The NCAA News - Comment
November 25, 1996
Guest editorial -- Illicit financial aid casts shadow on Division II
BY CHRIS MURPHY
Maine Maritime Academy
The Division III subcommittee of the NCAA Presidents Commission is presently considering restructuring in the areas of governance, membership and championships, in addition to strengthening Division III transfer-eligibility legislation.
After reading the August 2, 1996, memorandum from the chair of this subcommittee, it is apparent that a sizeable part of its agenda deals with providing fair competition within the Division III membership. Though the committee's structural proposal for governance does include a "committee on eligibility and infractions," there was no mention of any emphasis on eliminating a major cause of our tilted playing field, that cause being illegal financial aid given to Division III student-athletes.
Whether it is because there are no television contracts or no large amounts of money involved, there seems to be either a naive assumption that financial aid violations do not occur at the Division III level or a lack of desire to resolve or even acknowledge the problem.
Well, there is a problem, it is of significant dimensions, and not much is being done about it.
The regulations concerning financial aid for student-athletes are defined clearly in the NCAA Manual. Bylaw 15.01.10 states that Division III institutions shall award financial aid to student-athletes only on the basis of financial need shown by the recipient. Bylaw 15.4 delineates the situations in which athletics ability is not allowed to be a criterion for awarding financial aid.
Yet, in the name of winning, some Division III coaches and administrators are sacrificing their personal and professional integrity, as well as putting the reputations of their schools at risk, by awarding excessive financial aid to student-athletes under the guise of leadership, merit or presidential (or other inventive titles) scholarships.
No matter what the competitive level or reward for winning, these violations of the financial aid rules have no justification. The present Division III administrative restructuring process provides the NCAA with a great and timely opportunity to increase the emphasis on dealing with these violations and those who commit them.
It is also our responsibility as coaches and administrators to deal with the rule breakers. We are supposed to be builders of character, examples of commitment and role models for the acceptance of responsibility.
We know violations are occurring. Many of us know some who are guilty.
Yet, for some reason closely akin to the misguided principle of "honor among thieves," we have allowed and abetted behavior we would not accept from our players or our children.
Chris Murphy is head men's basketball coach at Maine Maritime Academy.
Letter to the Editor -- Playing rules need a boost in basketball
I find it appalling that any true basketball coach, especially one that is as highly regarded as Bobby Cremins of Georgia Tech, would advocate de-emphasizing the rule on palming the basketball ("Briefly in the News" section of the November 11 issue of The NCAA News).
One of the main problems with the game today is the abuse of the natural/historic rules of the game. This disregard has totally ruined the professional game, so much so that everyone realizes that it is really a show and no longer a game.
Michael Jordan is phenomenal, but his exploits would be fewer if he were not allowed to palm the basketball constantly. Defenders never know if he is going to pass, shoot or continue dribbling, since having his hand under the ball half the time enables him to make these choices whenever he chooses. A definite unfair advantage.
Since NBA referees never call palming, or for that matter traveling (as long as it's less than four steps or doesn't take away a thundering dunk), he and three-quarters of the NBA barely play basketball "by the rules."
Pistol Pete Maravich and Earl "The Pearl" Monroe were phenomenal while playing by the rules.
True brilliance on the court can be shown within the rules if a player is intelligent and creative enough.
The last bastion of good basketball to watch (that is nationally televised) is the college game. And even that is becoming suspect as the money involved increases, despite the NCAA's efforts to keep it "amateur."
If Cremins is so worried about taking away the natural talent of the players, why don't we just let them run with the ball and forget dribbling altogether? I'm sure the players would really be able to put on a show then; they'd do nothing but dunk continuously! Who needs those pesky jump shots, anyway?
I hope someone alerts Bobby Cremins that the rules are the game, and not the players' fancy uniforms or blatant disregard for the rules. Without rules, it is no longer a game; it is anarchy, and it would simply dissolve in to a selfish "run-and-gun" ego race.
Emphasizing the palming rule (as well as the rest of the rules) is long overdue. Let's get back to playing basketball for the teamwork aspects blended with individual achievement, and the beauty of the game -- not for the selfish games of one vs. one, such as we now have in the NBA.
Chris Barker
Oberlin College
Opinions -- Society's rules have changed -- and not for the better
Jeff Jacobs, columnist
The Hartford Courant
"Here's my question:
"What has happened to the American Dream? You work hard, buy a home, raise a family and gradually progress through life.
"The rules have changed in this society. Somewhere in the past 10 years, the American Dream has become, 'Get rich now! Hit it big now!' It's the American Pipe Dream for all but the luckiest few.
"College athletes, who in some cases can barely read, don't want to stay in school for four years. Pro athletes who can barely grow a beard are demanding millions now. Drug pushers are glorified by kids without hope for making a fast buck. Folks won't take the time to read. They want TV highlights. Fast. Furious. With mind-numbing music.
"Our national attention span is about 30 seconds. That's still plenty of time to lay a bet. Gambling fills a quick primal urge in a society that has lost all patience.
"'It's the action. We love the action,' said Donna (not her real name), a recovering member of Gamblers Anonymous. 'BC? It wouldn't shock me if it said any school. Prison. Insanity. Death. Nothing surprises me when you put the words compulsive and gambler together. Gambling has been around forever. But it's magnified now. It's everywhere.'
"That's the scary part. Gambling has grown a huge, shiny, happy face. No longer is it the province of some greasy hood running numbers. You can eat off the bathroom floors at the Mohegan Sun. In Pennsylvania, magnificent OTB/sports bars with 350 televisions for horse racing and NFL games are sprouting.
"Bet. Bet. Everywhere a bet. As our nation's attention span grows shorter and our collective IQ arguably shrinks, the line between legal and illegal gambling seems to grow cloudier. And when newspapers run all the point spreads, are they telling teenagers that winning, losing or even how you play the game isn't what counts? It's only beating the spread?"
Paul Lawrence, author
Newsday
"It isn't as though this (a gambling crisis) is a new thing. Back in the 1950s, when the NCAA wasn't very big, Kentucky got into tons of trouble because everybody on the team was betting. That's when there were only hundreds of thousands of dollars involved, instead of the billions now."
Student-Athlete View Correction
Due to an error in a fax transmission, a portion of the Student-Athlete View that appeared in the November 11 issue of The NCAA News was not included.
In the article, Bridget Niland of the State University of New York at Buffalo provided rationale for legislative positions taken by the NCAA Student-Athlete Advisory Committee.
The following information was omitted:
In addition to Proposal Nos. 2-95 and 2-96, our committee also is urging the membership to support Nos. 2-103, 2-104 and 2-105. These measures deal specifically with a full-scholarship athlete's ability to work in the off-season. If adopted, these proposals would exempt legitimate off-campus employment earnings from a Division I student-athlete's full grant-in-aid limit and from the institution's sport limitations.
It is only sensible that students, especially full-scholarship athletes, should be discouraged from taking on the additional obligation of a job during their competitive seasons. A student-athlete's time is limited, and careful time management is required for him or her to do well both in the classroom and on the playing field.
Out of season, however, is a different matter because student-athletes have more time to devote to other activities. A student-athlete may choose to be involved in other activities, such as an academic club or sorority. If the argument against allowing student-athletes to work is an issue of time management, then why do we allow students to pursue any outside activities? Off-season work experience should be treated like all the other social activities available to student-athletes.
Another argument I have heard against allowing student-athletes to work is the one that goes something like this: "Why do they need to work when they are getting a full scholarship?" True, the full scholarship covers much of the costs of attending college. It does not, however, cover the costs of doing your laundry, buying dress clothes, going out for an occasional dinner with your housemates or traveling home for the holidays. For many student-athletes, mom and dad are not able to provide for these incidental expenditures. Not allowing student-athletes to work to pay for these expenses may force them to look to other, less ethical ways of acquiring money.
Finally, the most common argument I hear against allowing student-athletes to work is that such legislation would be a nightmare for compliance offices to record. Working in a compliance office, I am well aware of such concerns. But the truth of the matter is that Nos. 2-103, 2-104 and 2-105 have removed any need for administrative tracking.
Past proposals required compliance and financial aid offices to tally how much each student is earning. The new proposals, however, require only that those offices be notified of where the student-athlete is employed, not the amount of their weekly paychecks. The proposals also safeguard the right to work from being abused by athletics departments by prohibiting the department to arrange employment for student-athletes. Nos. 2-103, 2-104 and 2-105 simply give student-athletes the ability to seek off-campus employment in their off-season.
Although the Student-Athlete Advisory Committee strongly supports the proposals I have addressed, there are other proposals that we encourage institutions to support. For example, the committee also backs Proposal No. 2-12, an NCAA Council proposal that would allow student-athletes to write for commercial and noncommercial publications without compensation.
|
