National Collegiate Athletic Association |
CommentMarch 3, 1997
Guest editorial -- Athlete welfare part of institutional control
BY JOHN GERDYWhile every athletics department claims that the academic and personal welfare of its student-athletes is of paramount concern, until it is included as part of a university's institutional-control expectations, it will never become an athletics department's central priority. In short, for our athletics departments to be "about the student-athlete," the NCAA must expand its vision of institutional control to include student-athlete welfare, making it a fundamental component of an institution's institutional-control expectations and fully subject to the scrutiny and sanctions of the Committee on Infractions. Many will argue that the NCAA is addressing issues relating to student-athlete welfare through its ongoing Division I athletics certification program. While student-athlete welfare is one of the program components that is evaluated, the certification process is primarily a self-assessment and improvement exercise, without the investigative focus of the enforcement staff nor the punitive authority of the NCAA Committee on Infractions. Further, the certification program's focus has been to help institutions achieve effective institutional control, of which student-athlete welfare is not considered a fundamental part. Members of the Committee on Infractions will argue that it is too difficult to identify, process and penalize an institution for a concept as vague as student-athlete welfare. However, the principles of student-athlete welfare are no less vague than the principle of institutional control was only 10 years ago. For example, from 1987 to 1992, more than half the institutions appearing before the committee were cited for lack of institutional control. As might be expected, institutions were finding it difficult and frustrating to comply with a principle for which there were no defined expectations. Thus, the membership began to press the committee to outline its expectations in this area. Finally, in 1996 the committee produced a document titled "Principles of Institutional Control." While the document is not perfect, the membership now has a clearer definition and understanding of expectations regarding institutional control, as well as a blueprint for achieving it. But make no mistake about it: It was not until the committee began penalizing institutions for a lack of institutional control that universities began to view it as a top priority and began genuine efforts to achieve it. And in the case of student-athlete welfare, with the adoption in 1995 of the principles of student-athlete welfare, the membership has already agreed upon what, in essence, are the broad principles necessary to achieve "institutional control" in this area. Moreover, the legislative mandate for the committee to address this issue is clear. Not only does NCAA Constitution 2.2 outline these principles of student-athlete welfare, NCAA Constitution 1.3 identifies as a "fundamental policy" of the Association "...to maintain intercollegiate athletics as an integral part of the educational program and the athlete as an integral part of the student body." Emphasizing specific recruiting, financial aid and eligibility rules and establishing effective compliance systems are no doubt important. However, institutional control and compliance efforts must not only emphasize compliance with specific rules but also with the broad principles of the Association. They must be highlighted at every opportunity since they represent the starting point upon which all institutional-control discussions and initiatives should be based. For example, how many compliance coordinators review NCAA Bylaw 2.2 (principles of student-athlete welfare) with their coaches in detail? How many student-athletes are informed of these basic rights in more than a cursory fashion? And how many student-athletes know full well that "voluntary" out-of-season workouts are in reality "mandatory" but will never say so because of fear of losing playing time or, worse, having their scholarship cut? Aid understanding If more is done to help coaches, administrators, boosters, media and student-athletes understand and appreciate these broad principles, particularly those relating to student-athlete welfare, it will be more likely that compliance with the specifics will occur. The 20-hour-per-week practice limitation offers an excellent example of how this approach to institutional control can improve student-athlete welfare. Currently, coaches and student-athletes are informed of the specific rule and institutional compliance coordinators monitor its compliance by asking student-athletes to sign time sheets verifying compliance with the rule. In actuality, student-athletes are simply told to sign these sheets, knowing full well that in many cases, they have practiced well beyond the 20-hour limit. While it can be argued that the Committee on Infractions currently has the authority to penalize an institution for violation of a rule that is so central to the principle of student-athlete welfare, the fact is that enforcement of this specific rule and of the six principles of student-athlete welfare outlined in Constitution 2.2 has not been identified as a priority concern of the committee nor the NCAA enforcement staff. The only way in which the principles of student-athlete welfare will be honored is if student-athletes are informed not only of such rules but also of their fundamental right to earn a well-balanced academic, social and athletics experience. Further, they must have the right to hold coaches accountable for compromising those principles. Student-athletes then must be provided assurances that if they voice such concerns, their confidentiality will not be violated. But most important, everyone -- coaches and student-athletes alike -- must know that the NCAA will enforce the rule. While such institutional efforts will raise the awareness of the link between adherence with specific rules and their effect on student-athlete welfare, it is the Committee on Infractions that must raise the stakes for violating them. To that end, the committee must begin to process and penalize institutions when it is obvious that specific rules, as well as the broader principles of student-athlete welfare, are being violated. The result will be that coaches will begin to understand that their institution and the NCAA take the principles of student-athlete welfare seriously and that they will be held accountable for compliance not only with the specific rule but also with the broader principle that it affects. Athlete decision-making In their book "Athletics and Academe: An Anatomy of Abuses," Wilford Bailey and Taylor Littleton correctly identify the lack of appropriate institutional attention to or control over student-athlete welfare as one of three primary forms of "abuse" in intercollegiate athletics. Their point, and it is an extremely provocative one, is that the abdication of institutional responsibility for student-athlete welfare is every bit as much of an "abuse" or "violation" as a coach breaking a recruiting rule or an institution not having in place an adequate system to monitor eligibility. If we accept this notion that the academic and personal welfare of student-athletes is an important institutional responsibility, there is no choice but to include student-athlete welfare as a major component of institutional control, and more to the point, as a major area of focus for the Committee on Infractions. Defining and processing violations of student-athlete welfare under the principle of institutional control will undoubtedly be an ongoing and challenging process. But, as in the case of defining the initial elements of institutional control, it has to start somewhere. Once the NCAA determined that universities had to be responsible for ensuring effective institutional control over their athletics departments, the committee began the process of defining its elements and developing standards and expectations for its implementation. Today, institutions have a much more thorough understanding of the type of commitment they must make to achieve effective institutional control. Thus, a similar effort and commitment from the NCAA as it applies to student-athlete welfare is not only necessary, but reasonable and quite achievable. Student-athlete welfare is not a stand-alone issue, nor is it one that can be fully addressed through the NCAA certification process. It is a basic institutional responsibility and every bit as much a part of institutional control as a system to monitor financial aid or a rules-education program for coaches. Just as defining, developing and enforcing the principles of institutional control has forced coaches and administrators to consider the ramifications of their actions from a compliance standpoint, incorporating student-athlete welfare into the principle of institutional control will force athletics department personnel to adopt a framework for decision-making that is more student-athlete-welfare centered. In short, if our athletics programs are ever to be "about the student-athlete," student-athlete welfare must be considered a fundamental component of institutional control. John R. Gerdy is a visiting professor of sports administration at Ohio University. He has a forthcoming book to be released in 1997 as part of American Council on Education/Oryx Press Higher Education Series titled "The New Standard: Redefining the 'Successful' College Athletic Program.'"
Letter to the editor -- Work rule a good idea, deserves supportCollege athletics administrators are employed as a result of student-athletes. How quickly we forget that we are to serve the needs of those athletes.Having said that, if we look at the intent of this and other recently enacted "student-athlete welfare" legislation, we can be pleased that the needs of the student-athlete are finally being met. Will this new legislation lead to abuse? It might, but no more so than other NCAA legislation that "restricts, governs and/or prohibits" member institutions and their student-athletes. Will this new legislation be a compliance nightmare for athletics departments? NO, it will not and should not be. Will this new legislation mean more work for compliance coordinators? YES, but if it means that student-athletes can now have a slightly better lifestyle due to a little extra cash, so be it. For every argument that this new legislation will create a nightmare of monitoring and auditing, there is an equally compelling argument saying that compliance officers probably were not doing their jobs to begin with. First of all, compliance officers are supposed to monitor summer and vacation employment for their student-athletes. While the new monitoring of academic-year employment for athletes will be more detailed, it nonetheless should be an extension of a compliance office's ongoing policies and procedures concerning student-athlete employment. Second, much has been said about the practicality of student-athletes holding jobs during the school year. The fact that the practice/play year in many sports is almost year-round is going to preclude a lot of athletes from seeking jobs, and the number who will seek employment does not warrant the unjust criticism. Athletics departments are not going to have 100 football players working during the academic year. In addition, those athletes who do work during the first year of this legislation and who also receive Pell Grants will realize that the "free" Pell Grant money for which they apply in the subsequent year will be reduced. Therefore, many student-athletes will come to realize that, in the long run, it will not benefit them to work because their Pell Grant money will be reduced the following year. Third, the ever-present concern that this legislation will be abused during and after the recruiting process is unfounded. If a school or a booster wants to find a way to "pay" prospects or enrolled student-athletes, they are going to do it regardless of whether this legislation exists or not. The potential for abuse is surely there, but no more than for what already exists in allowing student-athletes to work during the summer and vacation periods. The "right-to-work" rule allows student-athletes the freedom to make choices in their lives. Too often, we structure student-athletes' lives to such a degree that they can't make good decisions later in life because they have had their hand held through their years in college. Let the athletes make choices, let them find out whether they can handle the stresses of college academics, athletics, social life and employment. In doing so, let's also hold the student-athletes accountable for any intentional abuse of this legislation. Penalize the student-athlete at least as harshly as you would penalize the institution for violations of this legislation. We have given the student-athletes more choices and are now treating them like adults. In doing so, we have to hold them responsible if they abuse this legislation and the system.
Robert P. Mathner
Opinions -- Sports involvement should be a boon, too often a bane
Tim Cameron, principal "At every point in society we see authority being challenged. "Sadly, we see some of the poorest examples of how to respond to authority from our professional athletes (heroes?). From spitting in an umpire's face to fighting and taunting, the pathetic examples are replete. Our professional athletes provide us the worst examples of loyalty to a coach, team or organization. "I have participated in sports for many years, lettering in three sports in high school, attending college on a full athletics scholarship, playing on a top-20-ranked basketball team, coaching and now as a high-school principal. My years of experience have helped me see some major negatives that have developed in sports. "Parents, more and more, are becoming a hindrance to students realizing everything they can from competitive athletics. The 'ME' syndrome -- my child is the most important -- dominates many parents. If the athlete doesn't get the playing time a parent thinks is appropriate, or the student does not get enough attention, or gets negative attention, the coach becomes the focal point of the problem. The most influential people in the student's life have missed their greatest opportunity to teach loyalty and have instead taught their student to question authority. "Coming out of high school, I was recruited by a number of colleges; I went to college with high hopes of stardom. My hopes were quickly dashed as I played behind the leading scorer in NCAA basketball for three years. It wasn't until my senior year in college that I began to truly understand the whole concept of teamwork, sacrifice and loyalty. I learned to submit to authority, be more concerned about the team's success and finally understood that the greatest benefit I could be to my team was to be the best 'practice player' on the squad. By the end of my senior year the leading scorer in the nation used to lament when I was assigned to guard him. "It took a long time and a lot of personal struggle, but I came to understand my role on the team. A team has many different players, each serving a specific purpose and each gifted in his or her own way and necessary for the team's success. As I attended my sixth-grade daughter's preseason basketball meeting, I thought to myself, what a testimony to where we have come, when the athletics director has to caution us as parents not to pay our player for points scored. "As parents, teachers, coaches and administrators, we must continually remind ourselves that athletics exists to promote the highest goals of sportsmanship and competition. We must stand firm against a philosophy that athletes deserve special attention or answer to a different set of rules. "We must guard against elitism that gives more attention to athletics than other activities. And, we must hold firm to the ideal that any student who wants should have opportunity to participate, especially at the middle school and junior high levels. "Parents, teachers, coaches: Let's all work together to teach each student-athlete that there is something greater to be gained than personal recognition. The success of the team is much more meaningful than the success of the individual. Loyalty, respect for authority and respect for each other are trophies that have much more long-lasting significance than a winning season or a playoff berth."
Men coaching women
Jane Albright-Dieterle, women's basketball coach Discussing why there aren't more women coaches for women's teams: "I think our game is so much younger than the men's game. If you ask people who the top men's (basketball) coach is, they might say John Wooden or maybe even Adolph Rupp. They taught people who taught people who taught people. "The evolution of our game is much younger. If you said, 'Who's the top coach in our game?' most people would tell you (Tennessee's) Pat Summitt. She has taught people who have taught people. But that's the end."
Jim Jabir, women's basketball coach "I don't see myself as a male coaching women. I see myself as a person coaching another person, and ... until we start looking at people as people and not as black people or white people or females or males, we're going to have problems on this planet. "I think we should stop looking at that stuff and start looking at what's inside a person. Outside doesn't matter."
Mariah Burton Nelson, author "When all the jobs were volunteer, it was only women who volunteered. With the passage of Title IX, women's coaching positions began to be paid and men got interested in them. Also, a lot of athletics departments merged. The former men's athletics director became the overall athletics director and he turned around and hired men to coach women."
R. Vivian Acosta, professor "If a man had played varsity basketball in college, then he was deemed qualified to coach women's teams. If a woman had played college basketball and didn't have a degree in, let's say physical education, and neither did the guy, she was deemed not qualified because she didn't have the educational background."
Site Content and Development copyright © 1997 National Collegiate Athletic Association Site Design/Build by MAI Interactive, L.L.C. Questions or Comments? Contact The NCAA.
|