Search News


Browse Archives

News

NCAA in Orlando: Mickey, Minnie and Myles

January 8, 2007

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

They were the most vocal contingent during legislative sessions, but the students representing the interests of college athletes were dealt back-to-back blows over the weekend at the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s annual convention in Orlando.

First, the Division I membership voted to override its Board of Directors' previous decision that allowed students who have received their undergraduate degrees to transfer to another institution for their graduate work without having to sit out a year of competition, provided that they met eligibility requirements. Then, the same group voted to uphold the board’s decision to defeat a proposed permanent 12th game in the Division I championship football subdivision, which used to be called I-AA. The higher subdivision already has 12 games per year.

In both cases, the Student-Athlete Advisory Committee supported the losing side of the vote.

Seventy percent of institutions cast votes against the continuation of the transfer eligibility rule (62.5 percent is needed for an override.) Students generally argued that they should be able to have control over their graduate school choice, and an eligibility and compliance committee of Division I members sided with them.

But coaches expressed concern that the board’s decision created an unruly “free agent” marketplace for college athletes – one in which advisers would encourage students to go wherever they can to get the most exposure.

In the months since the Division I board passed the legislation, NCAA data showed that only a fraction of eligible students had actually transfered under the new rule. Opponents of the plan said that number would only rise.

“Let’s take a look on a case-by-case basis, but let’s not turn everyone loose,” Myles Brand, the NCAA president, said at a press conference.

Fewer than 50 percent of voters supported the permanent addition of the 12th football game.

Report on Athletes’ Choices of Major

NCAA officials also used the occasion of the group's annual meeting to release a report showing that a significant share of athletes say their participation in sports prevents them from selecting their desired major.

Some have said that the NCAA’s progress toward degree requirement,  which compels athletes to complete a certain percentage of their required courses each year to remain eligible, forces them to make snap decisions in choosing a major.

Critics can find some helpful data in the report, called “The Study of College Outcomes and Recent Experiences” or “SCORE,” which polled 8,000 former students who graduated from high school in 1994. Thirty-two percent of Division I male athletes who played in the so-called revenue sports  said in the survey that playing sports got in the way of selecting the major they wanted.

“That’s a number we need to look into,” said Todd Petr, the NCAA’s managing director of research.

For women and men in Divisions II and III, the number of students who reported having to make a concession because of sports was fewer, and in some cases significantly so. Brand said the telling category in the survey is the one in which students said they regretted having to make the choice. Nine percent in the Division I male revenue category reported regret, as compared with 5 percent of other Division I male athletes and 6 percent of Division I women’s athletes. Fewer than 7 percent of athletes in Divisions II and III said they had such a regret.

Brand said those numbers are “encouraging,” and that the figures wouldn’t look much different had the survey asked the same question of the general student population.

The report showed that roughly 65 percent of Division I athletes said that their grades would be higher if they didn’t play a sport. Roughly 50 percent of Division II and III agreed with that statement.

Business was the most popular major among athletes in each of the NCAA’s divisions, according to SCORE.

The NCAA also released another report showing that the majority of athletes said their professors viewed them more as an athlete than as a student. Not surprisingly, football and men’s basketball players in Division I most often made that assertion.

Brand used part of his state of the association address to encourage athletic administrators to take measures to help boost students’ graduation rates. He also called for more black coaches in Division I football.

Defining Division II

“We have ticker envy,” admitted Charles Ambrose, chair of the NCAA Division II Presidents Council and president of Pfeiffer University, during a meeting about that division’s future. He was referring to the fact that the so-called "crawl" of scores that appears on sports television channels only includes contests from Division I, the NCAA's top competitive level .

In recent years, Division II has lost members to Division I and has become increasingly concerned about its identity, Ambrose said. So its members used the NCAA convention to lay out a campaign, with the slogan, “I chose Division II,” which is intended to help the division with branding efforts.

The strategic planning campaign intends to show the benefits of the Division II experience, including what the official literature calls "participation in high-level academic competition without an overemphasis of sports in student life." The division has commissioned a study to assess what financial benefits its members have over those that migrate to Division I.

“We’re the only division to have a document like this that says what we’re about," said Mike Racy, the NCAA's vice president for Division II.

Also at the Convention...

The University of Miami and Florida International University athletics directors, whose teams sparred in a memorable football brawl last fall, took part in a panel called “Sportsmanship Lessons Learned -- What Happens When Things Go Wrong?” Neither coach said that the pre-game mood on the field that day caused any alarm....

Brand referred to the brawl during his speech, saying that those who called for greater penalties on participants in the brawl didn’t understand the situation. “The presidents knew what they were doing,” he said. “They wanted to use community service to teach respect for others.” ...

Derrick Watkins, a retired gang detective from Orange County, Calif.,  and former football player at the University of Missouri at Columbia, warned athletics administrators about gang influences in college sports. “I watched a lot of bowl games over the New Year, and I saw a lot of gang signs flashed,” he said.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on NCAA in Orlando: Mickey, Minnie and Myles

  • Good Students Are Punished
  • Posted by Craig C , political pundit at http://blogresponder.blogspot.com on January 8, 2007 at 8:16am EST
  • The first issue in this piece indicates to me that coaches don't want student athletes to be exceptional students. Taking away the right to leave one university to go somewhere else for graduate school (without losing a year of participation in sports) doesn't encourage excellence in academic performance. This issue (lack of academic performance among college athletes) has long been a target of those who would cut back or eliminate college sports. The vote against transfering is a vote against excellence.

  • Going pro in what
  • Posted by michael on January 8, 2007 at 11:30am EST
  • I have seen the commercials, which are repeated several times during NCAA events. The majority of athletes are going pro in something other than sports. Have administrators seen this ad?

    How can Dr. Brand reconcile the vote to prevent students form choosing a graduate program with his organization's commitment to education?

    Finally, no amount of branding effort will staunch the flow of schools from Division II to Division I. The NCAA could staunch the flow by enforcing its own membership rules including attendance at football games, and number of scholarships funded.

    If the NCAA did enforce its rules, then a lot of Pac 10 and Big 11 schools' out of conference football schedules would include many non-Division I-A programs. Can't have that.

  • Graduate Students and Athletics
  • Posted by Peter Wolfe , Professor of Mathematics at University of Maryland on January 8, 2007 at 2:35pm EST
  • It is inconceivable to me that a serious full-time graduate student would have the time to participate in college athletics, especially in the money sports. Sure, many of our students are TA's, but this is discipline related and gives them valuable experience whatever they do after they finished their studies. A graduate student-athlete is truely an oxymoron.

  • Posted by Michael on January 8, 2007 at 7:50pm EST
  • It is curious that in the midst of Congress' demands upon the NCAA to justify its and its members tax exempt status that the explosion in coaches' salaries was not on this agenda. With Nick Saban receiving somewhere between $30 and $40 million to walk out on a contract with the Miami Dolphins to coach Alabama and Rick Petrino walking out on a 10 year $25 million contract at Louisville to coach the Atlanta Falcons, the public is certainly aware that something is amiss here. Dr. Brand likes to stress the academic mission of collegiate athletics, but what are schools and their coaches teaching when they tolerate and even advocate such moves? Team sports are supposed to teach these student athletes that things such as loyalty to others and dependence upon others are virtues to be held high. Saban and Petrino both make a mockery of these and indeed teach students that such "virtues" are to be avoided at all costs. It would be good to hear Dr. Brand defend this trend to Congress.

  • Coaches salaries and the NCAA
  • Posted by paul on January 9, 2007 at 11:25am EST
  • Once before (the restricted earnings coaches case), the NCAA (with the best possible intentions) got involved in coaches salaries. The federal courts hammered the NCAA using the Sherman antitrust act. I think there's no chance whatsosever that the NCAA will, or even can, get involved in this issue again, and it's almost silly to expect them to do so.

  • Major Changing
  • Posted by Michael on January 9, 2007 at 1:00pm EST
  • So far, no one has commented on the major issue brought out in this article. I am concerned when "Brand said those numbers are “encouraging,” and that the figures wouldn’t look much different had the survey asked the same question of the general student population." I disagree wholeheartedly.

    A student in the general population does not have to meet strict percentage toward degree requirements to remain in school. While it is folly, a student could change majors any number of times prior to graduating.

    If the student-athlete was really treated like the general student population, then this arbitrary percentage would not exist. The reason there is more satisfaction in DII and DIII stems from their satisfactory progress rules - essentially pass 24 hours with a 2.0 in a degree program each academic year.