Guest editorial -- Separate scholarships for a level field in track
By Scott Irving
Florida State University
The NCAA Manual was created to ensure that every sport -- including every student-athlete, coach and administrator -- is given an equal opportunity to promote and develop excellence. The Principle of Competitive Equity surely speaks to the notion of a level playing field when it states that "the structure ... of the Association ... shall promote opportunity for equity in competition to assure that individual student-athletes and institutions will not be prevented unfairly from achieving the benefits inherent in participation in intercollegiate athletics."
When administrators talk of creating a level playing field in athletics, they are in many ways speaking of competitive equity.
Unfortunately, for the sports of cross country and track and field there is a nonlevel playing field and therefore a lack of competitive equity, since they, unlike all other NCAA countable sports, inextricably share athletics scholarships.
Coaches themselves are somewhat to blame for the injustice. Since they have the latitude to decide the event areas into which scholarships are allotted, they have not been united in their call for change. Track and field programs typically reflect the background of the head coach. If the head coach is predominantly distance oriented, the bulk of scholarships often goes to cross country. If the head coach is sprint-hurdle oriented, those event areas may receive the majority of the scholarship dollars. The same is true for the field events.
Is the latitude to decide where scholarship monies are spent competitive equity? Even coaches who attempt to build a total team concept express frustration at the inability to develop all event areas, due primarily to a lack of scholarships. No wonder track and field coaches have moved away from the dual-meet concept as they lean more toward covering their own coaching specialties.
I believe biases in scholarship distribution should be restricted rather than enhanced. To create a truly level playing field in cross coun-
try and track and field, and to truly live up to the principle of competitive equity, the scholarships for track and field and cross country must be separated. The present scholarship levels for track and field (12.6 for men and 18 for women) should be maintained, and separate scholarships for cross country (five for men and seven for women) should be established.
These scholarship adjustments will resolve many scholarship dilemmas by diminishing coaching biases, which strike a cruel blow to the very principles and purposes upon which the NCAA stands -- biases that unfairly prevent all individual student-athletes and institutions from achieving the benefits inherent in participation in intercollegiate athletics.
Is it competitive equity when one university offers one scholarship in cross country while another offers eight? One may argue that it is equitable because the coaches made the decision to award their scholarships in such a manner. Nonetheless, the greatest disparity and greatest competitive inequity in scholarship allotment from university to university occurs in cross country. Coaches, however, have been forced to award scholarships in precisely unequal fashion because there simply are not enough scholarships to cover all the events in track and field and cross country.
With more than 20 events and only 12.6 scholarships for men's track and field and cross country, it is little wonder that coaching staffs have had to make decisions about which events to emphasize and which ones to sacrifice. How can coaches not form biases when the rules defy, contradict and bias the very principles upon which the NCAA is founded? Are any other NCAA championship sports so convoluted and inequitable with regard to scholarships?
The Principle of Competitive Equity will not reign free in the sports of cross country and track and field until every student-athlete, every coach and every administrator is given an equal opportunity to promote and develop athletics excellence in these sports. This will not happen until cross country receives a specified amount of scholarships that is equal across the entire membership and separate from track and field.
A precedent for separate cross country scholarships has in fact already been set. Bylaw 15.5.3.1.3 allows programs to grant five scholarships in men's cross country and six in women's cross country. At first glance, this bylaw appears to promote opportunity for competitive equity; but, ironically, it does just the opposite. If one assumes that all Division I track and field and cross country coaches allot five or six of their scholarships to cross country, then this bylaw would indeed be equitable. However, some coaches allot more scholarships to their cross country programs and some allot fewer.
The solution to the lack of competitive equity in the sports of men's and women's cross country and track and field is to continue awarding 12.6 scholarships for men's track and field and 18 for women's track and field, and award five scholarships for men's cross country and seven scholarships for women's cross country, since 12.6 is to 18 as five is to seven. Also, change NCAA Bylaw 15.5.3.1.3 to allow seven scholarships for women, and for the purposes of restricting the number of cross country runners on scholarship, it is recommended that the sport of cross country be considered the initial counter.
There will be those who see this solution as merely an increase in scholarships for track and field (that is, 17.6 for men and 25 for women). Nothing could be further from the truth since athletes on track and field scholarships would be prohibited from running cross country, unless, of course, they were placed on a cross country scholarship for which the limits would be set (five for men and seven for women).
Some track and field coaches might actually be afraid that with these adjustments their cross country programs will finally be fairly and equitably judged by their administrations and, as a result, they would not be able to hide behind poor performance owing to inadequate scholarship funding.
These scholarship adjustments would promote integrity in track and field, elevate cross country as a countable NCAA sport by making the scholarships an equitable reflection of the recently enlarged cross country field sizes, help track and field and cross country return to the dual-meet format, and enhance gender equity, nondiscrimination and fairness in sport. Most important, the scholarship adjustments place the NCAA membership right where it belongs with respect to its very own principles: on the level playing field of competitive equity.
Scott Irving is the head cross country coach at Florida State University.
Letter to the Editor -- Academic image should be taken seriously
The following is an open letter from George W. Schubert, faculty athletics director at the University of North Dakota, to Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura in response to Ventura's observation that college athletes perhaps should not be required to attend class:
Gov. Ventura:
I have followed your comments and actions during your early days in office. I have found your comments and political direction to be refreshing. However, your comments pertaining to having athletes attend a college or university and not attend classes, yet participate in athletics, undermines the definition and concept of a student-athlete.
Everyone who follows collegiate athletics realizes that collegiate institutions are not pure and are not without fault in attempting to administer athletics programs. However, most student-athletes today are not "dumb." To the contrary, the overall grade-point average of collegiate athletes at most institutions is higher than the grade-point average of the general population of the institution. In general, student-athletes are required to be enrolled in a major area of study, student-athletes are required to be enrolled in a minimum of 12 credit hours each semester and student-athletes are required to be making normal progress in a chosen field of study.
The NCAA membership has taken the following tasks seriously: improvement of the image of collegiate athletics, enhancement of the academic quality of entering student-athletes, improvement of student-athlete graduation rates, and demonstration of the need for student-athletes to be both students and athletes.
I find your comments, as reported in the newspapers and on television, to be harmful and destructive to America's young people. Many young people are motivated to stay in school and to study because of the strong desire to participate in sport. For some high-school graduates, participation in sport is a way to pay or to help pay for a college education. Your comments, as reported, serve to destroy what coaches, teachers, education administrators, parents and others have fought so hard to overcome.
The image that they wish to erase is that collegiate athletes are stupid and are only in school to participate in sport. An overwhelming majority of student-athletes are capable of completing a university/college degree and realize that they need an education to be contributing members to society.
I strongly recommend that you retract your aforementioned statements regarding collegiate student-athletes, that you admit that you erred with your comments, and that you demonstrate support for the many positive reasons that permit sport to exist on public school, private school and collegiate campuses.
George W. Schubert
Faculty Athletics Representative
University of North Dakota
Comment -- Lower standards no option in eligibility issue
BY DENNIS W. VIAU
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA BARBARA
Should we lower the academic requirements for eligibility?
The problem with lowering the bar is that there always will be someone who can't quite meet the challenge.
Lower the SAT/ACT break points to 700/58 and there will be students who will sue the NCAA because the organization denied them an opportunity to participate in college sports. Lower them to 600/50 and the plaintiffs will be there, as they will at 500/41.
As long as we have minimum requirements, we eliminate some prospects. Those prospects who were close, but not close enough, will feel cheated. They won't blame themselves for not studying. They won't blame their teachers for not taking the time. They won't blame the school system for not requiring minimum teacher credentials. They won't blame their community for insufficiently funding the schools. They'll blame the people who said "no" to their hopes and aspirations.
Maybe the NCAA membership should strike a deal with Congress the way the tobacco industry did: "If we agree to these minimum standards, will you protect us from all future litigation?"
As ludicrous as that sounds, imagine how every other alternative sounds. As long as there are minimum requirements, there will be disappointments. As long as parents and students suffer disappointment, they will lash out with lawsuits. You can't satisfy everyone. We live in a contentious society that loves to use the courts to further its agenda.
But there is another side to this issue. The minimum standards are supposed to help assure that a student-athlete will enter college with enough academic potential to graduate. The educational rigors at an academically prestigious university do not equal those at an institution with recognizably low academic standards. A student who might not be scholastically proficient enough to maintain a 2.000 grade-point average at one university may be able to achieve at 3.000 grade-point average or better at a different university. However, prospects for both schools face the same minimum academic requirements for athletics initial eligibility.
As one example, here at UC Santa Barbara our published 1998-99 Campus Profile states that admissions averages were 3.670 high-school grade-point average (college preparatory courses) and 1,163 SAT (recentered). However, we still have some student-athletes on academic probation at the end of every quarter. The initial-eligibility index is not a predictor of academic success for our campus.
Which graduation rates are the current standards trying to improve, those at the academically prestigious university or those at an educationally less-demanding school? How can one set of minimum academic requirements be used as a predictor of academic success when entrance requirements and academic challenges vary from college to college? Do we ask the NCAA Initial-Eligibility Clearinghouse to certify only those prospects who satisfy a minimum percentage of the published admission requirements of their chosen college?
Perhaps we should label as qualifiers only those students who are admitted to a university by satisfying the published admission requirements. Students who do not satisfy those requirements but who are admitted on a request for special consideration by the athletics department would be nonqualifiers. Wouldn't this give institutions with lower academic standards an athletics advantage? The issues undoubtedly are very complicated.
The NCAA does not need to modify the current minimum academic requirements. The membership needs to rethink the entire eligibility issue from the ground up and set realistic goals for student-athletes. If SAT/ACT scores have been demonstrated to be ethnically biased, avoid them. If student-athletes complete college preparatory courses in high school, use those courses. If high-school grade-point average is not a solid indicator of college success because academic challenges vary among colleges, don't set high grade-point average minimums. We require a 2.000 grade-point average for junior college transfers. Ask the same from high-school students. Let high-school students prepare for college by taking the right courses. If they pass those courses, let them compete.
We obviously need some standards. But let us simplify rather than complicate. Do we want to add requirements when student-athletes already are using the courts to prove that they are unfairly being denied an opportunity to participate in college sports? If we do, are we prepared to deal with the potential lawsuits?
Dennis W. Viau is the assistant for student eligibility at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and author of the book, "Rules, Rules, Rules! -- NCAA Eligibility Rules You Need to Know If You Want to Play College Sports."
Opinions -- Cutting men's teams pits 'have-nots'against each other
Donna Lopiano, executive director
Women's Sports Foundation
Salt Lake Tribune
"The whole purpose of Title IX was to bring the disadvantaged up to the level of the advantaged, not to take away from somebody else. Nobody would equate equal opportunity that way. But that's the mentality. You're pitting the have-nots against the have-nots. It's nonsensical....
"There's a lot of fat there (to cut from in Division I-A football). Do you really need 85 full scholarships when you only are allowed to travel 60 and only 40 get into the game? You've got to be kidding me. Go to an equivalency of 55 scholarships, then spread them out for everyone. You can still have your 85 players .... That will create more parity and better competition, and it will allow everyone to have immediate Title IX compliance."
T.J. Kerr, wrestling coach
University of California, Bakersfield
University of New Mexico Lobo
"I have seen this happen so often it disgusts me. Strong moves need to be made to turn this ugly trend (of cutting men's nonrevenue sports) around...Title IX is a great law, an important law and a very necessary law. I am in no way against Title IX. I am simply saying that it is wrong to remove male sports to be in compliance with Title IX."
Alcohol abuse
David Satcher, U.S. surgeon general
Detroit News
"The misuse of alcohol is a major problem among college students. Alcohol abuse kills and injures more of our young people and costs our society more than all the illegal drugs put together. More than half of all college students drink primarily to get drunk. Two out of five college students are binge drinkers -- that means they have at least four to five drinks in each setting. We have to change this trend."
Women's basketball
Anne Cribbs, co-founder
American Basketball League
Village Voice
Discussing labor issues in women's professional basketball:
"I'm concerned about what's going on. I think it's too easy for the people who are really making the decisions about women's basketball to say, 'Well, gosh, if those women can't get along, who needs women's basketball anyhow?' I think that's a real danger."
