National Collegiate Athletic Association |
CommentJune 1, 1998
Student-athlete view -- Division III at a major ideological intersection
By Maricella Ociguera The NCAA's new automatic-qualification selection principles for championship competition will be a very important and self-defining decision for Division III athletics. Before accepting or implementing these new selection principles, it is necessary to understand completely how the change will affect not only the national championships but more importantly, how the change will affect the student-athlete, the institutions, and the overall emphasis and focus of Division III athletics. The proposed qualification principles strive to standardize criteria across the country, taking away potential inconsistencies and biases of selection and ranking committees. The selection principles also claim to increase student-athlete participation by placing more emphasis on conference championships. Institutions would be divided into three pools: Pool A would provide one bid for every eligible conference in the nation. Pool B would consist of independent schools and conferences that do not meet Pool A's automatic-qualifying conference standards; one of every eight schools would receive a bid from Pool B. Pool C would be an at-large pool for schools that are not conference champions and also would offer one bid for every eight institutions. The Division III Student-Athlete Advisory Committee (SAAC) consists of representatives from 23 schools, with only three members from independent schools. When the Division III SAAC reviews pertinent NCAA issues, the voice of the student-athlete from independent institutions is not strong because of the small numbers. This may influence how automatic-qualification principles are viewed by the committee. I am writing this article as an individual from an independent school. I believe it is extremely important not to overlook the independent schools since they make up a significant portion of Division III institutions. The mission statement of Division III athletics places great emphasis on the academic life of the athlete. For this reason, bylaws have been created that limit the length of each season, as well as the number of matches per season. By stressing the importance of the conference championships, there is a potential for postseason championship tournaments that would extend the season. Because these conference championship tournaments are exempt from the maximum number of contests allowed per year, some student-athletes potentially would be exposed to an extended schedule. The emphasis on conference championships excludes a significant portion of Division III student-athletes, those from the independent institutions. The first discussions about automatic-qualification principles included guaranteed access for independent schools. However, it appears that this guarantee has de-creased. In the extreme case, all Pool B bids could go to nonqualifying conference teams. Being from an independent school, my athletics experience never included a conference game, let alone a championship. I speak on behalf of all independent institutions that have only the national championship tournament to aim for. Emphasizing conference championships will diminish the postseason goal for roughly 20 percent of Division III institutions. Automatic-qualification principles appear very appealing to schools already in a conference since they allow for one automatic bid per conference of eight or more schools. There also is a "second chance" for those who do not win a conference championship since they are placed in the third at-large pool, "C." Independent schools do not have such an opportunity. Placed in a pool with other independent schools and nonautomatic qualifying conferences, they are still subject to the exact inconsistencies, bias of selection and subjective ranking committees that the new qualification principles were created to avoid. Perhaps the greatest disadvantage of automatic qualification is that it does not reduce the subjectivity factor for those in Pools B and C. Rather, the automatic bids given to the conference Pool A only reduces the number of available playoff spots left in Pools B and C, the independent and non-automatic-qualifying institutions. For example, a traditionally weak conference that currently would not earn a bid under the new automatic principles would qualify for a spot in the championships. This theoretically would take away a playoff spot for independent and nonautomatically qualifying conference institutions that may be more competitive than the team receiving the automatic bid. Schools in Pool A not only have the benefit of being guaranteed a championship bid by being conference champions, but they also can be selected for the championship in Pool C. Perhaps if the institutions in Pool B (independent and nonqualifying conferences) were considered for selection in Pool C, then all institutions would receive the benefit of this "second chance." The focus on conference championships is an attempt to decrease traveling costs since playoff qualification could be attained regionally. However, it will be difficult for independent schools to gain the national ranking they need to be considered for a playoff bid when there are few independent schools nearby. This is a dilemma especially for Division III independent schools in California, Colorado and Texas. These schools would be forced to travel to improve their potential for selection in Pool B. Conference schools attempting to build nationally ranked programs would be given guaranteed access to the NCAA championships through their conference championships. But independent schools that are trying to establish themselves nationally may never have the opportunity to compete in the NCAA championships unless they demonstrate national competitiveness and incur additional traveling expenses. These are the main questions the Division III membership needs to address:
The overall effect of the automatic qualifying principles has the potential to decrease access opportunities for institutions from nonqualifying conferences. Automatic qualification poses a tradeoff since it may lead to a national championship that does not involve the strongest teams. These issues must be addressed and taken into consideration before a final draft of the automatic-qualification principles is submitted and accepted by Division III members. Maricella Ociguera is a student-athlete at the University of California, San Diego. She also is a member of the Division III Student-Athlete Advisory Committee. Letter to the Editor -- Dietary supplements can yield benefitsIn response to the dietary-supplement article in the May 11 issue of The NCAA News ("Athletes buying trouble with dietary supplements"), it is critical that when it comes to nutritional supplementation, coaches and trainers must be informed and up-to-date on what supplements are being used and for what purposes. All great athletes are seeking to gain an advantage over their opponents and will try almost any snake oil if someone tells them it works. If coaches and trainers are not informed and cannot express intelligent recommendations and real concerns, athletes will get their information from other athletes, gym owners and health-food store clerks, many of whom have no more knowledge than what is on the labels of the containers of the products they sell. The one-sided, head-in-the-sand mentality noted in your recent article is a leading factor on why athletes do take dangerous and/or ineffective supplements. To say that most supplements are ineffective or may be dangerous and should be avoided is a disservice to the athletes in collegiate athletics, especially when they see other athletes gaining an edge. Yet we think nothing of offering soft drinks to an athlete without giving thought that the phosphorous in those beverages leech the bones of much-needed calcium. Then we wonder why osteoporosis is so commonplace among women. We take sponsorships from fast-food restaurants with little regard to the long-term dietary hazards this may pose to our athletes. We give fluid-replacement beverages, which are frequently nothing more than sugar-flavored salt water. Then consider all the over-the-counter and prescription drugs given to college athletes without much regard to the long-term ramifications of these practices. Yet give an athlete a quality nutritional supplement and hear the condemnation roar. There are nutritional supplements where an NFL team has documented decreases in injury and illness since beginning their use. These same supplements have also been clearly shown to improve overall athletic performance. Do not give these to your athletes, remember, because they are better off having a burger, fries and soft drink. It is time to examine our outdated viewpoints on athlete nutrition and find them the healthy and effective alternatives they are seeking and realize that just eating good, healthy food is not enough anymore. There is a great deal out there that we do not yet understand about supplements and other nutritional aides, but we must do the research and stay at the forefront because the athletes will continue to seek the magic potion. It is up to us, as educators, coaches and trainers to give them every advantage they can get without undue risk. Athletes will take supplements. Should they get them from informed coaches and trainers (where their use can be monitored) or from profit-taking gym owners and health-food store clerks (let alone drug pushers)? This is the question we should be asking.
John D. McBride Opinions -- Rules bloat is real, but regulation essential in some areas
James E. Delany, commissioner "We have far too many rules, but there are some of them we absolutely need to compete on a relatively level field: academic standards, number of events, number of coaches, number of (scholarships) and a limit on the (scholarship's value) that is tied to the cost of going to school. If those things are not allowable, you cannot reasonably have competition between schools."
Sheldon Steinbach, general counsel "When you tie together some of the basic antitrust laws and some of the determinations involving student-athlete participants, maybe the only thing the NCAA will be able to do is set the width of the field and the height of the goal posts."
Division I
Bill Byrne, director of athletics "I'm troubled by some things going on in the NCAA. And I think there is a growing frustration among the lot of the membership over the new structure."
DeLoss Dodds, director of athletics "We need a structure. Going through the changes of the last couple of years has concerned me, because I'm not sure we have the right kind of structure."
Dan Beebe, commissioner "We have a difficult burden here, which also provides a tremendous opportunity, and that's to balance, especially in Division I, the student with the athlete. I think there's a tremendous benefit when you come out of that system balanced. It's evolving more toward that and it's doing that with the help of the critics that we have."
Restricted-earnings decision
Joe Castiglione, director of athletics "Everyone's going around saying, 'The sky is falling,' I think it's a little early to tell. This lawsuit issue has everyone a little emotional right now."
Alcohol sponsorship
Paul Woody, columnist "Alcohol consumption in the United States is glorified and beautified, and alcohol is intertwined with sports at every level above the high schools. "Beer commercials are part of almost every sports broadcast. Beer signs appear in almost every stadium and arena and, perhaps by remarkable coincidence, often show up in highlight presentations on the news. We are naive if we think our young athletes can be bombarded by this and not at least be curious about alcohol. Those who resist their curiosity in high school are free to test their limits in college. "Moderation always is preached, but athletes are not told to do anything else in moderation. Prohibition is not a viable option, and no one wants to be identified as the modern-day Carrie Nation. But the NCAA should examine its relationship with alcohol merchants. Alcohol advertising should be examined by everyone. It's nice to trot out Magic Johnson and have him tell us that 21 means 21. But the people in beer ads are not grizzled, old men with distended stomachs. They're young, attractive vibrant people who seemingly owe part of their beauty and vibrancy to the brand of beer they drink. "All but a few, rare athletes are going to drink because it's so much a part of our culture. The question athletes face is how much is enough and what is the cost of too much. Too few college athletes are asking that question. More should. The wrong answer has dangerous repercussions."
Title IX
Patricia Kent, guest columnist "The current trend of dissolving men's programs to obtain gender equity in colleges and universities is not a viable solution to the Title IX compliance dilemma. The question remains as to alternative solutions that would be fair for all athletes. A good example of positive change in gender equity resulted from a 1987 discrimination lawsuit against Washington State University and the subsequent changes made by the school. By 1988, the university had fully funded all women's sports to the NCAA scholarship maximums.... "More opportunities should be provided for women in institutions of higher learning, yet this advancement of women in college sports should not be at the expense of eliminating opportunities for men. Title IX should create equal opportunities for all participants, regardless of their gender, without discrimination."
High-tech bats
Merv Rettenmund, batting coach "If you take a professional ball player that has a good swing, especially a power hitter with a good swing, say a Mark McGwire, it (a high-tech bat) would not be legal. You couldn't put people out there in front of it. "If (Ken) Caminiti or (Greg) Vaughn or anyone who really hits a ball hard used aluminum, the infielders would be in trouble; the pitcher would obviously be in a lot of trouble. It would be something they could never do unless they softened the ball."
|