Guest editorial -- Report should trigger action, not comparison
By Ted Leland
Stanford University
The 1999 NCAA Gender-Equity Study, compiled by the NCAA research staff, should by now have arrived in the offices of all NCAA member institutions.
I encourage athletics administrators throughout the membership to take a comprehensive look at the report, not to see where your school compares to the whole, but to remind each of us that we have individual responsibility to do the right thing.
The report reveals that the membership's work is far from over in regard to providing equal opportunities and resources for our female student-athletes. We continue to show progress but not at the rate our student-athletes deserve.
Most revealing in the results is that our work is not complete and our current rate of progress is too slow. Our student-athletes are our most important commodity, and they deserve our best in providing equitable resources in every aspect of what we do. That is what the federal mandate expects -- to provide equal opportunities between genders. Successful adherence to Title IX in NCAA intercollegiate athletics is possible as long as we each do our part.
As you peruse the report, three areas need focused and immediate attention across all three divisions: participation opportunities, recruiting expenditures and assistant coaches' salaries.
In the most recent report, men are provided 60 percent and women 40 percent of the participation opportunities on most campuses. The three percent of positive growth in women's opportunities since the last study is commendable; however, women have gained only nine percent in participation opportunities in the past six years, and the other areas unfortunately are further behind.
The report also reveals that in each of the three divisions, approximately 70 percent of the recruiting dollars are spent on male student-athletes and only 30 percent on females.
Finally, assistant coaches for men's teams not only outnumber those allocated to women's teams, but the salaries for assistant coaches are very disproportionate. Men's assistant coaches receive 73 percent and women's assistant
coaches receive 27 percent of the resources at the Division I level. This mismatch is not limited to Division I, either; Divisions II and III are in similar positions, resulting in our need to take a look at what is provided to our student-athletes in regard to the number of and compensation for assistant coaches. The Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act report that you complete annually needs to be looked at as a very important assessment tool. This tool provides an annual snapshot of where institutions are in regard to compliance with each of the 13 areas of Title IX. The annual report, though tedious and time-consuming to complete, provides us with an opportunity to evaluate and determine whether changes need to be made to ensure compliance.
The report is not intended to serve as a comparison of where your institution fits in regard to the aggregate report. The intent is to provide an assessment of where an individual institution stands compared to itself, because institutions are held individually accountable.
I challenge each member institution -- including my own school, Stanford University -- to take the most recently completed Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act report, critically analyze it and determine which areas need immediate attention on your respective campus, based on institutional philosophy and resources.
As leaders in intercollegiate athletics, we can address inequities that impact student-athletes. If we each take responsibility to address those areas that need attention, we will be doing the "right thing" for both our male and female student-athletes: creating an atmosphere where each student-athlete is provided an opportunity to excel academically and athletically.
Ted Leland is chair of the NCAA Division I Management Council and director of athletics at Stanford University.
Comment -- Football could benefit by thinking small
By Mike Wenzl
California Polytechnic State University
A few weeks ago, I read in The New York Times that my alma mater has given the head football coach a new contract, good for $700,000 per annum over a period of years. Needless to say, I was shocked.
When I regained consciousness, I did some hasty calculations revealing that he will in the future earn monthly what a full professor at my present institution will earn yearly.
However, whenever a faculty member even mentions subjects like this, he or she is accused of whining or, worse, the sacrilegious questioning of a system that says everyone should be allowed to earn as much money as they can, regardless of whether it is just, expedient or wise.
No one denies that over the past two decades, the inequities among the various football-playing schools have grown wider and wider. A recent Los Angeles Times article pointed out the difficult situation that now exists between the NCAA and the Bowl Championship Series. It is apparently now the case that the Division I-A football schools operate more or less independently of the NCAA, following the rules on such matters as eligibility, but pretty much independent in most other significant ways.
There is no better evidence of these competitive inequities than the first part of the football schedule at most Division I-A schools. The practice of lining up early season "patsies" is well-established. Locally, they are called "body-bag games." Many schools away from big markets feel they must schedule such games for the money they receive. And the "haves" are only too eager to beat up on the "have-nots" -- partly to compile impressive win-loss records, and partly to keep those early season opponents barely alive so that they can beat up on them again next year. It's not a pretty sight.
Competitive equity
The situation has now reached the point where it is not unusual (at least in the West) for a have-not school to play a nonscholarship school one week and an 85-scholarship school the next. In order to get a schedule, some schools not in the elite must play schools not competitive with them, so they believe they are left with the choice either of thrashing someone far below them (just as their I-A big brothers do), or not having anyone to play at all.
Early on in the NCAA Manual, there is something called "Principles for Conduct of Intercollegiate Athletics." Under this heading, there is a section called "The Principle of Competitive Equity," which states that the NCAA shall promote "equality in competition" so that athletes can achieve "the benefits inherent in participation in intercollegiate athletics."
It would be interesting to see exactly what the NCAA is doing (or can do) to promote competitive equity. The big football schools do whatever they can to resist any reform that might somehow lessen their present power. They have (before the recent reorganization of the NCAA misnamed "reform") even threatened to walk out if they don't get their way. The principle regarding competitiveness is ignored whenever it is convenient.
Reduction in scholarships
One way in which greater competitive equity might be achieved would be to reduce the number of full-time football scholarships in Division I-A to a more reasonable number -- for purposes of argument, let's say 60. If this were to be seriously proposed, the screaming and yelling would soon reach a level that would drown out rational discussion. But, consider the benefits of such a reduction:
* It would increase competitive parity. More schools could compete and would have a better chance of winning. More schools offering fewer rides would increase interest all around.
* It would increase opportunities for athletes. It follows that if more schools are offering scholarships, more athletes would get a chance to compete. There would be more interest in a schedule in which a present "cannon-fodder" school might actually have a chance to win.
* It would quickly tell us who the best coaches are. Judgment of talent would become crucial.
* It would increase the number of walk-ons, thereby making the team more representative of the student body at large.
It has always seemed ironic to me that the organization that has as one of its central purposes the promotion of good, honest competition has no control over an organization (the BCS) that, beyond a fairly small number of schools, seems more interested in restraining competition than promoting it.
This fall, when I opened my Sports Illustrated, there were the same old teams, with the same old astronomically paid coaches, the same monster stadiums and squads who believe that superiority in a sport is more a function of what you can afford to spend than anything else.
Faculty members have been told for years that they must make do with less, that the times require that we tighten our belts. Meanwhile, athletics budgets at many schools continue to spiral out of sight. Coaches constantly give lip service to the importance of education as the central mission of any respectable university. Yet, I haven't heard one of them speak up in criticism of a system that pays a football coach 10 to 20 times what a faculty member gets after, in most cases, 25 years of service.
I think that anyone who truly cares about competition and other values that competition is supposed to foster ought to support a reduction in full-time scholarships in Division I-A football.
What is so sacred about the number 85, anyway?
Mike Wenzl is the faculty athletics representative at California Polytechnic State University.
Letter to the Editor -- McLendon's influence touched many lives
The sports world lost one of the greats recently -- John McLendon, a former coach in the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics. As a former coach and teacher, he influenced the lives of many young men who played for him at various institutions.
My first contact with McLendon was in Kansas City, Missouri, at the NAIA national tournament in 1959. I was a junior guard on the Southwest Texas State University men's basketball team. We played McLendon's Tennessee State University in the semifinals and were defeated by two points. Tennessee State went on to win the championship that year with players such as Dick Barnett and John Barnhill.
I was impressed by the discipline of McLendon's team and his players' demeanor both on and off the court. At that time there were no black athletes playing in our conference, and most of the great black players were playing for all-black universities, particularly in the South.
The next year, we were apparently headed to play coach McLendon's Tennessee State team in the national final, but Tennessee State was upset, and we went on to win the title. I was later selected to the NAIA all-star team and invited to participate in the 1960 Olympic Trials in Denver.
Three of my teammates on the Olympic Trials team were from Tennessee State and had played for coach McLendon for several years. Those players were Rossie Johnson, Porter Merriweather and Gene Wertz. I was very impressed by those three men and ended up spending most of my time at the Olympic Trials in their company. It was very evident that coach McLendon had influenced their lives tremendously.
I was fortunate to run into McLendon again at numerous NCAA championships when he was a representative of Converse shoes. All of us who have been touched by John McLendon will miss him very much, but he will not be forgotten.
Rudy Davalos
Director of Athletics
University of New Mexico
Opinions -- Women need cross management to gain leadership roles
Karol Kahrs, president
National Association of Collegiate Women Athletics Administrators
Athletics Administration
"Prior to the inclusion of women administrators in NACDA in 1975, as well as including women's athletics in the NCAA in 1981, females filled almost 100 percent of the leadership opportunities for women in the AIAW. There were more than 1,200 leadership opportunities for women at the state, regional and national levels of the AIAW. Today, in the coaching ranks, women hold only 47.4 percent of the coaching responsibilities. The top administrative position of athletics director continues to be traditionally filled by males, with only 9.9 percent females holding those positions in Division I, 18.6 percent in Division II and 21.4 percent in Division III. ...
"Institutions that rely upon streams of revenue that incorporate ticket sales, sponsorships and gifts from major donors have attempted, and in many cases have been successful, to preclude women from serving in the capacity of athletics director. The basic reason given for not hiring women has typically been lack of experience in football and fund-raising. Cross management of sport administrative responsibilities can help to bridge the gap. It is hoped that more presidents in the future will become convinced that women administrators can and are qualified to serve as directors of athletics, because they possess leadership and management abilities to direct all programs, including those with football."
Academic standards
Jackie Sherrill, head football coach
Mississippi State University
Memphis Commercial Appeal
"If a prospect doesn't fit the standard deviation of your student body -- that is, if his ACT or SAT score indicates his chance of graduating from your university isn't very good -- it's going to be very difficult for that athlete to successfully perform schoolwork. You can't sign players who only have a 20, 30, or 40 percent chance of graduating from your university."
Creed Black, former president
Knight Foundation Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics
Des Moines Register
"Each and every faculty member at any college is responsible for academic integrity on their campus and it is critical that they become much more involved with their athletics departments. They are the guardians of academic integrity, yet when it comes to athletics, most simply are indifferent to it. So far, they are sleeping giants."
Amateurism
Christine Grant, director of women's athletics
University of Iowa
USA Today
Discussing proposals that would deregulate NCAA rules regarding the definition of amateurism:
"We want to try to allow a failed professional at least some kind of intercollegiate experience, with an education, if that's a commitment he's willing to make. I don't think they should be forever banned. That's far too harsh. ...
"What we should be concerned about is what is the definition of an amateur while a student-athlete is in our university. In the past, we've tried to cover everything from the moment they're born until the time they graduate."
