wells

SAAC Role: Division II member, 1997 (University of Northern Colorado)

Currently: Senior program manager at SunGard Higher Education

My first SAAC meeting started off with one of my most embarrassing moments.

My flight was delayed, and due to the delay I was late to our morning session. I walked in the door in jeans, while everyone else was dressed in business attire. This precipitated the founding of the Acclimation Guide for new SAAC members.

I joined the SAAC before federation, and our most pressing legislative issue at that time was primarily a Division I issue − the ability for student-athletes to work to earn up to full grant-in-aid. While we were concerned about federation, the creation of a Division II SAAC afforded us opportunities to focus on Division II-specific issues.

The NCAA’s federated structure was implemented my last year, and I served on the first Division II SAAC. The Division II Management Council-SAAC Summit was the division’s choice for creating dialogue between administrators and student-athlete representatives, and it became a very powerful communication vehicle. At that first meeting, we discussed a variety of important issues, including Title IX, diversity, attendance at competition and regionalization. We were able to come up with action plans to address those issues.

Most importantly, the summit provided then − and continues to provide today − a mechanism where the Management Council actively seeks out student-athlete feedback, listens to it closely and then carefully considers that feedback before taking action.

 

Kayla Hinkle

SAAC Role: Division III member, 2008 (University of New England)

Currently: Pediatric occupational therapist, Wells-Ogunquit Community School District in Maine

One of my most exciting and interesting experiences was serving on the working group for Division III membership issues.

Division III was exploring different options that included forming a subdivision or starting an entirely new division due to our large membership numbers.

I remember our first meeting began early in the morning as we started exploring the numerous data. I felt overwhelmed at times. Some people felt the split was necessary, but others believed we were functioning as a strong division and should remain the same.

Since I had been a member of the NCAA Student-Athlete Advisory Committee and the student representative on the Division III Management Council, I could hold my own in the membership discussions and provide insight on how student-athletes would be affected.

Outside our meetings, the division was buzzing. Schools, administrators, coaches and athletes had varying opinions about what was best for Division III. I remember reading letters directed to our working group from Division III members, and I started to feel the pressure around Convention time.

At the Convention, the SAAC had to sit on the podium and answer the questions of our Division III delegates. I was nervous. It was humbling sitting in front of all of these people who had strong opinions not only on membership issues but also on the recommendations of our working group. At one point I looked to Kris Hall, the AD at Bard, for support. She gave me the confidence I needed to face the audience. When a question was directed at me regarding the student-athlete input, I answered with confidence and pride.

The whole experience was enriching, and I am proud to say that I hold my own small piece in the history of Division III.

           

Brian Alas

SAAC Role: Division I vice chair, 2008 (University of Richmond)

Currently: Alternative investments, PricewaterhouseCoopers

Social networking has become so accepted these days that many have forgotten how controversial it was at its inception. When I joined the national SAAC in 2007, social networking had a negative connotation. Administrators believed social networking was intrusive and, even worse, that it could lead to negative publicity for both their student-athletes and respective institutions.

However, I was convinced that social media platforms represented more of an opportunity than a threat. If employed correctly, they were not only the most efficient way for student-athletes to connect, but they also were the best way for administrators to communicate with student-athletes and fans.

SAAC started by launching a Facebook and YouTube page. After putting together our fan page and opening a Twitter account, we decided to create the NSAAC Blog to centralize our communications.

The next step was educating administrators and spreading the word about our initiatives. That opportunity came during an educational session at the 2008 NCAA Convention. At the beginning of the session, many questions focused on the negative aspects of the medium, but we quickly shed light on its efficiency and effectiveness. I wasn’t positive if everyone understood the benefits of social media at the time, but soon after Convention, we saw participation increase at both the campus and conference levels. A few administrators even reached out to me seeking assistance with their own social media initiatives.

While the national SAAC cannot take full credit for the acceptance of social media in college athletics, I believe that our perspective created a shift to employ social media more advantageously. Our grass-roots effort coupled with our presentation at Convention allowed us to start bridging the gap between student-athletes and administrators.

We hope that social media continues to provide an efficient means of communication in college athletics in the years to come.