National Collegiate Athletic Association |
CommentMay 25, 1998
Guest editorial -- Changes could aid Prop 62 effectiveness
By Michael E. Cross and Ann G. Vollano The long anticipated passage of legislation permitting student-athletes to work finally occurred April 22, 1998. The NCAA should be commended for accommodating the student-athlete's pursuit of practical work experience and spending money, a necessity for much of the general student population. Regardless of how well-intentioned this legislation may be, its passage creates a monitoring nightmare for compliance programs. The primary concern surrounding passage of the legislation is a potential increase in cheating that occurred under former systems that allowed student-athletes to work (for example, no-show jobs, overpaying for a lower level of work, shady booster involvement). Throughout a year of debate, few substantive suggestions have been made about how to appropriately monitor student-athlete employment. These decisions will be left to the individual institution, and levels of vigilance will vary widely. Furthermore, it has not been demonstrated that this proposal will "keep the playing field level." The proposal that was passed likely will favor the schools with the largest booster organizations and institutions in large cities that can provide substantial numbers of entry-level and service jobs. These concerns need to be addressed. From a compliance standpoint, it is important to understand that it is impossible to prevent an institution or individual committed to cheating from paying a student-athlete "under the table." Those who want to cheat will find a way. Under-the-table payments create opportunity for no-show positions or employment arrangements where the student-athlete is paid more than the prevailing wage. No system can monitor what is not reported. The goal in monitoring employment should be to monitor what is reported in a fair and equitable manner. We propose three solutions to the vexing dilemma associated with student-athletes working: (1) monitoring the amount of time worked instead of the amount of money earned, (2) using campus and federal systems that already exist to prevent fraudulent activities, and (3) establishing harsh penalties for those who cheat. The current legislation limits permissible earnings up to $2,000 before becoming "countable" in team scholarship limits. Under this system, even if the employment is documented, it will be difficult to ascertain whether the money was earned legitimately. Monitoring will be cost- and time-intensive while the limit of $2,000 does nothing to eliminate paying substantially more than the prevailing wage or payments for no-show jobs. Instead of limiting the amount of permissible earnings, the NCAA should instead limit the number of hours that a person can work during a given period of time. This limit should be 10 hours per week. The reasonable expectation is that a student-athlete would have difficulty working more than 10 hours in a given week. There are simply too many demands on their time -- such as class, practice, and competition -- to possibly devote more time than this to legitimate work. The limit of 10 hours per week should be used in conjunction with the requirement that student-athletes who wish to work must submit a federal tax form and apply for federal financial aid each year before receiving an athletics grant-in-aid. Student-athlete employment then will operate within a set of parameters that already exist on every campus, the financial aid office. The benefits of limiting the number of hours worked while requiring submission of a financial aid application and tax documentation are substantial. Monitoring this legislation becomes equitable for student-athletes in various parts of the country. The benefits include: (1) The possibility of paying a student-athlete excessively for work not performed is reduced. Under the current proposal, student-athletes could be paid $2,000 at one time or in two or three lump sums. Limiting the number of hours worked would result in sustained weekly payments that are traceable and require better documentation on the part of the employer, thus reducing abuse. (2) The ability to pay a student-athlete for work not performed is diminished. By limiting the number of hours that can be worked per week, employers or boosters will have to engage in a pattern of abuse that is more likely to be detected if documented employment arrangements are used and diligence in monitoring is exercised by the athletics program. (3) Limiting the number of hours worked eliminates the need to calculate which employment earnings are countable or non-countable. Where the student-athlete works will become irrelevant because only limited time can be spent in the activity. Using the 10-hour per week figure, it would be very difficult for anyone to earn more than approximately $3,200 during the school year (assuming 32 weeks in the academic year x $10/hour x 10 hours/week). In most cases, this will not even push the student over his or her actual cost of attendance. Anyone who were to exceed $3,200 while working only 10 hours each week should be carefully scrutinized for work not performed or payment at an excessive rate. Furthermore, a student should not be punished for the ability to earn more than $2,000 in legitimate activities. Reduced opportunity for abuse will remove the need to limit locations of work and concerns over how the job was obtained. (4) Economic differences throughout the country will dictate the prevailing wage. Employment for all student-athletes will account for the economic realities of where they attend school. Limiting the number of hours allows local economic constraints to function. Two thousand dollars earned by a student-athlete in Los Angeles is not going to have the same value as $2,000 earned in Norman, Oklahoma. But an hour spent working, regardless of where you live, is the same amount of time. (5) Cheating carries the threat of greater punishment than at the present time. By requiring a federal financial aid application and tax documents, student-athletes accept the responsibility that their reported financial information is accurate. As a result, in addition to NCAA regulation, federal and state laws and perjury penalties will be in effect. Cheating not only the NCAA but also the federal government will create a far more serious situation than the potential loss of a scholarship. Ultimately, detection of improper activities will come from individuals providing information about abuse or the diligence of the department's compliance and coaching staff in monitoring employment arrangements. Monitoring is more effective if it is not an unnecessarily complicated process. Using established systems will allow compliance programs to focus on other activities that should be of greater concern to the Association. Finally, strong penalties should be in place for those who cheat. Student-athletes should lose eligibility for willful violations of these bylaws and be held directly responsible for their actions. Institutions that cheat should lose the opportunity for their student-athletes to work. By working within a monitoring system that already is in place, as well as establishing serious penalties that would be used in conjunction with federal and state laws, student-athlete employment will provide the intended benefits to the majority of individuals who follow the rules. Michael E. Cross and Ann G. Vollano are assistant compliance coordinators at the University of Michigan. Comment -- Schools need to enhance game-day value
BY DON COSTANTE As sports marketing directors, we all understand that our success is based on how well we can satisfy the desires, needs and interests of our customers -- the fans. Today's fans are more sophisticated than ever before. No longer can we just assume that the game itself is entertainment enough. The days of scheduling basketball shootouts and other traditional promotions certainly have not passed us by. However, with competition from other entertainment substitutes and with increasing ticket prices, fans are beginning to demand more for their money than just a ticket to the ballgame. It is extremely important that we make the necessary adjustments and changes to our marketing plans that will enhance the fans' game-day experience and keep them returning to our arenas for years to come. There is one determining factor that plays a major role in the decision-making process of whether to purchase a ticket: Does that ticket have a perceived value equal to or greater than that of the price of the ticket? The perception of value is, in my opinion, the single most important ingredient to a ticket buyer. Winning doesn't assure attendance Just winning does not necessarily equate with sold-out arenas. In 1993-94, the Atlanta Hawks had the best record in the Eastern Conference of the National Basketball Association; however, they were also second to last in paid attendance. That example proves one important fact: A fan measures the price of the ticket by the perceived value in what that ticket offers. How can you add value to your ticket and get your fans into your sports venue? Some schools will try to lower the price of their ticket. That approach may work, but if your fans see less value in your product, then lowering the ticket price will yield less than desirable results. Jon Spoelstra, a leader in sports marketing, sums it up best: "If the perception of your team has a low value to start with, lowering the price won't do much good. The perception of value has to be raised." There are many "controllable" ways to increase the value of your ticket. First, let me explain what I mean by "controllable." When you are trying to sell a product that has a low perception level of value, the first reasonable thing to do is to improve your product. As marketing directors, we have no control over the product; therefore, all of our efforts must be spent on the things that we can control, such as the fans' game-day experience through the use of entertainment and atmosphere. Involve the fans Many teams are successful at entertaining their fans. It seems the most entertaining environments are created through the use of nontraditional and interactive promotions. By creating a promotion that involves the fans' participation, you have accomplished two things: First, the entertainment value for the fan is increased; second, you have improved the success rate of that individual promotion. Certainly there is no guarantee that any promotion will be successful, yet by including the fans in your promotions they will be more apt to enjoy them. I joined the University of Memphis at the end of September 1997. It became abundantly clear from the start that Memphis' basketball program had a strong reputation among the local community. Despite the Tigers' reputation, paid attendance had continued to drop from slightly more than 16,000 six years ago to about 11,000 in 1997 (in an arena that seats 21,000). This decrease in paid attendance has occurred despite the winning efforts of the basketball team. What did this mean? Simply stated, the perception of value had to be raised. We put together a marketing plan that focused on one overall goal -- to entertain the fans from the moment they step into the arena to the moment they leave. After determining that we needed to add value to our ticket by enhancing the fans' game-day experience, we launched several events and promotions. For example, in one area of the concourse we established a "Kid's Fun Zone" that provided children with the opportunity to have their faces painted or caricature drawings made. Clowns also were positioned around that area to entertain the crowd by making and giving away sculpted balloons. In another location of the concourse, we developed an interactive promotion that gave Tigers fans the opportunity to test their skills at making a three-pointer or a foul shot. Inside the arena, we presented a spectacular pyrotechnic show as the team was being introduced. In addition to the fireworks, our Tiger mascot repelled from the catwalk for added excitement. Our half-time shows were always unique. We decided to eliminate the traditional shooting promotions, which forced us to become more creative and innovative in our approach to the half times. Occasionally, we surprised our fans with premium items that they could use to cheer on the Tigers and take home with them as a memento of their game-day experience. Of course, we still counted on the enthusiasm of the band, the dynamic routines of the Pom Pon Squad, and the spirit of the cheerleaders, all of which added value to the ticket. What was the result of our efforts to enhance our fans' game-day experience? In short, fantastic! The reaction and participation of our fans at each home basketball game was tremendous. Overall season attendance increased by 19 percent, and we were able to achieve four sellouts for the first time since 1993 with a team record of 17-12. I believe that we will be better able to determine the success of our efforts from 1997-98 as we head into the 1998-99 season and can evaluate future ticket sales. Ultimately, your fans will force you to become more imaginative and creative in your approach to game-day entertainment. I realize that many schools want to preserve the "college" atmosphere and are resistant to creating an "NBA" environment. However, I believe that the primary goal of any school or NBA team (outside of generating revenue and ticket sales) should be to enhance the fans' game-day experience by creating an atmosphere that is entertaining from the moment they step into the arena to the moment they leave. Fans want to be entertained, and it is our job to take care of their desires and needs. Don Constante is director of marketing and promotions and corporate sales at the University of Memphis. Opinions -- Women's interest will follow provision of opportunity
Donna Lopiano, executive director "While boys are constantly bombarded by the reinforcing and encouraging images of their predecessors occupying successful positions in sports, medicine, engineering and the military, women are missing from these same images. Girls, on the other hand, see images of themselves in these roles less frequently and often lack the same opportunity and encouragement given to their brothers. "There is a double standard inherent in maintaining that girls and women are not as interested in sports as boys. Boys and men have never been asked to prove their interest in order to receive sports opportunities. "If a men's sport is unsuccessful, there is no presumption of lack of ability or interest. Rather, the coach is blamed for being an unsuccessful teacher and motivator. "The opposite treatment occurs in women's sports. Usually a low-paid and under-qualified coach is initially hired and the team is given a poor practice time, insufficient budget and inadequate facilities. If few women stay with the program or if insufficient numbers try out for the team, the conclusion is 'lack of interest,' and Title IX becomes an 'annoying quota.' "If (anybody) knows of a scenario in which an educational institution established a women's team, hired a qualified coach, offered scholarship incentives and gave the coach funds to recruit incoming female students, yet couldn't find any women with the interest and ability to play on the team, let us know, it will be a first! "Title IX has opened many doors to all girls. It is not about quotas; it is about treating our daughters the same way we treat our sons."
Metal baseball bats
Sam Blalock, baseball coach Discussing the "trampoline" effect of new bats: "I hit with one of the new ones and it felt like I hit it on a tennis racquet, it gave so much.''
George Manning, vice-president of technical services "It's hard for me as a scientist to conclude that there is a real valid concern there for safety. I will agree that somewhere along the line you could get too high a velocity, but I don't believe we are there.''
Mark Johnson, baseball coach "A .300 hitter now is not necessarily as good as a .300 hitter 10 years ago because the bat has improved so much. A lot of coaches would like to see change, and not just for safety. Too many coaches know the game is changing at a rapid pace. You almost have to have an asterisk by some stats: 10 homers in 1998, is that comparable to a guy in 1975 who hit eight?''
|