You are here: Home / 2011 / Archives for June 2011

Two Blunt and Ineffective Measures of Whether You Need to Cheat To Win

June 27, 2011 by

As the pace of NCAA violations picks up, so has the quality of play in college athletics. Never before has Division I athletics assembled such a collection of talent. Neither trend shows any signs of slowing down any time soon. So the question arises: do you need to cheat to win?

The perception depends on who you ask. When ESPN’s Dana O’Neil surveyed 20 Division I men’s basketball head coaches (sub. req’d) last year, the consensus a definite maybe, with most coaches having little trust in their peers, but most also believing that the vast majority of programs were not committing major violations. That uncertain answer is itself cause for concern.

The trouble with the NCAA’s technical and intricate rule book is that you also lose some of the correlation between cheating and competitive success. If a coach makes a hundred or so impermissible phone calls to a couple dozen prospects over the course of two-four years, how much a competitive advantage was gained? Even more significant violations have questionable true competitive impact. USC argued, quite logically, that extra benefits received by a student-athlete after enrollment do not lead to a competitive advantage since they do not induce her to attend or stay at USC or make him play better.

We can start the long process of answering this question at the two extremes. Using the strictest definition of “cheating” we have, the vacating of a national title, the answer in the two revenue sports is promising. Not until USC’s 2004 BCS and AP national titles were vacated had a football or men’s basketball championship been vacated. By the NCAA’s own definition, all the other championships are clean.

On the other end of the spectrum, we can ask how many championships were won by programs that do not have even the hint of impropriety. Put another way, how many national championships in football and men’s basketball were won by programs with no major violations? As you might guess, the answer here is a bit less encouraging:

  • Men’s Basketball: 8/73 titles – Georgetown, Holy Cross, Loyola (Chicago), Marquette, Oklahoma State (2), Stanford, Wyoming
  • Football: 4/89 titles (Poll Era) – Penn State (2), BYU (2)

Much like the answer from the basketball coaches, the results are inconclusive. Two data points on the extreme ends of the scale tell you exactly what you’d expect them too. My hope is someone takes this and expands on it to start finding more precise measures of answering this question and incorporating other sports.

Does it really matter if it’s true that you don’t need to cheat to win? Maybe. Perception is more important than reality. The Prisoner’s Dilemma is partially based on what you believe rather than reality. If we can start providing some answers to this question, there will be better information when a coach decides whether or not to cheat.

The opinions expressed on this blog are the author’s and the author’s alone, and are not endorsed by the NCAA or any NCAA member institution or conference. This blog is not a substitute for a compliance office.

About John Infante

The opinions expressed on this blog are the author’s and the author’s alone, and are not endorsed by the NCAA or any NCAA member institution or conference. This blog is not a substitute for a compliance office. If you’re a coach, do not attempt to contact the author looking for a second opinion. If you’re a parent, don’t attempt to contact the author looking for a first opinion. Compliance professionals are by their nature helpful people generally dedicated to getting to the truth. Coaches should have a bit of faith in their own, and parents should talk to one directly.

Filed Under: Bylaw Blog, Feature Tagged With: ,

Enforcement Reform Through the Years

June 21, 2011 by

In 1985 the Division I membership held a special convention to address rampant rule breaking, an idea gaining traction today. That convention lead to increased penalties and a crackdown highlighted by Southern Methodist University receiving the new “death penalty.”

But pendulums swing and after a rash of lawsuits focused on the enforcement process, particularly the major infractions process, the NCAA created a Special Review Committee chaired by former Solicitor General and BYU President Rex Lee. The Lee Committee, as it came to be known, suggested sweeping change in the enforcement process including:

  • In-person delivery of Notice of Inquiry;
  • Tape recording of all interviews with tapes provided to all parties;
  • Creation of a summary disposition procedure;
  • Initial hearing of factual disputes by an independent hearing officer with penalties imposed by the Committee on Infractions;
  • Public access to at least some portion of the hearings;
  • Appeal of penalties to a special committee;
  • Public transcripts of hearings;
  • Public explanation of actions taken regarding the infractions.

Many were adopted, including the creation of the Notice of Inquiry (although not hand-delivered), establishment of the summary disposition procedure, establishment of the Infractions Appeals Committee, and more detailed reporting of COI actions. But the two biggest recommendations, independent hearing officers and opening of hearings have not been adopted.

That list comes from the record of the House Judiciary Committee hearing on “Due Process and the NCAA.” Shortly after that hearing, the national office underwent a series of reviews that culminated in over 50 recommendations from James C. Duff, the Director of the Administrative Office of the US Courts. Duff’s recommendations centered around two major areas, increased enforcement and increased efficiency, and included:

  • Hiring more staff, including a “reporter of decisions” to review infractions-related information before it was released to the public;
  • Requiring individuals to appear before the COI to have a right to an appeal hearing;
  • Allowing institutions to submit new information for reconsideration before appeal;
  • Allowing schools to stipulate facts and procedural issues; and
  • Public responses to statements made by involved institutions and individuals.

These recommendations were all adopted. In fact, submitting information to have a case reconsidered became so prevalent that it was later limited. Institutions were pushing through incomplete cases or holding back information in case it was necessary. Now additional information can only be submitted if it was not and could not have been discovered before the case was submitted.

More recently, Gene Marsh, former member and chair of the COI, published a law review article in 2009 calling for two major changes to the Committee on Infractions. One was a variation on an old theme: increasing the number of public members from two to four. The other was brand new: having committee members write dissenting opinions in cases where the decision was not unanimous.

Finally, the Board of Directors made procedural changes designed to clarify the roles of the involved parties. The changes are primarily designed to ensure a through understanding of the current process. That is backed up by the Enforcement Experience, so that media members would gain a better understanding of the process.

If you believe the enforcement process to be broken, it’s a discouraging story. What starts as a call for sweeping change has become a series of procedural refinements. If you believe the process works, then it’s an encouraging list. A basically working system is being refined to make it more efficient.

Of all the reform plans, Marsh’s strikes an attractive compromise. It increases the independent voice and public oversight on the committee while not taking decisions completely out of the membership’s hands. I doubt many dissenting opinions would be issued, but the possibility would require the committee to refine their reasoning and possibly even challenge their factual judgments.

The biggest lesson though is that ideas to reform the enforcement process are nothing new. Since modern enforcement of NCAA rules began at that special convention in 1985, the process has undergone numerous calls for change. And while not all of those calls have been heeded, the process has been updated almost as often.

The opinions expressed on this blog are the author’s and the author’s alone, and are not endorsed by the NCAA or any NCAA member institution or conference. This blog is not a substitute for a compliance office.

About John Infante

The opinions expressed on this blog are the author’s and the author’s alone, and are not endorsed by the NCAA or any NCAA member institution or conference. This blog is not a substitute for a compliance office. If you’re a coach, do not attempt to contact the author looking for a second opinion. If you’re a parent, don’t attempt to contact the author looking for a first opinion. Compliance professionals are by their nature helpful people generally dedicated to getting to the truth. Coaches should have a bit of faith in their own, and parents should talk to one directly.

Filed Under: Bylaw Blog, Feature Tagged With: , ,

In the news: June 20

June 20, 2011 by

A recent poll in Sporting News provided interesting insight into the attitudes of Division I Football Bowl Subdivision coaches.

The magazine (almost always a fun read, by the way) surveyed 40 coaches from the spectrum of FBS schools – from the mega-powers to the smaller programs.

A lot of the content focused on which programs run the most effective offenses or defenses, or which coaches are most admired by their peers. But the survey also probed a number of off-the-field hot topics.

To wit:

What would make recruiting more fair and ethical? The most common response (29 percent) was that the number of official visits should be reduced from five to three. A similar percentage also wanted an early signing period during the spring of the prospect’s junior year.

What percentage of FBS programs break recruiting rules? The highest response (35 percent) was that less than 20 percent – the most conservative choice offered – bent the rules to land recruits. The next most popular answer was 20 to 30 percent. In other words, most coaches believed most schools operate on the up-and-up in recruiting.

What is the most appropriate financial aid approach for FBS players? Fifty-four percent favored a full-cost-of-attendance approach, which is currently being explored. Another 46 percent said student-athletes should not receive any additional financial aid support. The third choice was “a salary commensurate with their skill level and importance to the program.” Nobody appears to have chosen that option.

Are there too many bowl games? The coaches said no. Sixty-eight percent were happy with the current 35-bowl arrangement. Only 22 percent wanted a playoff of some sort.

It’s all interesting stuff, but you’ll have to buy the magazine to get the full report. Sporting News doesn’t appear to offer its printed material online for free.

About Dave Pickle

Filed Under: Feature, NCAA Insider

The Theory and Practice of Vacating Games

June 17, 2011 by

Before getting into the post, a quick pop quiz:

In a high school basketball game, Team A leads Team B by two points when Team A scores a late basketball that is mistakenly credit to Team B. After the game ends with the scoring seemingly tied, overtime begins. At the first stoppage, the scorer alerts the officials to the error. What should the officials do?

(Answer coming later in the post)

No NCAA penalty inspires more philosophical and practical debate than the vacating of victories. Critics call it an “Orwellian attempt to rewrite history,” that the NCAA believes it can alter the fabric of time and space. Other critics point out that the penalty is pointless, since like a distant relative, the wins will always be with the fans right here, in their hearts and in their memories.

But vacating victories has a sound foundation in the theory that underlies all of sports. It is not an attempt to rewrite history, but the acknowledgement of a true fact. And far from being pointless, the penalty is necessary to achieve any level of compliance with the NCAA rules.

Theory

Anyone who has taken a sports sociology course has debated what the definition of a “sport” is. When you get to requirements like whether judged activities (gymnastics, figure skating) are a sport, whether major muscle groups are required (poker, chess), and the effect of simple (golf) or complicated (cycling, auto racing) machines, it’s hard to find even two people who will agree on the full list.

But one thing most scholars will agree on is that sports are a subset of games. Games are distinguished from play by the existence of rules. The most important of those rules are the rules that determine who wins the game. A basketball or football team wins by having more points than the other team when time runs out. A baseball team wins by having more runs when the opposing team runs out of opportunities to bat. On the flip side, an individual or team loses a game when a competitor achieves the necessary requirements to win.

An men’s basketball team is not just playing the sport of basketball. They are actually playing the more specific sport of NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball. Aside from scoring more points than the other team, this sport has an additional requirement: to do so with a properly assembled roster of players meeting eligibility requirements. The NCAA Division I Manual is no less a part of the rules that disinguish college basketball from other forms of the sport than the 35-second shot clock.

When scores more points than the other team with an ineligible player, it has not actually won, since it has not achieve all of the necessary requirements for victory. So when a victory is vacated, it’s not rewriting history. It’s acknowledging the fact that the team is missing a piece of the puzzle.

I can already hear the outcries that this theory means every basketball game where a referee missed a travel is illegitimate. No so, because most sports build this human error into the rules by making the officials the sole arbiters of on-court or on-field play. Here’s an example from Law 5 of the FIFA Laws of the Game (pdf):

The decisions of the referee regarding facts connected with play, including whether or not a goal is scored and the result of the match, are final.

The referee may only change a decision on realising that it is incorrect or, at his discretion, on the advice of an assistant referee or the fourth official, provided that he has not restarted play or terminated the match.

When it comes to NCAA eligibility rules, there are no such restrictions. The Division I Manual allows for the result of a game to be changed after the fact. But the rules can always be changed. Sound theory isn’t enough, they need a practical purpose.

Practice

The biggest practical objection to vacating victories is that the penalty is pointless. Until Lacuna, Inc. is a real company, why bother? For starters, schools seem to care. In addition to the recent dispute between Kentucky and the Committee on Infractions, Florida State, Alabama and Memphis have all appealed vacation penalties. It matters to coaches and administrators to have accomplishments reflected in the actual record.

The alternative is to note the violation in the official record without actually removing the record. This is the dreaded asterisk. In isolation, there’s no difference. Compare this:

  • 2011 - Univ. of A
  • 2010 – B State Univ.*
  • 2009 – C College
  • 2008 – D Univ.

With this:

  • 2011 - Univ. of A
  • 2010 – (vacated)
  • 2009 – C College
  • 2008 – D Univ.

Here, it is clear in either example that something fishy happened in 2010, and that all is not well at B State. But if cheating is as rampant as it is claimed to be, the record books would look much different. Compare this:

  • 2011 - Univ. of A*
  • 2010 – B State Univ.*
  • 2009 – C College*
  • 2008 – D Univ.*

With this:

  • 2011 - (vacated)
  • 2010 – (vacated)
  • 2009 – (vacated)
  • 2008 – (vacated)

If championships won through cheating are this common, the asterisk ceases to be a scarlet letter. Instead, it becomes a badge of honor that these schools were willing to go above and beyond for their fans, and a smirking reminder that they got away with it. If you’re trying to teach a lesson to future generations or make the case for reform, the second list, with no or few champions over an extended period, is a much more powerful indicator of a troubled sport.

If I have one complaint about the current way victories are vacated, it is that losses should be vacated to. Back to theory, you lose a game when your opponent achieves victory. Since your opponent did not actually win the game, you did not actually lose it. You still didn’t win though, because you didn’t meet the requirements either. So when a game is vacated, both the victory and the loss should be erased from the records of the teams. Personal records should stay though, since all the eligible players met the requirements to score those points, make those assists, and grab those rebounds. Yes, stats from a game with no winner or loser. Theory is still messy that way.

The answer to the question above, is that the officials will correct the score, but overtime continues. That means despite acknowledging and correcting the mistake, the effects of that correction are ignored, and a game that was not tied at the end of regulation plays on. That goes beyond Orwellian to Kafkaesque.

The opinions expressed on this blog are the author’s and the author’s alone, and are not endorsed by the NCAA or any NCAA member institution or conference. This blog is not a substitute for a compliance office.

About John Infante

The opinions expressed on this blog are the author’s and the author’s alone, and are not endorsed by the NCAA or any NCAA member institution or conference. This blog is not a substitute for a compliance office. If you’re a coach, do not attempt to contact the author looking for a second opinion. If you’re a parent, don’t attempt to contact the author looking for a first opinion. Compliance professionals are by their nature helpful people generally dedicated to getting to the truth. Coaches should have a bit of faith in their own, and parents should talk to one directly.

Filed Under: Bylaw Blog Tagged With: ,

In the news: June 15

June 15, 2011 by

For the most part, the latest report on NCAA revenue and expense is neither good news nor bad.

The report, released Wednesday, notes that 22 Division I Football Bowl Subdivision programs are now considered financially self-sufficient. While some might see that as good news, others might see it as an ephemeral condition that will flow (and ebb) with conference media contracts. Besides, there’s nothing wrong with the idea that schools might underwrite their athletics programs to an appropriate degree.

If there is happy news in the report, it’s found in data that showed a reduction in the rate of spending in the 2009-10 fiscal year. The long-term numbers are still scary: Since 2004, when the report’s current methodology was adopted, expenses have increased 61.4 percent while revenue has climbed 54.6 percent. To use the vernacular of the economics crowd, that is not considered sustainable.

However, over the last two years, total generated revenues (ticket sales, media contracts, etc.) have grown by 15.9 percent while expenses have increased “only” 12.9 percent. Perhaps it’s the leading edge of a trend, but it doesn’t take highly developed analytical skills to wonder how long annual revenue growth of about 8 percent can last. And though expenses have slowed, they are still clearly far beyond the rate of inflation. But it is progress, and that’s good.

One other element: The report notes that the average “cost” of operating a Division I athletics program continues to be about $9 million. It’s an important number – one that probably hasn’t gotten the attention it deserves. It represents the average amount of institutional support provided to Division I programs, and it is generally consistent among the Division I subdivisions. For those who want to know how much cash a typical school needs to pony up to compete in Division I, $9 million annually is the answer.

About Dave Pickle

Filed Under: NCAA Insider

Oversigning and NCAA Federalism

June 13, 2011 by

One of the core tenets of the American political system is the idea of federalism. Among other definitions, federalism means:

A system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (like states or provinces).

In the United States, federalism exists due to the enumerated powers of the federal government. That is, the Constitution includes a list of subjects on which the federal government may legislate. Anything not on that list cannot be regulated on the national level, but must instead must be legislated by the individual states. There’s a rich debate to be had over whether this still exists in practice, but the theory is important here.

The NCAA has this basic setup. There is a federal government (the national association and office) and a set of 30 states (the conferences). The conferences select representatives to various national groups (Legislative Council, Leadership Council, Board of Directors, etc.) who then are charged with defending their interests while keeping in mind the needs of the national association.

The major difference between the United States and the NCAA is that the NCAA does not have enumerated powers. Any topic can be (and it seems always is) regulated at the national level. The conferences legislate on topics that either the members haven’t gotten around to legislating nationally, or because a conference wants a stricter rule than the national one.

This has come to a head with the SEC’s decision to limit oversigning in football. The SEC chose to base their oversigning limits on the annual limit of 25 initial counters. This is in contrast to the Big Ten, which focuses on the annual limit of 85 overall counters.

Opponents of oversigning have jumped on this conflict and the SEC’s decision to propose national oversigning rules as an opportunity to move the entire debate to the national level:

The NCAA has an obligation to create national rules on oversigning that make it clear that hoarding players and playing games with the numbers to gain a competitive advantage through highly unethical behavior has no place in the sport they regulate, that every recruit and current player IN EVERY CONFERENCE will be protected from forced attrition, and that every conference competing for BCS bowl spots and the money that comes with it will be on equal footing when it comes to the number of players they can recruit and sign.

To the extent that there is a baseline student-athlete welfare issue with national impact, the issue demands legislation on the national level. In my opinion, that issue surrounds the limit on 25 initial counters.

Why? Because when a coach signs the 26th prospect to a scholarship for the upcoming academic year, he has promised the prospect something it is impossible for him to provide. The coach either must yank the rug out from under one of those 26 young men or the balance between what a prospect promises and what the coach/institution promises (already an issue of intense debate), tilts exclusively in the coach’s favor.

When a coach signs the expected 86th prospect/student-athlete for the upcoming year, he has promised something that he may be able to provide without impacting student-athlete welfare. Even if a program is expected to return all 85 scholarship student-athletes, theoretically it could sign 25 players and enroll them all without doing anything nefarious. In practice, that is unlikely to be the case.

This disconnect between theory and practice is better legislated at the conference level. Far from ensuring the SEC maintains a competitive advantage, it offers a chance for conferences to create their own competitive advantages. While some may call it negative recruiting, there’s nothing morally wrong or impermissible about informing prospects and their parents/guardians that one conference offers more protections to student-athletes than another.

If that idea gained traction, it could turn around the race to the bottom. Imagine if conferences got creative:

  • A rule that allowed for an appeal to the conference office when a scholarship is cancelled or not renewed.
  • A rule requiring conference schools to renew scholarships within the first week of school, almost creating two-year scholarships.
  • A rule limiting the ability of conference schools to refuse permission to contact other schools under certain conditions

If every change is quickly reduced to a national rule, there is no way for conferences to differentiate themselves. And with the passage of Connecticut House Bill 5145 to go along with California’s AB 2079, we’re getting close to providing prospects with the tools necessary to make an informed choice between these different options.

We don’t find it to be a problem if one state has lower taxes but another state has cheaper health care and better roads. Both are taking different approaches to the same goal: attracting people and businesses. Solve the baseline national problem, and then give conferences the incentive to develop more student-athlete friendly rules.

The opinions expressed on this blog are the author’s and the author’s alone, and are not endorsed by the NCAA or any NCAA member institution or conference. This blog is not a substitute for a compliance office.

About John Infante

The opinions expressed on this blog are the author’s and the author’s alone, and are not endorsed by the NCAA or any NCAA member institution or conference. This blog is not a substitute for a compliance office. If you’re a coach, do not attempt to contact the author looking for a second opinion. If you’re a parent, don’t attempt to contact the author looking for a first opinion. Compliance professionals are by their nature helpful people generally dedicated to getting to the truth. Coaches should have a bit of faith in their own, and parents should talk to one directly.

Filed Under: Bylaw Blog, Feature Tagged With: , ,

In the news: June 10

June 10, 2011 by

With so many opinions out there about pay for play, we might as well have a virtual forum of the nation’s opinionators.

Here’s a Q&A taken from a number of recent columns and blogs:

DP: Should student-athletes be paid?

Josh Folck, Lehigh Valley Express-Times: These are supposed to be amateur athletes. I know it’s hard to grasp that with the constant reports of money being thrown around the college game. But if the NCAA starts issuing payments to athletes, we might as well throw out the term ‘student-athlete’ and replace it with ‘semi-pro.’ ”

DP: That’s an interesting perspective. What do others say?

John Harris, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: Pay them.

DP: How much?

Harris: Who knows? But anything is better than what college athletes are currently receiving.

DP: But aren’t the student-athletes in revenue sports receiving an education? Isn’t that worth something?

Reg Henry: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: As much as enlightened coaches encourage education and promote graduation, it is a fact that playing college football is the accepted apprenticeship for a career in the National Football League. If universities were solely about education, they would be solely about education.

DP: Do we have anybody here from outside of Pennsylvania? Bob Kravitz from the Indianapolis Star – what do you think?

Bob Kravitz: As the father of one college student, with another heading to college after this coming year, I am sick and tired of hearing how college athletes get nothing. I’m tired of their sense of entitlement and I’m tired of the politics of victimization.

DP: So you think the NCAA is right to regulate in this area?

Kravitz: The NCAA has a scam going….Athletes should get more money beyond tuition and housing for their services.

DP: Sorry. I didn’t mean to put words in your mouth. But you are saying that the education the athletes receive has real value?

Kravitz: Those of you who have kids who don’t run 4.3 40s or throw a 90-mph fastball know how much things cost. You (and I) know how expensive it is − and Indiana state school tuition is going up more than 5 percent next semester. I’ve seen it here with my daughters’ friends, all of whom live in middle-class/upper-middle-class suburbs. Some of their really smart, gifted friends are not going to college because the parents have hit a rough patch. These scholarship athletes need to be reminded how blessed they are. Their parents won’t have to take out loans. They won’t leave school and still be paying off their own loans years after they graduate, as my wife did until she was 30 years old.

DP: I like where you’re going with this – that the educational benefit is real and that it matters. Jerome Solomon, what do you say to that?

Jerome Solomon, Houston Chronicle: We act as if college football and basketball are pure sports and, worse, as if they have something to do with education. We talk about graduation rates as if we really care or as if the three or four seniors on a basketball team and dozen or so seniors on a football team could actually hurt (or help) a university’s academic standing. Major college football and basketball programs are companies operating under the guise of being part of the education system.

DP: That seems harsh and perhaps a bit overstated. Isn’t it true that student-athletes graduate at a higher rate than various peer groups?

(Silence)

DP: I would like to hear some thoughts on why you all believe student-athletes are not paid. Jay Heater from the Idaho State-Journal – you look like you want to say something?

Jay Heater: College athletics is big business and those who run it reap the rewards. Coaches make millions each year. Those who run the NCAA and bowl games or the NCAA tournament are set for life. Apparently, there is plenty to go around. So why not let the athletes, who are the reason all those people pay admission prices to events, share?

DP: What do you mean by ‘share’?

Heater: I am just suggesting that we allow the free market to determine pay. And, oh, by the way, this money is not coming from any university. No, universities have enough budget problems. Not a dime other than tuition, books and normal living expenses. In the new system, all college athletes would be allowed to take whatever handout from the public they could get. If somebody is willing to donate a SUV to carry an athlete’s bling, so be it.

DP: Jay, that’s an interesting thought. While your approach might solve some problems, might it not create others?

Heater: Sure, there would be the mega-programs flashing big bucks for some of the top stars. Eventually, though, the market would determine the price, and I would imagine it would be far lower than what we might imagine. Those willing to compete would develop a set plan. Those unwilling to compete could drop into the NCAA Division IA Less Corrupt.

DP: Let’s put that idea in the parking lot for the moment. If we assume that compensation needs to be conducted within the university structure, what are the concerns? Kristi Dosh, you write for Forbes and produce a daily blog on college athletics finances. Do you think institutionally based compensation works?

Kristi Dosh: Where is the money going to come from?

DP: What do you mean?

Dosh:  If you’re unaware, the NCAA released data showing that only 14 programs are turning a profit without having to rely on institutional support (like student fees or a check cut directly from the university coffers).

DP: Right, I’m familiar with the study. The annual update is coming out soon, and it will contain some interesting information.  Are there issues out there besides the general lack of money?

Dosh: Here is the second big problem. Actually, it’s probably the first, but I chose to focus on the issue of finances first. You cannot pay players without invoking Title IX. Safely assuming that any pay-for-play plan would include paying male football and basketball players, you run into huge issues with federal law.

DP: Any other thoughts from the rest of you?

Bob Knight, ESPN: This NCAA that we’re currently involved with is so far out of touch with the integrity of the sport that it’s just amazing.

DP: Coach, it’s always good to hear from you. We’ll wrap it up on that note. Thanks to all of you for your participation.

About Dave Pickle

Filed Under: Feature, NCAA Insider

Student-Athlete Suffrage

June 8, 2011 by

It is conventional wisdom in college athletics that student-athletes as essentially forced to accept what’s offered to them. To a degree, that’s true. Agreements like the National Letter of Intent can’t be renegotiated. Amateurism and extra benefit rules prevent student-athletes from accepting that which others are more than willing to offer them. And student-athletes can’t vote on legislation that affects them.

That’s not to say that student-athletes have no voice in the NCAA. The national Student-Athlete Advisory Committee (SAAC) comments on legislation affecting student-athletes. The Legislative Council and Board of Directors gives those comments more credit that you might think.

That was clearly evident in January when the Division I National SAAC scored a major, albeit temporary victory in the legislative process. Proposal 2010-12, which removes the requirement that override votes occur at the NCAA Convention, was opposed by SAAC, since the Convention was the best place for SAAC to make their views on these votes known.

The Legislative Council passed the legislation by an overwhelming margin, with over 90% voting to approve the proposal. But the Board of Directors tabled the proposal, allowing for more discussion amongst the university presidents before finalizing the proposal in April.

But what if SAAC had a vote on the Legislative Council. SAAC could be able to give not just an opinion, but cast a vote on any issue directly affecting student-athletes. Those would include:

  • Any Bylaw 10 (ethical conduct) issue affecting student-athletes;
  • All of Bylaw 12 (amateurism);
  • All of Bylaw 13 (recruiting);
  • All of Bylaw 14 (eligibility);
  • All of Bylaw 15 (financial aid);
  • All of Bylaw 16 (awards and benefits); and
  • All of Bylaw 17 (playing and practice seasons).

That would mean student-athletes generally aren’t voting on issues involving athletics personnel, and administrative or procedural matters. As a national cabinet, SAAC would still have the opportunity to comment on these proposals. And as a voting member of the legislative coucil, SAAC could be given the same power to propose legislation that conferences have.

The practical affect of giving student-athletes a vote would be dependent on how many votes they are given. The Legislative Council is organized by conference with weighted voting. BCS conferences and Conference USA have three votes. The other FBS conferences have 1.5 votes. And the other Division I conferences have 1.2 votes.

If the Division I SAAC was given three votes, which would be logical given the group represents over 150,000 athletes, it could upset the balance of power in Division I. Currently there are 51 votes in the Legislative Council, and 27 of them are controlled by FBS conferences. This means if the 11 FBS conferences vote as a bloc, they control a slim majority. If SAAC had three votes and voted with the other conferences, it would result in a 27-27 tie.

But the conferences rarely vote in such strict patterns, so it’s hard to predict whether SAAC would have such a powerful impact on legislation. In fact during the April Legislative Council meeting, the only issues that were decided by three votes or less were FCS-only issues. In the January voting session, which is a little more complicated, three SAAC votes might have sway a proposal between adoption or distribution for membership review in some cases.

There’s two arguments for not giving student-athletes a seat the legislative table. First is that if the constituent groups in the Legislative Council are expanded beyond conferences, expect other groups to demand a seat. Coaches associations, groups like NAAC and N4A, and public groups will begin agitating for a seat. This will turn what is still a relatively flexible legislative body into something very large and unwieldy.

Second, what happened with Proposal 2010-12 is unlikely to happen again if student-athletes are represented in the voting. Because they are disenfranchised in the governance structure, the Board of Directors gave their objections extra weight. Student-athletes with the vote will likely have to accept the result of votes.

Neither of those objections are reason not to explore adding SAAC to the Legislative Council. Lines need to be drawn somewhere. And if Division I SAAC believes its interests are better represented without a vote, that’s a decision for the student-athletes to make.

Oddly enough, the Legislative Council would be the ones to decide whether to add student-athletes to their ranks, and a conference or cabinet would need to introduce the proposal in the first place. But just like the Board of Directors did with Proposal 2010-12, the Legislative Council is known to surprise when trying to predict what they’ll do based on conventional wisdom.

The opinions expressed on this blog are the author’s and the author’s alone, and are not endorsed by the NCAA or any NCAA member institution or conference. This blog is not a substitute for a compliance office.

About John Infante

The opinions expressed on this blog are the author’s and the author’s alone, and are not endorsed by the NCAA or any NCAA member institution or conference. This blog is not a substitute for a compliance office. If you’re a coach, do not attempt to contact the author looking for a second opinion. If you’re a parent, don’t attempt to contact the author looking for a first opinion. Compliance professionals are by their nature helpful people generally dedicated to getting to the truth. Coaches should have a bit of faith in their own, and parents should talk to one directly.

Filed Under: Bylaw Blog, Feature Tagged With: , ,

In the news: June 7

June 7, 2011 by

Division II is having quite a year – in Division I.

The most recent success is that of the Dallas Baptist baseball team, which advanced Monday to the super-regional round of the Division I Baseball Championship. The main part of the Patriots program resides in Division II with the Heartland Conference.

It’s a big accomplishment for Dallas Baptist, but there’s room for improvement. Just ask Augusta State, which just won its second straight Division I Men’s Golf Championship, or Minnesota Duluth, which recently added a Division I Men’s Ice Hockey Championship to its five Division I women’s titles. Augusta State is a member of Division II’s Peach Belt Conference in everything but golf while Minnesota Duluth resides in the Northern Sun Intercollegiate Conference in all but hockey.

How is this possible?

NCAA rules allow Division II and III programs to classify one men’s and one women’s sport (other than football or basketball) at the Division I level, provided they were already sponsoring them as of 2010-11. The sports that are selected are considered Division I in every sense. They must adhere to the entire range of Division I rules, all the way from coaching-staff limitations to recruiting to financial aid limits to playing and practice seasons.

Division III has a wrinkle. While multidivison classification is also possible there, programs that were not already giving athletically-related financial aid in 2004 have not been permitted to petition to award it since. So, a few Division III institutions offer aid for their Division I teams (and in some cases are highly successful). However, it’s also common for Division III teams competing in I not to offer aid.

Does it work the other way?

No. If an institution classifies its overall program in Division I, all teams must compete at that level. The rules once permitted multidivision classification from Division I to II or III (Dayton won two Division III Football Championships in the 1980s), but the practice was discontinued at the 1994 Convention.

—-

Note: I added a clarification after this was originally posted that through Proposal No. 2010-11, Division I halted any new multidivision classification. Programs that were using the option as of 2010-11 were grandfathered in. Here’s the relevant language from Bylaw 20.4.1: “A member of Division II or Division III may have a sport classified in Division I, provided the sport was so classified during the 2010-11 academic year.  Such a classification shall continue until the institution fails to conduct the sport in Division I in any following academic year.”

About Dave Pickle

Filed Under: NCAA Insider

In the news: June 1

June 1, 2011 by

The choice of NCAA membership classification has always been based, more or less, on institutional choice. Is it time to consider something different?

The question becomes more important as the question of full cost of attendance begins to fill the window for Division I members.

Of course, the cost-of-attendance discussion is at the earliest stages, and it’s far from certain that the Division I membership will take the plunge.

A number of high-powered Division I administrators have been talking the concept up, saying it may be time to think more about benefiting student-athletes at major programs and less about keeping the playing field level. Southeastern Conference Commissioner Mike Slive made that point in a conversation with CBSSports.com’s Tony Barhart that was posted Monday.

“For the longest time,” Slive said, “our focus on intercollegiate athletics has been to try and maintain a ‘level playing field’ for all the institutions involved. But now I believe we need to discuss whether or not those of us with the resources should be able to provide the needed help to athletes when the cost of attendance exceeds the actual value of the scholarship. Academic scholarships have for a long time provided this kind of support based on the need and based on the location of the campus. At this point we don’t know if it’s workable but you can’t make that decision if you don’t sit down and talk about it. So it’s time for us to a least talk about it.”

The decision ultimately belongs with the membership, so we’ll all track together as the issue unfolds over the next year.

If this does shake out as “permissive legislation,” the conventional wisdom is that it would widen the gap between the largest programs and the others. There’s nothing deplorable or admirable about that. It’s just the way things are.

I do worry, however, about how far schools on the margin will act in their efforts to be perceived as elite. Is there a point at which new criteria should be introduced into the mix to protect them from themselves? Or should everybody be comfortable with a more Darwinian approach?

I would be interested in whether elements like undergraduate enrollment and permanent endowments (there would have to be multiple standards) could factor into elite-level classification. Maybe enrollment and endowment aren’t the correct gauges − I am but a humble blogger, after all − but surely there are some non-athletic markers that could help define the institutions that are suited to sponsor mega-programs.

Is it likely to happen? Probably not. The biggest programs likely can get what they want without such a drastic move, and intermediate programs likely wouldn’t want their access to the “top” cut off.

Should something like this be discussed? I wish somebody would take the concept on a spin. The perceived benefits of large-scale athletics success exceed reality in too many places. Maybe it’s time to look at a new way.

About Dave Pickle

Filed Under: Feature, NCAA Insider

Copyright �© 2010-2012 NCAA �·