[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
SUPPORTING OUR INTERCOLLEGIATE STUDENT-ATHLETES: PROPOSED NCAA REFORMS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
of the
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 18, 2004
__________
Serial No. 108-91
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
93-982 WASHINGTON : DC
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
RALPH M. HALL, Texas Ranking Member
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
FRED UPTON, Michigan EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
CHRISTOPHER COX, California SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia BART GORDON, Tennessee
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia ANNA G. ESHOO, California
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming BART STUPAK, Michigan
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona GENE GREEN, Texas
CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING, KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
Mississippi, Vice Chairman TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
VITO FOSSELLA, New York DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
STEVE BUYER, Indiana LOIS CAPPS, California
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire CHRISTOPHER JOHN, Louisiana
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania TOM ALLEN, Maine
MARY BONO, California JIM DAVIS, Florida
GREG WALDEN, Oregon JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
LEE TERRY, Nebraska HILDA L. SOLIS, California
MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
DARRELL E. ISSA, California
C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
Bud Albright, Staff Director
James D. Barnette, General Counsel
Reid P.F. Stuntz, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
______
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida, Chairman
FRED UPTON, Michigan JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky Ranking Member
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
Vice Chairman PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire BART STUPAK, Michigan
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania GENE GREEN, Texas
MARY BONO, California KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
LEE TERRY, Nebraska TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
DARRELL E. ISSA, California JIM DAVIS, Florida
C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma (Ex Officio)
JOE BARTON, Texas,
(Ex Officio)
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
__________
Page
Testimony of:
Friday, William C., President Emeritus, University of North
Carolina, Co-Chairman, Knight Foundation Commission on
Intercollegiate Athletics.................................. 9
McMillen, Hon. C. Thomas, Co-Chairman, President's Counsel on
Physical Fitness........................................... 15
Renfro, Wallace, Senior Advisor to the President, National
Collegiate Athletic Association............................ 15
(iii)
SUPPORTING OUR INTERCOLLEGIATE STUDENT-ATHLETES: PROPOSED NCAA REFORMS
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 18, 2004
House of Representatives,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade,
and Consumer Protection,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:30 p.m., in
room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Cliff Stearns
(chairman) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Stearns, Barton (ex
officio), Schakowsky, Towns, and Rush.
Staff present: Chris Leahy, majority counsel and pocicy
coordinator; David Cavicke, majority counsel; Brian McCullough,
majority professional staff; Will Carty, legislative clerk;
Chad Grant, staff assistant; Jonathan Cordone, minority
counsel.
Mr. Stearns. The subcommittee will come to order here.
I am pleased to welcome you all to the Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection Subcommittee on supporting our
intercollegiate student-athletes proposed NCAA reforms.
Last March this subcommittee examined the NCAA's response
to certain recruiting practice related to official campus
visits by prospective student-athletes. Prompted by a number of
high profile scandals involving recruiting practices at some
NCAA Division I schools, the NCAA formed a task force to
investigate abuses associated with recruitment visits and the
institutional policies used by the NCAA member institution to
enforce recruiting standards.
According to them, 31 schools have been penalized for major
recruiting violations since 2000. This constitutes a minority
of NCAA members. However, the conduct of a few bad actors has
highlighted the influence commercialism is having on amateur
intercollegiate athletics.
It also highlights the need for better enforcement of
standards at member institutions. During our March hearing, the
NCAA stressed the importance of having both rigorous recruiting
and academic standards, along with commitment from member
institutions to faithfully implement those standards and
vigorously enforce them.
I look forward to hearing about the progress made to date,
as well as the NCAA's reform proposal concerning recruitment,
academic performance standards that were recently approved.
As consumers of college sports media, we all have an
interest in insuring that our college student-athletes are not
being exploited by growing commercial interest and by the
unethical and immoral behavior of a few, particularly in those
programs that generate large revenue streams from lucrative
media and commercial contracts.
As some have said, the play for pay atmosphere generated by
these practices and policies has institutionalized the
mentality of an ``arms race'' and de-emphasized academic
performance and achievement.
Colleagues, this is not acceptable. It is, therefore, my
hope that rather than reacting to the headlines and the next
big scandal, which will surely come, we can create a long-term
vision for the future of amateur college sports that
reestablishes an ``academics first culture,'' that also
supports our student athletes' excellence on the field, court
or track.
For our college student-athletes, mental training should be
as vigorous as physical training, for life after the game.
According to the NCAA only 1.3 percent of senior NCAA
basketball players make it to the pros, while only 2 percent of
football players do so.
Given the slim odds of making the big time in professional
sports, we clearly need to insure that the sacrifice that these
student-athletes make to pursue athletics do not compromise
their opportunities to make the big time after graduation in
business, academia, medicine, engineering, and so forth.
To help move us forward toward a comprehensive long-term
vision for intercollegiate athletics, I would like to thank the
Knight Commission for their work in the area of college
athletics reform. The Commission's model for intercollegiate
athletics is there is a careful assessment. Their
recommendation is to create an agenda of academic reform, de-
escalation of the athletic arms race, and de-emphasis of the
commercialism as outlined in their 2001 reports.
Now, frankly, these are solid steps toward a long-term plan
which I think this country desperately needs.
The subcommittee would also like to commend the NCAA for
trying to get a handle on the problem facing athletics and
their impact on our student athletes. Their work continues to
be very helpful as we flesh out the issues facing recruiting
and the academic form.
I am also sure they would be the first to agree that more,
of course, has to be done. Universities, too, must also bear
responsibility for the conduct of their own athletic programs
and the recruitment practices and policies that follow.
Accountability requires the university to do their utmost
to implement the NCAA standards in good faith and pursue
vigorous enforcement.
In conclusion, the big business of college athletics has
changed forever the playing field for our Nation's student
athletes. Gone are the days when college sports celebrated the
amateur in athletes. An away game simply meant getting your
studying done on the bus or in the bleachers between games or
races.
Today many of the pressures today are not only academic,
but also financial and, as we have seen, institutional for
these young people. It is incumbent upon us to see that the
NCAA is fulfilling its mission. Schools are implementing and
enforcing the NCAA standards properly, and those student
athletes entering intercollegiate athletics today enjoy the
benefit of a superb system of higher education, an education
that prepares them for life, not just for the next game.
And with that I recognize Ms. Schakowsky.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Clifford Stearns follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Clifford Stearns, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection
Good morning. I am pleased to welcome all of you to the Commerce,
Trade and Consumer Protection Subcommittee's hearing on ``Supporting
Our Intercollegiate Student-Athletes: Proposed NCAA Reforms.''
Last March this Subcommittee examined the NCAA's response to
certain recruiting practices related to official campus visits by
prospective student-athletes. Prompted by a number of high-profile
scandals involving recruiting practices at some NCAA Division I
schools, the NCAA formed a Task Force to investigate abuses associated
with recruitment visits and the institutional policies used by NCAA
member institutions to enforce recruiting standards. According to the
NCAA, 31 schools have been penalized for major recruiting violations
since 2000. This constitutes a minority of NCAA members; however, the
conduct of a few bad actors has highlighted the influence commercialism
is having on amateur intercollegiate athletics. It also highlights the
need for better enforcement of NCAA standards at member institutions.
During our March hearing, the NCAA stressed importance of having both
rigorous recruiting and academic standards along with commitment from
member institutions to faithfully implement those standards and
vigorously enforce them. I look forward to hearing about the progress
made to date as well as the NCAA's reform proposals concerning
recruiting and academic performance standards that were recently
approved.
As consumers of college sports media, we all have a interest in
ensuring that our college student-athletes are not being exploited by
growing commercial interests and the unethical and immoral behavior of
a few - particularly in those programs that generate large revenue
streams from lucrative media and commercial contracts. As some have
said, the ``play for pay'' atmosphere generated by these practices and
policies has institutionalized the mentality of an ``arms race'' and
deemphasized academic performance and achievement. This is not
acceptable.
It is therefore my hope that rather than reacting to the headlines
and next big scandal, we can create a long-term vision for the future
of amateur college sports that re-establishes an academics-first
culture that also supports our student-athletes' excellence on the
field, court, or track. For our college student-athletes, mental
training should be as vigorous as physical training for life after the
game. According to the NCAA, only 1.3% of senior NCAA basketball
players make it to the pros while only 2% of football players do so.
Given the slim odds of making the ``big time'' in professional sports,
we clearly need to ensure that the sacrifices that these student-
athletes make to pursue athletics don't compromise their opportunities
to make the ``big time'' after graduation--in business, academia,
medicine, engineering, and so on.
To help move us toward a comprehensive long-term vision for
intercollegiate athletics, I would like to thank the Knight Commission
for their work in the area of college athletics reform. The
Commission's model for intercollegiate athletics deserves a careful
assessment. Their recommendations to create an agenda of academic
reform, de-escalation of the athletics arms race, and de-emphasis of
the commercialism in intercollegiate athletics, as outlined in their
2001 report, are solid steps toward the long-term plan we desperately
need.
The Subcommittee also would like to commend the NCAA for trying to
get a handle on the problems facing intercollegiate athletics and their
impact on our student-athletes. Their work continues to be very helpful
as we flesh out the issues facing recruiting and the academic reform.
I'm also sure they would be the first to agree that more has to be
done. Universities too must also bear responsibility for the conduct of
their own athletic programs and the recruitment practices and policies
they follow. Accountability requires that Universities do their utmost
to implement the NCAA standards in good faith and pursue vigorous
enforcement.
The big business of college athletics has changed forever the
playing field for our nation's student athletes. Gone are the days when
college sports celebrated the ``amateur'' in athlete and away games
simply meant getting your studying done on the bus or in the bleachers
between games or races. Today, many of the pressures today are not only
academic but also financial and, as we have seen, institutional for
these young people. And it is incumbent upon us to see that the NCAA is
fulfilling its mission, schools are implementing and enforcing NCAA
standards properly, and that those student-athletes entering
intercollegiate athletics today enjoy the benefit of a superb system of
higher education--an education that prepares them for life not just the
next game.
I would like to thank the representatives from the NCAA and Knight
Commission for joining us today, and I look forward to their testimony.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am happy that we are holding this hearing today to give
us the opportunity to follow up on issues related to NCAA
recruiting policies and also to learn more about academic
reform proposals as they relate to Division I student athletes.
I would like to thank our witnesses for being here today to
help shed some light on those issues.
We talked in the previous hearing on the NCAA about a
problem with the culture in our top university athletic
programs, a culture where alcohol and drugs are all too
commonplace, a culture where abysmal graduation rates are the
norm rather than the exception, a culture that tolerates
violence against women.
I am pleased that the NCAA recognizes that there is a
problem and is working toward reform on issues surrounding
recruiting trips and the academic performance of student
athletes. However, I am concerned that some of the new
proposals don't go far enough. For example, I am concerned that
the proposed NCAA recruiting rules still fail to set standards
regarding alcohol use and unsupervised entertainment of
recruits and instead leave it up to individual institutions to
make those rules.
Before the final rules are approved, I hope that those
issues will be revisited and standards adopted that really make
the point that we tolerate nothing less than the best behavior
for our student-athletes, just as we expect them from all of
our students.
Furthermore, I was alarmed to learn about the graduation
rates of some of our elite student-athletes. I know we all
agree that it's unacceptable when only 32 percent of the men's
teams participating in the NCAA basketball tournament this year
manage to graduate at least 50 percent of their players within
6 years of their initial enrollment. I was shocked to learn
that four teams failed to graduate a single player in 4 years.
Statistics like these demand bold steps and comprehensive
reform that truly holds school presidents, coaches, and
institutions accountable for the education they are providing
or failing to provide student-athletes.
I am eager to hear more from Mr. Renfro about the NCAA's
proposed academic reforms. I am also looking forward to hearing
from Dr. Friday of the Knight Foundation Commission on
intercollegiate athletics, a group that is committed to
reforming college sports into a system with integrity and
accountability.
It is not just about making new rules that dictate what
type of planes recruits can fly in or creating formulas that
simply quantify academic progress rates. While those details
are important, it is also important to remind ourselves about
the real goal of reform, transforming college sports into a
culture that fosters healthy and fun athletic competition while
remaining focused on the academic success of student athletes
and their development into honest and respectful adults.
Thank you.
Mr. Stearns. I thank the gentlelady.
The chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Barton.
Chairman Barton. Mr. Chairman, I will waive my opening
statement and just put it in the record.
I do want to welcome the panel, especially former
Congressman McMillen, a distinguished member of this body, and
just make a comment on the graduation rates. At least in Texas
the two schools that had tournament reps. in both the men and
women's tournament, the women were a lot smarter. They
graduated about 50 percent higher than the guys. That is a good
thing for our Texas women.
With that I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Joe Barton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Joe Barton, Chairman, Committee on Energy
and Commerce
Collegiate athletics play a significant cultural role in American
society. Saturday afternoon college football games--whether at the alma
mater or the local university--have become ritual gatherings enjoyed by
friends, family, and classmates for years. The tradition and pageantry
of New Year's Day parades used to be the highlight of many a school,
host city, and the participants that signified the conclusion of a
successful season.
Unfortunately the shine is wearing off for some schools and the
accomplishments of their athletes. Competition on the field is often
overshadowed by problems off the field. Scandals involving collegiate
athletes are increasingly a part of the weekly news. The fact that we
know the problems exist means reform is overdue.
The annual basketball championships produce enormous excitement for
avid fans every March. In fact, so many people watch the basketball
tournament that the current NCAA contract with CBS to televise the
event is worth over $6 billion dollars for 11 years.
This is great news for many collegiate athletes that benefit from
the burgeoning pie the NCAA redistributes to its member schools. This
revenue stream may cross-subsidize other sports at these schools.
Unfortunately, the very same athletes that are essential to the success
of the basketball tournament may be the least likely to benefit by
earning an education and a degree. Division I men's basketball has the
lowest graduation rate of any sport. Although women's basketball is
better, some of the schools exhibit similar sub par graduation rates.
This is not the first time in the history of collegiate sports
there have been calls for reform. Our witnesses today can testify that
some of the same arguments--commercialization and lowering academic
integrity--have been made as far back as 1929. So are we tilting at
windmills? Do we expect to make a few changes and then things will
quiet down when the next season begins? I would like to think we are on
the verge of doing something meaningful for collegiate sports.
The NCAA's proposals to reform the recruiting process are a good
first step. Additionally, the academic reforms approved a few weeks ago
make perfect sense, but may not solve the problem because the
fundamentals creating the problem are only getting worse.
The bigger problem is that we as a society consume athletic events
as fast as they can be served up. We need not go further than cable TV
or the radio to find multiple, 24 hour all sports networks discussing
collegiate athletics as well as professional sports. And the schools
seem all too willing to provide us what we want, day and night.
Basketball tournaments in Hawaii and Alaska, Thursday night football
games, and basketball games every night of the week are all in pursuit
of one objective: MONEY.
The conference realignments are the best indication of why reforms
need to occur. The ACC conference just signed a 7-year contract for
football that is worth $257 million dollars and will require more
Thursday night games. When schools undertake this money chase, they are
approaching the same status as professional sports. Even more
disturbing is that many of the athletic departments are adding fuel to
the fire by applying this model to their other sports--without the
revenue.
The chase for money may prevail at some schools. Unfortunately, the
schools that can't match the expenditures of their rivals will
ultimately reduce, not increase, the opportunities for student athletes
to compete in a sport they love.
I yield back.
Mr. Stearns. I thank the gentleman.
And I now will ask you, the first panel and only panel, to
come forward. We have Dr. William C. Friday, who is President--
oh, sorry. Mr. Towns.
My distinguished colleague from New York, Mr. Towns, is
recognized for an opening statement.
Mr. Towns. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Let me begin by thanking you for holding this hearing today
on NCAA recruiting practices. College athletics play a an
important role in helping thousands of young men and women into
more responsible, caring adults. Sports teaches youngsters
about the value of hard work, team play, and how to deal with
life's adversities and challenges.
We must insure that universities continue to nurture our
student athletes in furtherance of these ideals and do not let
them fall pray to financial and competitive pressures
corrupting major college athletics.
I have had a longstanding interest in insuring that
academics remain an integral part of college athletics. Having
been one of the authors of the Student-Athletes Right to Know
Act, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge my former
member and friend of this body for his work in that regard, Tom
McMillen, who also played a key role in passing this
legislation.
The law required all institutions of higher education to
disclose their graduation rates for their respective athletic
teams. This was an important step in holding universities
accountable and informing student athletes about a school's
commitment to helping them obtain a degree.
However, some programs have been willing to live with the
embarrassment of a virtual no percent graduation rate if it
means one Final Four or another bowl championship appearance.
So I am pleased that the NCAA Board of Directors adopted this
landmark academic reform package by penalizing and rewarding
universities for their student-athletes' academic successes and
failures.
Coaches and ADs may finally pay as much attention to
student-athletes' work in the classroom as they do to their
exploits on the field. While I had hoped that sunshine on
school graduation rates would embarrass coaches into taking the
type of action, this has not been the case unfortunately. And
incentive or disincentive programs will end the lipservice to
academic integrity that has persisted too long on our college
campuses.
I think these reforms are a critical step in the right
direction. For those who say that we have no role in this
process and should let the NCAA do its job, I remind everyone
that the NCAA is made up of member institutions which receive
billions of dollars from this institution. I strongly believe
that Congress should not be in the business of regulating
institutions of higher learning. However, I believe that we
have a role in insuring that these institutions remain centers
of higher learning, not business enterprises that make money on
the backs of young athletes.
So, again, Mr. Chairman, I applaud you and the ranking
member for holding this hearing today, and I look forward to
hearing from the witnesses because I think that we are now in a
position where we need to do something about a very serious
problem that exists out there that nobody now is talking about.
Mr. Stearns. I thank the gentleman. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Rush.
Mr. Rush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I fully concur with the comments of my
colleague from New York, my good friend, Mr. Towns.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for recognizing me, and I
also want to thank you for holding this hearing. While I
acknowledge the problems with recruiting techniques in college
athletics as we reel by the recent scandals at the Universities
of Alabama and Colorado, I would like to touch on a problem
that has infected intercollegiate athletics for a long time,
and that is the exploitation of student athletes, particularly
African American student-athletes for the benefit of the
university.
Anyone who follows college sports knows that the
recruitment of young athletes starts way before the senior year
of high school. As was documented in the film ``Hoop Dreams,''
which took place in Chicago, talented young athletes are
recognized and groomed for the college and even pro game at a
very early age.
The problem with such techniques is that the various
schools who show interest in these young men, really just kids,
really do not have the young athlete's best interest at heart.
Instead, they are interested in elevating or maintaining their
college athletic programs, which is a money maker for the
different schools.
Often what happens is that the school uses the talents of
young athletes only to abandon them when their eligibility has
expired. Too often these young men never end up even graduating
from college. They never make it to the professional level, and
their college experience has been a quick flash in the pan with
nothing to show for it.
Worse, this exploitation falls disproportionately hard on
African American males. The disparity in graduation rates for
whites and black athletes is really appalling. With a few
notable exceptions, most schools have much lower graduation
rates for African American athletes than they do for their
white counterparts.
Let me give you an example. This year's co-national
champion in college football, Louisiana State University, only
graduated 45 percent of their students, 34 percent of their
black students, compared to 56 percent of the white students.
This disparity is even troubling, extremely troubling given
that the other co-national champion, the University of Southern
California, graduated 61 percent of their black players
compared with 60 percent of their white players.
Mr. Chairman, as such, I would like the panel to address
this troubling aspect of college sports and how reckless
recruiting techniques contribute to this problem.
Universities, as was mentioned by my colleagues, have a
duty to nurture and educate our young people and not simply put
them through a meat grinder for the school's coffers. This is
especially true given that the vast majority of schools,
whether they are public or private, they receive public funds,
and these funds are contingent upon each individual school's
policy, stated policy, that they would not discriminate.
There is a nondiscrimination clause that exists for our
colleges and universities across the Nation, particularly those
that receive Federal funds.
And, Mr. Chairman, I welcome our panel today, and I hope
this hearing will address my concerns, and I want to thank you,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Stearns. I thank the gentleman.
[Additional statement submitted for the record follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Barbara Cubin, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Wyoming
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. It provides the
subcommittee with a valuable opportunity to follow up on our previous
hearing regarding the NCAA by taking a close look at the academic
reform proposals the NCAA Division I Board of Directors has
recommended.
I'd also like to thank the distinguished panelists who have joined
us today. I am confident we will all benefit greatly from the
institutional knowledge and pragmatic experience these gentlemen will
share with us today.
Just a short time ago, this Subcommittee came together to examine
NCAA recruiting practices. We came away from that hearing with an
understanding of the fact that many recruiting violations result from
the fact that NCAA member institutions are simply beyond the scope of
the NCAA's authority. I also cultivated a new respect for the goals of
the NCAA. I truly believe this association is founded upon a desire to
craft policies and regulations designed to protect collegiate athletes
and guide their academic progress.
A couple of months ago, the NCAA was under attack for the
unacceptable behavior of some of its affiliated schools. I applaud the
NCAA for acting so quickly and willingly to answer this national
criticism by formulating a comprehensive academic reform proposal
designed to hold institutions accountable for their student athletes'
academic progress. If the governing body of intercollegiate athletics
is actively concerned as to how athletes perform in the classroom, then
it is certainly fair to expect the same oversight from individual
universities.
That said, we are here today to see what means the NCAA intends to
employ to hold schools accountable for enforcing these new academic
standards. The pressure of competition cannot be allowed to supercede a
reasonable standard of academic progress. The NCAA and its member
institutions must agree on a policy that ensures athletes will be aptly
prepared to compete in America's workforce at the conclusion of their
athletic careers.
I thank the Chairman again and yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. Stearns. We will now have the panel come forward.
Dr. William C. Friday, President Emeritus, University of
North Carolina, Co-chairman, the Knight Foundation Commission
on Intercollegiate Athletics, a former colleague of the
Honorable C. Thomas McMillen, a member of the Knight Commission
and, of course, also a former NBA, Co-chair of the President's
Council of Physical Fitness and Rhodes Scholar, and Mr. Willy
Renfro, Senior Advisor to the President, the National
Collegiate Athletic Association.
I thank all of you, and as Mr. Towns and Mr. Rush
mentioned, these are critical for our students, and we are in
competition right now with the Secretary of Defense. He is
briefing all of the Democrats, both parties. So if you see lack
of members here, it is not because we do not have an interest.
I think as Mr. Towns and Mr. Rush have pointed out, who have
been leaders in this area for many years, we have in this
afternoon on a Tuesday, a very important subject, something
that we fervently need to solve, and we are just very pleased
that you are patient to come here in the afternoon and give
your opening statement.
So, Dr. Friday, thank you for coming, and we look forward
to hearing what you have to say.
STATEMENTS OF WILLIAM C. FRIDAY, PRESIDENT EMERITUS, UNIVERSITY
OF NORTH CAROLINA, CO-CHAIRMAN, KNIGHT FOUNDATION COMMISSION ON
INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS; ACCOMPANIED BY HON. C. THOMAS
McMILLEN, CO-CHAIRMAN, PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL ON PHYSICAL FITNESS;
AND WALLACE I. RENFRO, SENIOR ADVISOR TO THE PRESIDENT, THE
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION
Mr. Friday. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Schakowsky, and
other distinguished members of the group, I wish to submit for
the record a complete set of the reports of the Knight
Foundation's Commission on Intercollegiate Sports for your
file.
Mr. Stearns. By unanimous consent, so ordered.
Mr. Friday. The integrity and character of our Nation's
colleges and universities that play major sports, particularly
football and basketball, are being eroded. This commission's
current goals are the work to expose questionable practices and
behavior, to propose solution to those practices, and to work
in partnership with elected representatives of the National
Collegiate Athletic Association, the Association of Governing
Boards, coaches, administrators, and the media to bring about
meaningful reform and to do so promptly.
The commission's ultimate vision for athletics is that it
be fully integrated into the university's institutional
mission.
Division IA football and Division IA basketball
particularly are increasingly serving the mission of
entertainment and institutional revenue generation, and before
I comment on critical needs for reform, it's important to
comment on some progress and hard work that's going on right
now.
In March, the Association of Governing Boards of this
country issued a statement of policy for board of trustee
representatives and responsibilities for intercollegiate
athletics, what they are responsible for. Adoption by
individual boards across the country is going to be monitored
and will be measured by the end of the year.
The Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics and other groups
organized by the faculties across this country are providing a
much needed faculty voice on their own campuses because they
have so much to do with this problem, and they are engaged in
the national debate.
The President and the Board of Directors of the NCAA have
provided leadership in several ways, and especially in the
recent academic reforms that have been proposed. Those reforms,
packaged as they are and tied as they are to scholarship and
post season participation are very constructive.
This subcommittee's last hearing focused on recruiting
practices and abuses, as events reported at some universities
brought these problems to the forefront. The NCAA's recent
discussions concerning the recruiting process further highlight
the fact that current recruiting culture must change.
Recruiting abuses, instances of academic fraud and
excessive spending are the result of establishing winning,
entertainment, and revenue generation as the most important
goals of intercollegiate sports. Reform in recruiting is
important, but there are several other critical areas also.
Institutions have a moral obligation, we believe, to help
every individual admitted as a student athlete to achieve
success in completing a degree. The data that has just been
referred to indicate that there is much room for improvement
along these lines, particularly in Division I basketball.
The Knight Commission reviewed the graduation rates, and as
you have heard, the results of that study three of the Final
Four teams, three of those four in that competition, graduated
fewer than 30 percent of their athletes. I am convinced that
the NCAA's revenue distribution plan that now rewards teams for
the number of wins in the tournament without consideration of
academic performance should be changed in a meaningful way.
As the NCAA strengthens its continuing eligibility
requirements and institutes penalties associated with poor
academic performance, legitimate concerns over academic fraud
have arisen. To address them, admission and academic support
services for athletes should be conducted in the very same way
all other academic processes are handled in the university.
And further, faculty must fulfill their obligations as
stewards of institutional academic integrity. The recent
passage of the NCAA academic performance program which ties
unacceptable academic performance to meaningful sanctions is a
very strong step in the right direction. The standards
established to trigger the penalties must be closely monitored
to create improvement.
Despite the tremendous growth in revenue generated by the
post season events in Division IA football and Division I
basketball, financial reports consistently indicate that a
small percentage of institutions actually generate more revenue
than expenses from their athletic departments.
Indeed, Division IA as a whole has recorded expenses over
revenues each of the past 10 years. Generating profit is not
meant to be the goal of what should be done as an educationally
related endeavor, nor, however, should reports of so-called
profits be used to justify the current model.
One reason expenses most often exceed revenue is the
tremendous escalation in the salaries of football coaches and
men's basketball coaches. Many coaches are paid in excess of $1
million a year.
Another reasons is that athletic facilities have been built
with excesses that you may not be able to find in professional
sports. As an example a West Coast university recently expanded
its football stadium at a cost of over $90 million, including a
locker room for its football team for $3.2 million. The extras
in that locker room include a thumbprint activated safe box,
Internet access, and an individual ventilating system for each
player's locker.
Often the debt incurred to build and expand existing
athletic facilities is in the millions of dollars and growing.
The arms race in intercollegiate athletics must stop.
The NCAA is in the midst of a $6 billion, 11-year contract
with CBS to television its Division I men's basketball
tournament. The NCAA distributes this revenue primarily based
on wins in the tournament and the size of institutions' overall
athletic programs.
The 2003 football post season bowl games, including the
bowl championship series known as BCS, generated $181 million,
90 percent of which was distributed to the six conferences that
comprised the BCS alliance.
It is also noteworthy that the BCS, its revenue
distribution formula and its structure is managed completely
independent of the NCAA governance system.
The inequitable distribution of revenues generated by these
events has caused an unprecedented 50 percent venue gap between
the six conferences that originated the BCS and the remaining
five Division I conferences. Revenue distribution formulas then
must be changed if true reform is to be achieved.
NCAA financial reports indicate that 75 percent of all
expenditures in Division I men's athletics are for football and
basketball. This allocation has remained consistent for the
past 10 years, increasing from 50 percent of all men's athletic
expenditures prior to that decade.
Greater transparency, uniformity and accuracy in the fiscal
reporting of FAR athletics are, therefore essential. As an
example, in many cases significant costs associated with
buildings and operating athletic facilities are not reported in
the athletic department budget, thus calling into question the
validity of even the few institutions that supposedly generate
more revenue than expenses.
Presidents and trustees must know that the true picture of
athletic expenses to understand the real cost of athletics to
an institution. Only then can a proper evaluation be made as to
whether athletics are consuming too much of the institution's
discretionary dollar without enhancing academics.
This commission will have much to say on the financing of
college sports with the release of a study we now have
underway, and we will share it with you.
Institutions have given away too much for television
exposure and money also. One week during the last year's
regular season college football was nationally televised for
five consecutive nights, Tuesday through Saturday. This is not
about students who participate and their needs. It is about
show business and money.
Further, networks dictate to institutions what hour of the
day or night games shall be played, and now to gain even more
television exposure and dollars, some of the institutions will
compete with the traditions of the Sabbath day by playing
football and basketball on Sunday evening as the network
schedules. The only day college football is not played is
Monday night, and that is only because of the popularity of the
NFL.
Mr. Stearns. I am just going to have you sum up a little
bit.
Mr. Friday. I thank you for creating this opportunity to be
heard and to report on more than a decade of work.
It is urgent that the American sports fan understand the
consequences of this constant pressure to win. Intercollegiate
sports are a highly important part of the mission of the
American college and university, but academic fraud, recruiting
violations, excessive compensation, operating an entertainment
industry, failing to provide student athletes with an adequate
learning experience, and serving as an NFL and NBA farm club
clearly are not. It is time for that difference to be
understood.
We thank you for what you are doing.
[The prepared statement of William Friday follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3982.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3982.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3982.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3982.004
Mr. Stearns. And I thank you, Dr. Friday.
Mr. McMillen.
STATEMENT OF HON. TOM McMILLEN
Mr. McMillen. Mr. Chairman, I do not have a formal
statement, but I presume in the question and answers I will
support and assist Dr. Friday.
Mr. Stearns. Okay. Very good.
Mr. Renfro.
STATEMENT OF WALLACE I. RENFRO
Mr. Renfro. Chairman Stearns, Ranking Member Schakowsky,
and other distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am
Wallace Renfro, Senior Advisor to NCAA President Myles Brand,
and I want to thank you for this opportunity.
The defining characteristic of the collegiate model of
athletics in America is that those who compete are students.
Last month the Division I board of directors reaffirmed its
commitment to this principle. The board approved an incentives/
disincentives package that marks the first time Division I has
tied a team's academic success to the number of grants and aids
available to it, access to NCAA championships, and even
certification of the program.
Last fall tougher academic standards for entering freshmen
and enrolled student athletes were implemented based on the
most comprehensive research data base ever compiled to predict
academic success. For example, we know that the best predictor
for success in college is success in a broad range of high
school core courses, even better than success on standardized
tests.
So the number of required high school core courses has been
increased from 13 to 14 and will increase again in 2008 to 16.
We know what it takes for student-athletes once enrolled to
proceed toward graduation in a timely manner. Standards are now
in place that require student athletes to complete 20 percent
of their degree requirements each year.
In addition, specific annual cumulative grade point average
benchmarks are prescribed. We know with a level of scientific
assurance that we have never enjoyed before that if students
athletes meet these standards, they will graduate and will be
well on their way to a successful life.
These reform efforts have been lead by university
presidents, but an early advocate for academic reform has been
the Knight Commission, and Bill Friday has worked tirelessly,
both from within the system as President of the University of
North Carolina and through his association with the Knight
Commission. Dr. Friday is a friend of college sports and its
appropriate role within the university.
But the critics of reform are already on the attack. The
worst are the cynics who predict that reform efforts will fail
because faculty will succumb to pressure and commit academic
fraud. They say higher standards result in increased fraud. The
argument is nonsense. Its logical counterpart is that reducing
standards will reduce such practices and the elimination of all
standards will end academic fraud for good.
Faculties around the country should be insulted. Academic
fraud is the result of lost integrity, not higher standards,
nor is it fair to characterize all coaches as knuckle dragging
neanderthals just interested in academic success. The vast
majority of coaches view themselves as educators who take pride
in the classroom achievements of their charges.
We must be vigilant, of course, toward efforts to peck away
at these reform efforts, but the messages sent forth with these
reforms are clear. To the student athletes, prepare well in
high school. Make legitimate and measurable progress toward a
degree in college because if you do not, you will not
participate in sports.
To the university and specific sports programs, educate the
student athletes under your charge. Achieve a defined measure
of academic success for your team because if you do not, you
risk losing scholarships, being withheld from championships or
having your program be certified. These are the most profound
research based reform efforts ever affirmed for intercollegiate
athletics.
Division I Vice President David Berst testified before this
subcommittee in March as Chair of the NCAA task force on
recruiting. The task force was charged to fast track a review
of practices where alcohol and sex were used as recruiting
inducements and to recommend solutions.
The time line for the task force was clear. We will not go
through another football recruiting season without new
standards in place.
The task force made it's first preliminary report in April
and noted that recruiting practices over time have created a
culture of entitlement among prospective student athletes.
Competition for a highly skilled prospects has raised
expectations for transportation via private jet, five-star
luxury suites, extravagant meals, and game day simulations that
glorify the feats of these athletes before they ever enrolled
or set foot on the field.
The central focus of the preliminary recommendations is to
return recruiting visits to the purpose for which they were
intended, a thorough examination of what each campus has to
offer both athletically and academically.
The preliminary report proposes legislation addressing
these areas of entitlement. In addition, each institution will
be required to develop written guidelines for its recruiting
processes based on the guidelines.
The task force will also develop procedures for the NCAA
office working with its member conferences to initially approve
each school's visit policies, and then to hold the institutions
accountable through its enforcement process.
In addition, the focus will continue on other
recommendations that will reduce the celebrity status of
prospects. The type of behaviors alleged in the past must
become a thing of the past. Some institutions may write
policies more stringent than others, but none may continue to
tolerate the use of alcohol, drugs or sex as inducements.
The confidence of the public and the integrity of college
sports must be restored with the development of sound
guidelines and new standards of acceptable behavior.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Wallace I. Renfro follows:]
Prepared Statement of Wallace I. Renfro, Senior Advisor to the NCAA
President
Chairman Stearns, Ranking Member Schakowsky and other distinguished
Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the National Collegiate
Athletic Association, I appreciate the opportunity to appear today and
discuss the academic reform of intercollegiate athletics, as well as
provide an update on the work of the NCAA Task Force on Recruiting. I
am Wallace Renfro, senior advisor to the NCAA President Myles Brand. I
have been employed by the NCAA for more than 30 years in public affairs
and media relations. Currently, I work directly with President Brand
and provide advice and counsel in a variety of areas, including
communications. The NCAA is a private association of approximately
1,200 four-year institutions of higher education and athletics
conferences. There are some 360,000 student-athletes competing at these
NCAA member schools.
The defining characteristic of the collegiate model of athletics in
America is that those individuals who compete on the field or court are
students. It is to their education and life preparation that those
engaged in intercollegiate athletics--coaches, administrators and
university presidents--must attend most ardently. Last month, the
Division I Board of Directors--a decision-making body of university
presidents that sets national policy for the 320 members of Division
I--reaffirmed its commitment to ensuring the academic success of the
more than 150,000 student-athletes in the division. It approved a
package of rewards and penalties that will hold colleges and
universities, as well as their athletics programs, accountable for
educating their student-athletes. Commonly referred to as the
incentives/disincentives phase of academic reform, passage of the
package of legislation marks the first time Division I has tied a
sports team's academic success to the number of athletics grants-in-aid
available to the team, access to NCAA championships, and even
certification of the program.
This Board action followed implementation last fall of new and
tougher academic standards for entering freshmen and enrolled student-
athletes. These standards are based on the largest and most
comprehensive research database ever compiled to predict academic
success. For example, we know from nearly two decades of data that the
best predictor for success in college is success in a broad range of
high school core courses--better even than success on standardized
tests. So the Board has already increased the number of high school
core courses required from 13 to 14 and will increase the number again
in 2008 to 16.
We also know from the research what it takes for an enrolled
student-athlete to precede toward graduation in a timely manner. We
know, for example, for a freshman to be on track to graduate in five
years, he or she must complete at least 24 hours of course work in the
first year and have a cumulative grade-point-average of at least 1.800.
That became the new standard to determine appropriate progress towards
a degree. But the Board also said a student-athlete must complete 40
percent of his or her degree requirements by the end of the second
year, 60 percent by the end of the third year and 80 percent by the end
of the fourth year. In addition, specific cumulative grade-point-
average benchmarks are proscribed at the end of each year. We know with
a level of assurance that we have never enjoyed before that if student-
athletes meet these standards, they will have an excellent chance to
graduate and will be well on their way to a successful life.
BRIEF HISTORY
These reform efforts have been a number of years in the making.
Since the mid-1980s, college and university presidents have been
working to address a disturbing trend among student-athletes with
regard to their academic success. On average, Division I student-
athletes who first enrolled in college in the early 1980s were
graduating two percentage points below the general student body. There
were even a few embarrassing and unacceptable examples of student-
athletes emerging from four years of college unable to read or write.
The early reform efforts were based more on anecdote than research
and more on theory than science. Nonetheless, the first proposal--Prop
48, as it has become commonly known--began having the desired results.
It raised the bar for entering freshmen and established requirements
for satisfactory progress for enrolled student-athletes. Graduation
rates for student-athlete rose. They began first to close the gap on
those of the general student body and then to surpass them. Today,
student-athletes graduate three percentage points higher than the
general student body. Women graduate at significantly higher rates then
men, and student-athletes in the Olympic sports typically do better
than those in the revenue sports.
Indeed, it has been the lackluster academic performance of student-
athletes in Division I football and the abysmal success rate of those
in men's basketball that prompted the latest round of reforms. While
student-athletes in Division I are graduating at a rate of 62 percent
(compared to 59 percent for the general student-body), football players
are graduating at a rate of 54 percent--five points below the entire
student body and two points below all males in the student body.
Student-athletes in men's basketball currently graduate at a rate of 42
percent--unacceptably below both the general and male student body.
Even more discouraging is the graduation rate of men's basketball
student-athletes in Division I-A, the 117 most elite institutions in
the country. Here, the graduation rate of African-American male
basketball players is 38 percent. And that figure is up 10 percentage
points in one year. While the 38 percent is only four points below the
graduation rate of African-American males in the general student
population at Division I-A institutions, it is unacceptable. As
disturbing as these numbers are, they do not represent the worst story.
There are 10 men's basketball programs in Division I that according to
the federally mandated method of calculating graduation rates have not
graduated a single student-athlete over the past five years, and 46
programs have failed to graduate an African-American male basketball
player in the same span of time.
GRADUATION RATES CALCULATIONS
The Student Right to Know Act of 1990, a bill co-sponsored by
Congressman Towns, required all colleges and universities to submit
their graduation rates of both the general student body and student-
athletes for publication and dissemination to prospects and their
families. The NCAA has published those graduation rates for the last 13
years, and they have helped quantify the issue of poor academic success
rates among certain athletics programs. Until recently, that is. The
Department of Education mandated last year that the rates of those who
were scheduled to graduate (six years after initial enrollment,
according to the federal guidelines) must be ``suppressed,'' or blocked
out, in those instances where the number of individuals enrolled in a
specific cohort or the number individuals who graduated in a specific
cohort was less than three. This mandate means that a program that had
two individuals enter as freshmen in 1996 and that graduated both would
have its success ``suppressed.'' Worse, a program that had five
freshmen enter in 1996 and had none graduate by 2002 could hide its
failure behind the same suppression rule.
Coaches have complained for years that the federal guidelines also
treated programs unfairly with regard to transfers. The coaches are
right. The federal guidelines assign the entire success rate for
graduation to the institution where a student first enrolls. A student
or student-athlete who left the institution in good academic standing
or who would have been academically eligible to compete at the same
institution had he or she returned counted against the school. And no
institution got credit for a transfer-in who did graduate in the
required six years from original enrollment.
The NCAA will collect and publish the data on its own, beginning
this summer. In addition, the NCAA is preparing to calculate a
supplemental rate for student-athletes that will account for transfers
into and leaving a program. This new Graduation Success Rate will more
accurately define how individual programs are doing with regard to
graduation rates and will bring sunshine to those programs where
academic failure could be hidden from public scrutiny.
CYNICS AND NAYSAYERS
The votes by the Division I Board of Directors on the new reform
initiatives had barely been reported last month when the critics went
on the attack. The worst are the cynics who have declared that the
reform efforts will fail because faculty will succumb to the
unrestrained pressure of coaches and fans and commit academic fraud to
ensure that student-athletes remain eligible and athletics programs
remain successful. Their arguments are specious. They would have us
believe that higher academic standards result in increased instances of
academic fraud. The logical counterpart is that reduced standards will
reduce academic fraud, and the elimination of all standards will end
academic fraud for good.
The Board rejects completely the notion that tougher standards are
a barrier to improving academic performance. Faculties around the
country should be insulted by the suggestion that their collective
integrity will wilt in the heat of competitive pressure. Academic fraud
is the result of loss of integrity and not the result of higher
standards or enhanced expectations. Nor is it fair to characterize all
coaches as knuckle-dragging Neanderthals who are disinterested in the
academic success of their student-athletes. The vast majority of
coaches view themselves as educators who take pride in the classroom
achievements of their charges.
All who are involved in the administration of intercollegiate
athletics must be vigilant toward efforts to peck away at these reform
efforts. This is where the attack on integrity and the efficacy of
these new standards will come. Where specific programs or individual
coaches bemoan the harshness of the new standards because they can no
longer be competitive, we will hear that a star athlete has been
treated unfairly and unjustly or that the ``unintended consequences''
of reform must be set right. Those who care more for wins and losses
than caps and gowns will look for the weakest link--the inattention
that comes with satisfaction that reform is complete. Where there is
academic fraud, it must be uncovered and punished. Where there are
adjustments to be made to these standards based on new and better
research, we must respond appropriately. We cannot allow cynicism,
however, to undermine real academic reform. Nor can we permit
perfection to be the enemy of progress.
The messages sent forth by the Division I Board of Directors with
passage of the new academic standards last fall and the incentives/
disincentives package last month are clear. To the student-athletes:
Prepare well in high school, make legitimate and measurable progress
toward a degree in college because if you do not, you will not
participate in sports. To the university and specific sports programs:
Educate the student-athletes under your charge, achieve a defined
measure of academic success for your team because if you do not, you
risk losing scholarships, being withheld from championships or having
your program decertified. These are the most profound, research-based
reform efforts ever affirmed for intercollegiate athletics. They will
result in improved academic success for student-athletes.Recruiting
Task Force Update
Division I Vice-President David Berst testified before this
subcommittee in March as chair of the NCAA Task Force on Recruiting. He
reported on allegations that some institutions--the University of
Colorado has been the most visible and most often in the media--have
used recruiting practices that exceed the standards for acceptable
behavior. Specifically, there have been charges that alcohol, drugs and
sex have been used as recruiting inducements for young men. Mr. Berst
noted that such practices are reprehensible and will not be tolerated,
and he noted that President Brand had formed a task force within a few
days of the first headlines. The task force was charged to ``fast
track'' a review of the issue and to recommend solutions. The timeline
for the task force was clear from the beginning. We will not go through
another football recruiting season without new standards in place.
The task force has made its first report to President Brand and to
the Division I governance structure. (A copy of the report is attached
to this testimony for the subcommittee's review.) In the report, the
task force noted that recruiting practices over time have created a
``culture of entitlement'' among prospective student-athletes. The
competition among institutions for highly skilled prospects has
escalated expectations among prospects for transportation via private
jet, five-star luxury suites, extravagant meals, and ``game day''
simulations that glorify the feats of these athletes before they have
ever enrolled or set foot on the field.
The central focus of the task force's preliminary recommendations
is to return recruiting visits to the purpose for which they were
originally intended. The five official visits afforded prospective
Division I student-athletes are intended to allow a thorough
examination of what each campus has to offer both athletically as well
as academically. Specifically, the report noted that official visits
provide an opportunity:
For prospective student-athletes and their families to fairly and
ethically assess their opportunities for academic and athletic
success and integration into the collegiate experience. This
should be a shared responsibility by all participants with
minimal emphasis on preferences or inducements;
For institutions to fairly and reasonably evaluate a prospective
student-athlete for admission and participation in the
intercollegiate program;
To establish a set of principles and guidelines for the conduct of
the recruiting process with full regard for reasonable and
acceptable forms of behavior;
To maintain principles of institutional and personal accountability
with a set of internal controls sufficient to monitor
compliance and ensure public confidence; and
To support diversity and athletics opportunities of women and
nonrevenue sports.
The preliminary task force report proposes legislation regarding
transportation of prospects, meals and lodging, game-day activities and
entertainment. In addition, the report recommends legislation that will
require each institution to develop and submit written guidelines for
its recruiting process with full regard for reasonable and acceptable
forms of behavior. The guidelines should also promote institutional
accountability through a set of internal controls sufficient to monitor
compliance.
In its review of the report, the Division I Management Council
urged the task force to develop a process for the NCAA national office,
working with its member conferences, to initially approve each
institution's campus visit policies and then to hold the institutions
accountable through its enforcement process. In addition, the Council
directed the task force to focus on other recommendations that would
reduce the celebrity status of prospects and emphasize the
opportunities for prospects and his or her family to make informed
decisions about selection of a college and participation in the
athletics program.
Clearly, the goal is to set national standards that will guide
individual campus policies with the aim of normalizing campus visits,
providing a structure in which informed evaluations can be made and
then holding institutions accountable for their actions. The type of
behaviors alleged in the past must become a thing of the past. Some
institutions may write policies more stringent than others, but none
may continue to tolerate the use of alcohol, drugs or sex as
inducements. Regardless of how deep past practices may run, the
confidence of the public in the integrity of college sports must be
restored to the development of sound guidelines and new standards of
acceptable behavior.
Thank you.
RECOMMENDATIONS OF NCAA TASK FORCE ON RECRUITING
WORKING DOCUMENT AS OF APRIL 12, 2004
Call to Action. Within a few days of headlines alleging excesses in
the recruitment of prospective student-athletes related to the use of
alcohol and entertainment at ``strip clubs,'' NCAA President Myles
Brand responded on February 17, 2004, by calling for the appointment of
an NCAA Task Force on Recruiting to review NCAA rules and practices
related to ``official campus visits'' and to propose appropriate
changes before the 2004-05 recruiting season.
While it was noted that alleged illegal conduct is a matter that
should be left to law enforcement officials to adjudicate and that
institutions are the first line of defense to set standards for moral
and ethical behavior, the NCAA also has a unique role to ensure that
proper national rules and guidelines are in place to govern athletics
recruiting practices, to assess accountability for failures and to act
as a resource to assist in developing an institutional compliance
program.
Timeline for Project. The task force members were selected by
February 24 (members are identified at the end of this report) and the
group met via conference call on March 5 and in-person on March 29,
2004. The task force also completed certain other assignments during
that period via e-mail communication. An eleven member NCAA staff group
also met with the task force on March 29 and separately on February 24
and March 3.
This working document of task force recommendations was presented
to the Division I Management Council on April 20 and will be reviewed
by the Division I Board of Directors on April 29, 2004. It is
anticipated that the task force then will review the reactions of those
groups and other reactions received soon after the April meetings and
that a revised working document, will be circulated to the 31 Division
I conferences, various coaches associations and other interested groups
for discussion and debate during the spring and early summer. Following
consideration of the reactions and comments received from all groups,
the task force's final recommendations will be considered by the
Division I Management Council on July 19, with the expectation that the
Board of Directors will be asked on August 5 to use its authority to
adopt emergency legislation so that necessary rule changes will be in
effect immediately, and most importantly, before the 2004-05 recruiting
season.
Public Confidence and Guiding Principles. The task force began its
evaluation of the ``official campus visit'' experience from the point
of view that NCAA recruiting practices have not always developed out of
concern for what a prospect must learn to select a college, but rather
were often adjusted in order to address perceived recruiting advantages
for some institutions in the competitive recruiting environment in
Division I athletics. For example, modifications regarding
entertainment of prospects within a specified number of miles from
campus as compared to anywhere within city limits have been debated by
the membership several times.
This project, buoyed by broad-based support following media
accounts of abuses, provides an opportunity to reevaluate the campus
visit experience and to make recommendations for changes that more
approximate the expected recruiting experiences of other exceptional
prospective students, such as a science student or music or art
prodigies.
The task force agreed that current recruiting practices often
exacerbate a prospective student-athlete's sense of entitlement, rather
than reinforce that student-athletes also are expected to contribute
constructively to the academic mission of the institution and in turn,
benefit by gaining knowledge and tools through education in order to
contribute to society. Further, the principles established for campus
visits should serve as a foundation that withstands public scrutiny and
that serve to maintain public confidence in the integrity of those
involved in intercollegiate athletics.
The following statement and principles were adopted.
The campus visit of a prospect is an opportunity:
For prospective student-athletes and their families to fairly and
ethically assess their opportunities for academic and athletic
success and integration into the collegiate experience and
should be a shared responsibility by all participants with
minimal emphasis on preferences or inducements;
For institutions to fairly and reasonably evaluate a prospective
student-athlete for admission and participation in the
intercollegiate program;
To establish a set of principles and guidelines for the conduct of
the recruiting process with full regard for reasonable and
acceptable forms of behavior;
To maintain principles of institutional and personal accountability
with a set of internal controls sufficient to monitor
compliance and ensure public confidence; and
To support diversity and the athletic opportunities of women and
nonrevenue sports.
DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDED LEGISLATION
The task force reviewed numerous alternatives to the current NCAA
rules governing campus visits. There was agreement among the group that
a recommendation to change a current regulation would require a minimum
of 60 percent support among the group (i.e. 11 of 18) in order to move
the initiative forward for further consideration by the membership.
Based on that standard, the task force agreed to SUPPORT the following
recommendations:
1. Transportation.
a. Recommendation: Require institutions providing air transportation to
prospects to and from an official campus visit to use
commercial transportation at coach-class airfare and to
prohibit upgrades. [For 17, Abstain 1.]
Rationale: The proposed recommendation should assist institutions
in establishing a reasonable environment for the conduct of an
official visit, while minimizing excessive expectations created
by the use of private or charter airplanes. The group noted
that an institution may seek a waiver from the NCAA
Administrative Review Subcommittee to address an emergency
situation where the use of commercial transportation is not
practical or feasible. In addition, while it was recognized
that institutions are not always located at convenient
distances from a commercial airport, it was noted that this
fact should not be avoided during recruitment and should not be
a surprise to the prospect when traveling to the institution
for initial enrollment.
b. Recommendation: Prohibit institutions from using special vehicles
(e.g., modified with televisions or special decor or
appointments) to transport prospects around campus during the
official visit. The task force noted that institutions should
be expected to use private or institutional vehicles generally
used by personnel to transport prospective students on campus
tours. [Unanimous Voice Vote.]
Rationale: The proposed recommendation should assist institutions
in establishing a reasonable and appropriate environment for
the conduct of an official visit.
2. Meals and Lodging.
Recommendation: Require prospects (and prospect's parents or legal
guardians) to be housed in standard lodging that does not
include special accessories (e.g., Jacuzzis, suites) that are
not available generally to all guests residing at the lodging
establishment; further, to require prospects (and prospect's
parents or legal guardians) to eat standard meals on an
official visit that are comparable to those provided to
student-athletes during the academic year and to permit a
reasonable snack (e.g., pizza, hamburger) to be provided in
addition to the meals. [For 16, against 0, abstain 1.]
Rationale: The proposed recommendation will assist in establishing
a reasonable and appropriate environment that more closely
resembles normal life for an enrolled student-athlete. The task
force noted that although the legislation would not require
institutions to provide meals on campus, the practice should be
encouraged as a ``best practice'' for institutions to consider
when providing meals to prospects (and the prospect's parents
or legal guardians).
3. Game-Day Activities.
Recommendation: Prohibit institutions from arranging miscellaneous,
personalized promotional activities and from engaging in any
game-day simulations during a prospect's official visit. Such a
recommendation would prohibit such activities as personalized
jerseys, personalized audio or video scoreboard presentations
and running onto the field with the team during pregame
introductions, but would not preclude prospects from being
present in the locker room prior or subsequent to a competition
or standing on the sidelines during pregame activities prior to
being seated in the regular seating areas during the
competition. [For 16, against 1.]
Rationale: The proposed recommendation will assist in establishing
a reasonable and acceptable environment for the conduct of the
official visit, and will help to eliminate the ``keeping up
with the Joneses'' mentality that often leads to excessive
activities during the official visit designed to induce the
prospect to attend the institution.
4. Institutional Policies Related to Official Visits.
Recommendation: To require institutions to certify that written
departmental policies related to official visits that apply to
prospects, student-hosts, coaches and other athletics
administrators have been established and are on file.
Institutions would be responsible for the development of
appropriate policies regarding specified issues, including
policies related to alcohol, hosts, unsupervised entertainment
and sessions regarding academic programs and services, and
would be held accountable through the NCAA enforcement program
for compliance with these policies. [Unanimous Voice Vote.]
Rationale: The proposed recommendation will ensure establishment of
a set of principles and guidelines for the recruiting process
with full regard for reasonable and acceptable forms of
behavior and promote institutional accountability through a set
of internal controls sufficient to monitor compliance. This
recommendation also recognizes that setting national rules
regarding policies such as curfews and sites where
entertainment may take place would not be as effective in
changing current behaviors as permitting institutions to adapt
policies to each institution's unique environment along with
clear accountability standards for compliance through the
national organization.
5. Entertainment.
Recommendation: To require that hosts used for the entertainment of
prospects consist of either current student-athletes who are
members of the team in the sport in which the prospect is being
recruited or that they be designated in a manner consistent
with the institution's policies for providing tours to
prospective students generally who make campus visits.
[Unanimous Voice Vote.]
Rationale: The proposed recommendation will establish a more
reasonable environment for prospects and their families to
fairly assess their opportunities for academic and athletics
success and their ability to integrate into the intercollegiate
experience. Further, it will assist in establishing an
environment that is consistent with the recruitment of other
prospective students who make campus visits.
6. Other items.
a. The group previously expressed support for the following
recommendations:
Expanding current unethical conduct regulations applicable to
prospective student-athletes, student-athletes and
institutional staff members to address inappropriate behavior
(e.g., under-age drinking, use of drugs, entertainment
activities) that may occur during a prospect's official visit.
Requiring a prospect making an official visit and the student-athlete
serving as a host to sign a form indicating that he or she will
not engage in inappropriate conduct during the official visit
as defined by the institutions.
b. The task force also discussed but did not act at this time to
eliminate the cash allowance provided to the student hosts and agreed
to further discuss the merits of such a proposal in developing the
appropriate environment to ensure institutional accountability related
to the entertainment of prospects (and their parents) during an
official visit. Some support for vouchers or credit certificates was
expressed.
NOT RECOMMENDED
The task force considered, but DECLINED to support the following
recommendations. These are included in the report to invite comments by
constituent groups before final task force recommendations are
considered by the Management Council and Board of Directors in July and
August.
21. Allow institutions to pay the airline transportation costs of a
parent or legal guardian accompanying the prospect during the
official visit. [For 7, against 10, abstain 1.] The task force
acknowledged that, in some instances, it may be helpful for a
prospect's parent or legal guardian to be present during the
official visit and should be encouraged, but also noted that
attending the visit without his or her parent also provides the
institution insight into how the prospect will integrate into
the intercollegiate experience. Interest was expressed in
providing flexibility to encourage parents and family members
who do accompany the prospect to participate more fully. It
also was noted that clearly stated institutional policy
regarding conduct is more meaningful than attempting to
influence behavior through required parent supervision.
2. Reduce the number of official visits from the current number of five
and reduce the length of the current 48-hour time period for
conducting the visit. [For 1, against 15, abstain 2.] The group
noted that reducing the number of official visits and the time
period for conducting the visit simply affects the time when
excessive or inappropriate behavior can take place and the
focus should more appropriately be on establishing standards of
behavior through institutional policies.
3. Establish an early signing date in those sports in which early
signing dates currently do not exist. [No action taken.] The
group noted that such a recommendation encourages a prospect to
forgo announcing commitments or signing until he or she takes
the maximum number of visits and noted that further discussion
of this issue should take place in the context of the
development of a new recruiting calendar for which earlier
access by coaches also is considered.
4. Require prospects to attend class or some form of academic
orientation session during an official visit. [No action
taken.] The group opined that academic activities are in fact
occurring on most campuses and agreed that functions related to
student activities, student life, career counseling and other
academic related issues should be included as part of a ``best
practice'' recommendation or topics addressed by the
institution's campus visit policies.
SUMMARY
As noted earlier in this report, the recommendations of the task
force are intended to provide a prospect and the institution a
meaningful opportunity to make an informed decision about attendance at
the institution and participation in the athletics program, while at
the same time are intended to eliminate unjustified special
arrangements associated with campus visits.
In addition, requiring institutions to certify that campus visit
policies and practices are in place acknowledges the responsibility of
institutions to set standards for a healthy visit that take into
account the uniqueness of each institution, but also provides the NCAA
an accountability mechanism if failures are detected. While many
institutions already have campus visit policies in place, it was
suggested that the task force also develop an outline to assist
institutions in addressing the full range of issues related to the
campus visit experience. A set of recommendations and suggestions
regarding sound practices will be considered by the task force and
circulated to the membership in advance of the adoption of legislation
this summer.
It is to be hoped that the task force recommendations will be
embraced by NCAA Division I institutions and coaches and that limiting
excesses and adopting clear accountability for conduct associated with
official campus visits will serve the academic and athletic missions of
NCAA institutions while also assuring public confidence in the
integrity of systems.
Task Force Members. David Berst, NCAA Vice-President for Division
I, chair; Tim Curly, Director of Athletics, Pennsylvania State
University; Jeremy Foley, Director of Athletics, University of Florida;
Katie Groke, Student-athlete, University of Wyoming; Reggie Minton,
Associate Executive Director, National Association of Basketball
Coaches; Jim Murphy, Director of Athletics, Davidson College Greg
Naples, Professor of Accounting/Faculty Athletics Representative,
Marquette University; Greg Naples, Professor of Accounting/Faculty
Athletics Representative, Marquette University; Kevin Nesfield,
Student-athlete, Purdue University; Chris Plonsky, Director of Women's
Athletics, University of Texas, Austin; Sonia Price, Interim Director
of Athletics/Women's Volleyball Coach, Alabama State University;
Shannon Reynolds, Senior Director of Events/External Affairs, Women's
Basketball Coaches Association; Virginia Shepherd, Professor of
Pathology/Director of Science Outreach, Vanderbilt Medical Center; Gene
Smith, Director of Athletics, Arizona State University; Grant Teaff,
Executive Director, American Football Coaches Association; Patty
Viverito, Commissioner, Gateway Football Conference; Stan Wilcox,
Associate Commissioner, Big East Conference; Jill Willson, Director of
Athletics, Texas A&M University, Kingsville; and Debbie Yow, Director
of Athletics, University of Maryland, College Park.
The task force has been assisted by a group of eleven NCAA staff
members who have been working in concert with the task force: Elsa
Cole--General Counsel; Beth DeBauche--Director of Division I; David
Didion--Director of Enforcement; Keith Gill--Director of Membership
Services; Jeff Howard--Managing Director of Public Relations; Damani
Leech--Associate Director for Baseball and Football; Kevin Lennon--
Vice-President for Membership Services; Steve Mallonee--Membership
Services Managing Director/Division I Governance Liaison; Delise
O'Meally--Director of Membership Services; David Price--Vice-President
for Enforcement Services; and Rosie Stallman--Director of Education
Outreach.
Mr. Stearns. Mr. Renfro, thank you, and I will start with
the questions.
Certainly it is welcoming rhetoric, opening statement to
hear your comments, and it sounds good, and I appreciate your
presenting that information.
I guess the question is what we saw happen at the
University of Colorado and we see that Dr. Hoffman came up with
a whole new regimentation that she is enforcing, and she has
agreed to actually sign the policy, the written policy on
record in her college regarding the recruiting policy.
Does your recommendation require the signature of the
president of the university to sign and shouldn't the president
be held accountable for these policies that the recruiting
people are involved with?
I mean, it is like what we did with FASB when we dealt with
Telecom bubble and we saw Enron and all of these people. So the
Oxley-Sarbanes Act said, okay, the CEO is going to now have to
sign the P&L statement. I mean, your task force does not
include that the president signs anything of any accountability
responsibility, does it?
Mr. Renfro. An overriding principle in the NCAA is the
concept of institutional responsibility and that the president,
the chief executive officer, signs off on all of those.
Mr. Stearns. So your recommendation is this afternoon that
the president of the university should sign this policy
statement.
Mr. Renfro. It is a fundamental part of the way that the
association handles these issues.
Mr. Stearns. Okay. When you developed your task force, you
had athletic directors, you had athletes and faculty
representatives. Did you ever have any presence of universities
on the task force with recommendations?
Mr. Renfro. Mr. Chairman, I have the listing of the task
force members attached to the document that was presented to
the committee.
Mr. Stearns. Okay.
Mr. Renfro. Let me look quickly through here.
I do not see a president.
Mr. Stearns. We did not see any, and my suggestion would be
to you before you put this into concrete form, that you get the
presidents of the university, some of them, involved to give
some suggestion to what you are doing.
Mr. Renfro. Well, let me be sure that I point out that
ultimately the people that are going to sign off on these
recommendations is the board of directors, which is made up
entirely of university presidents. As a matter of fact, they
commented and are continuing to comment on these
recommendations after its presentation to them 2 weeks ago.
But that board will be the body that signs off on the
recommendations.
Mr. Stearns. Dr. Friday, the Knight Commission first met, I
think, in 1989. I think you and I talked about it, and you
talked about some of the problems back in 1989. Do you see a
lot of change since 1989, I mean, honestly?
Mr. Friday. We have seen the change in the structure of the
NCAA, which was our first proposal, that the presidents be put
in charge.
The second point of emphasis was academic reform. You have
commented on what has happened recently.
The third point of emphasis was financial accountability.
We will be in a position to say something about this
definitively in the fall.
It is the problem of commercialization that is in excess
now. Networks telling institutions when to pay , the amount of
money that is involved flowing for salaries.
Mr. Stearns. We get involved in this subcommittee because
of commerce being in our title. I am going to give you a chance
here, and this is really going to be a tough question for you.
In a way I do not see a lot of difference between professional
sports and collegiate sports in terms of the commercialization
that is created. The athletic departments almost operate as a
business. You know, they build this $90 million facility you
talked about, $3.5 million for the locker room. I mean, they
all benefit from the tax code.
And yet they are taking in millions of dollars through the
commercialization of selling this sport. I mean, do you think
their status as a not for profit organization should be
affected?
I mean, if we went to a not for profit status, that would
change us dramatically if they did not come up with a policy
here. I mean, this is a big statement here, and I want you to
give me some help on this because there are a lot of alumni who
will not be too appreciative.
Mr. Friday. Well, I think you have to look at it in the
context of the series of decisions of the Supreme Court with
reference to antitrust status. The universities, if you read
Justice White's dissent in the Oklahoma case, you will see that
what he has predicted will come true, and the institution is
not able to do what you would have it do in the sense of
setting certain standards. You don't pay any more than this
level or have or have a conference do it. That cannot be done
under these opinions.
Maybe an exemption to antitrust states what we're really
talking about.
Mr. Stearns. Mr. McMillen, some leaders in the collegiate
basketball profession, including Terry Holland and Dean Smith,
advocate for freshmen ineligibility. Do you think this would
help in the adjustment of a freshmen and his academics if he
was told he was ineligible as a freshman for professional
sports?
Mr. McMillen. I am somewhat ambivalent on that issue. If
you would indulge me for a minute, I think it is a minor issue
when there are many major issues to deal with. I would like to
follow up on Bill Friday's comment.
Mr. Stearns. Sure, okay.
Mr. McMillen. You know, this is kind of like the movie
``Groundhog Day.'' You keep getting up and the same story is
over and over again. Nothing changes.
Well, that is really the plight of really intercollegiate
athletics, and I comment the NCAA, and they have made a lot of
good progress, but there are some structural problems, and I
would like for the record to submit to you legislation that I
introduced in 1991 that referred to this committee and others,
as well as an op.ed.
[The material appears at the end of the hearing.]
Mr. Stearns. By unanimous consent so ordered.
Mr. McMillen. And basically it deals with what Wizzer White
said in 1984 when you had a fragmentation of television rights
in the Oklahoma NCAA case. He said that you are going to see an
arms race in college sports. It is going to have, you know, one
school against the other, and you are going to have a terrible
mess on your hand.
In his dissent report in that court case, he went against
the majority report, was truly prophetic. The legislation I
introduced in 1991 was to try to take all of the money in
college sports, put it back into one pot, have the presidents
control that pot, have it distributed to colleges and
universities not based on winning and losing, but on gender
equity, breadth of programs, less money for, you know, high
paid coaches.
Mr. Stearns. Including graduation rates maybe.
Mr. McMillen. And graduation rates, and if schools wanted
to opt out of that system, let them be taxed like taxable
businesses. That was the essence of the legislation.
You know, I said at the time it is going to take 20 years
before anyone would take it seriously, and it would be a
gambling crisis or some scandal in college sports before people
would look at it.
I am proud to say that the Knight Commission now is
beginning to look at these issues seriously. I do not think
college sports is ready for this. It is not going to happen
tomorrow, but when you talk about vision, which is what you
said in your opening statement, we have to look ahead and
figure out how to put this commercial monster back in its
place.
Kids will play just as hard where the coach makes $2
million a year or $1 million or $100,000, $200,000. They will
play just as hard on the court. Adn the point you said, it look
s a lot like professional sports is true, except if you want it
to look like professional sports, then the players ought to be
able to walk in with a lawyer and negotiate a contract just
like the coach could do.
But I am not advocating that. I am saying that if you want
a professional sports league, give the players rights and run
it like a business and tax it like a business, but if you want
a college system, then the whole thing has to be restructured.
And that was really the point.
And if you restructure it, you will take care of recruiting
abuses. You will take care of the freshmen issues. One thing
you ought to understand about college sports right now is that
schools do not even put their schedules out anymore because
they have to wait until the networks tell them when their
football games are going to be in the fall.
The presidents of universities are no longer in control of
their campus schedules because they networks tell them that the
games will be Sunday night at nine o'clock or Sunday night at
seven o'clock or Saturday afternoon. They are the ones in
control.
And I think that this committee, if it is looking at the
long view of college sports, notwithstanding all of the things
that the NCAA has done in the right direction, I think you have
to look at the bit picture and see where all of this is going
to go over the next 5 to 6 years.
Mr. Stearns. I thank the gentleman. My time has expired.
The gentlelady, Ms. Schakowsky.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
At the last hearing, President Betsy Hoffman from
University of Colorado was testifying, and I was very concerned
and continue to be about the statements that Gary Barnett said
about a girl who said she was raped and what sounded like this
really unacceptable excuse that, well, she is a girl, is what
he said and she was not very good anyway.
And you talked, Dr. Friday. Here is an individual that is
on paid leave. He makes over $1 million a year, and there is
some sort of investigation going on.
But if we are talking about culture, changing a culture
here, then I am still absolutely mystified that someone who
made such a blatant kind of sexist and inappropriate statement
about what is potentially a serious crime against this girl is
left in this position. I cannot understand what a rationale
could be, and I cannot understand what kind of signal it sends
to young men who are playing this sport.
And I wanted some comments about that, and if in any way
the new NCAA guidelines address this kind of behavior on the
part of a coach and speak to this kind of unacceptable
statement.
Mr. Friday. Well, it was an inappropriate and wholly
unnecessary and improper statement. No question about that.
The report of the investigation at the University of
Colorado will be in your hands either tonight or tomorrow. It
is coming out, adn there are findings in there. I do not know
what happened in disposition of people, but I would guess that
there would be some very severe language in there. I have seen
some advance sheets on it.
But we are dealing here with a question of integrity and
character of an institution, and when you represent an
institution, whatever you position is, you should act that way.
There is no other option you have.
And I think when the basketball coaches called themselves
into executive session not too many weeks ago, this is one of
the matters they were talking about: conduct, behavior. They
had two or three cases like in Baylor and some other peoples
that had come up.
So I am sure they are working on it. We just do not know
about it, but I would agree with you. It needs to be done.
Ms. Schakowsky. I just think he should be gone, gone, gone,
gone once those words came out of his mouth, and the fact that
he is not is a very loud message.
Mr. Renfro, did you want to comment on that?
Mr. Renfro. President Hoffman has indicated that she is
going to make a decision about his future at the University of
Colorado. I think by the end of the month. She wanted to wait
until this report came out, and that is a process that she
chose to address the issue.
I think it is very difficult for anybody who heard those
statements to think of a context in which they are appropriate,
and I think that everyone has been upset, disturbed, outraged
by those statements. I will not try to predict what President
Hoffman will do, but it would appear that she has indicated
that she is going to make a decision by the end of the month.
Ms. Schakowsky. And let me just say for the record I think
by letting it go this far even, she has said something about
it, that it was not serious enough.
But, Mr. Renfro, the NCAA President, Myles Brand, said in
early April, he said, ``I think it is the proper role of the
NCAA in this case to legislate behavior, and let me tell you
why. In the past we have allowed common sense and moral decency
to be the guiding factors in recruiting.''
Well, it does not work, understanding that we are going to
have to take steps to regulate behavior. He also said, ``There
are certain behavior standards that are not permissible. You
want to legislate behavior so that it does not put the student
athlete, the potential student athlete or anyone else in the
position to undertake illegal activity.''
Well, given that this is the public position of Mr. Brand,
why did the task force choose to act actually, it seems to me,
in the opposite manner and instead leave the question of
behavioral standards up to individual colleges or universities?
Mr. Renfro. You know, I do not believe that the task force
is going to finish its report without firmly saying that
behaviors that include the use of alcohol, drugs, or sex as
inducements will not be tolerated. I don't believe that that
report will end up absent that kind of statement.
It is the kind of statement that, in retrospect, you may
wonder why it wasn't there all along. And I think that is
exactly what President Brand was trying to get at. I think
there was a sort of acceptance, an understanding, that that is
a level of common decency and common sense that you would think
would prevail. But it will be there going forward.
Mr. Stearns. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Towns.
Mr. Towns. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Renfro, you know, if these reforms are put in place,
will the NCAA have the resources to actually investigate or to
make certain that they are kept are lived up to?
Mr. Renfro. In the last few months, President Brand has
increased the size of the enforcement staff by about 50
percent, added six new investigators. I think that is going to
make a big difference, and I will tell you that he is committed
to making sure that the enforcement of the bylaws is as strong
and as powerful and as determined as he is with changing the
culture, understanding that what we are here for are the
student athletes.
Obviously, we will never have enough representatives,
enforcement representatives to put one on every campus to be
sort of continuously investigated. We have to change the
culture in a way that puts the institutions in a position where
they act responsibly, and when they don't they are held
accountable.
Mr. Towns. You know, I guess the reason I raised this issue
is that when you hear coaches say--and I have heard this--you
know, I have been involved in this stuff now for a long time.
And coaches would say to me, ``I am leaving that university,
because they are too rigid, and I am going to another
university.''
So what I am saying is that a coach will come in, not
follow the rules, not follow the regulations, and then all of a
sudden the school is in a mess, he goes on to another
university, gets a job making four times the amount that the
President is going to make at the university. I mean, how do
you control something like that? This thing seems to me just--
this bus is loose. There is no driver.
Mr. Renfro. It is almost impossible to control that,
because institutions have the ability to hire. The NCAA does
not hire coaches. That is the responsibility of individual
institutions. We try to expose the history of those coaches who
commit those kinds of grievances and who violate, sort of at
will, NCAA bylaws.
We even have regulations in place that says to that hiring
institution, ``You are going to have to come before us and
explain to us what you have done, how you--what you have put in
place, show cause for why this individual should be hired by
your institution as a coach,'' because this is the pattern in
the past. We want to see what you have done to guarantee that
those kinds of behaviors aren't going to continue in the
future.
Mr. Towns. You know, the other thing that--you know, that
really I am troubled by is that these are educational
institutions, and that you have a President making $300,000, or
$250,000, and then you have a coach making $2.6 million. I
mean, what kind of message does this send? I mean, there is
something wrong with this.
Mr. Renfro. I think that all of us would take a look at how
the marketplace affects salaries, maybe in various professions,
and wonder how salaries got to where they are, and yet we know
that it is the marketplace that is ultimately going to
determine that.
We were in a--you know, we had legislation at one point
that tried to control the salary of one particular
classification of coaches, and suit was brought against us, we
lost, and it cost the association $54 million for the
experiment. As a matter of fact, we are not able to control the
salary of coaches.
One point I will make--remember that not all of that money
is coming from the university. Very often the bulk of it is
coming from other sources. Those coaches have to disclose the
source of those other funds, but it is not under the control of
the university. And so they may be from consulting, from
television contracts, from endorsement type arrangements. There
may be various other sources for those funds.
There are a number of other individuals on a campus who may
be in that same category. There are professors who are paid a
handsome, but nominal, fee for what it is that they do, and
they also have outside income that are, frankly, equal to what
some of the coaches are making.
Mr. Towns. Let me just be right candid with you. You know,
we spend a lot of time with the student athletes' rights. You
know, my good friend Tom McMillen was involved in those issues
here. And, of course, they found a way to get around that. You
know, in that we had the letter of intent, you had to indicate
your graduation rate. Now they don't send letters; they make a
phone call to the kid. I mean, it seems to me that you need to
do something to be able to say that a letter of intent must go
out.
I mean, I don't know what to do. I am just frustrated,
because I think that our young people are just being used and
abused. And I think it is wrong, and I think that what they are
saying on the phone, as one kid told me, he says, ``Well, you
know, if there is any question about our graduation rate, you
need to understand it is because we send our players to the
pros.''
Mr. Renfro. Congressman, here is what we have done. We have
been publishing those graduation rates since the Act was put in
place. We have been in discussion with the Department of
Education about some of those rates, because there are rules
that suppress the rates in some instances, and in some cases
that has kept us from shining the light on some of the worst
examples.
Beginning this summer we are going to collect the data
ourselves, and we are going to publish it. So as a matter of
fact, we are going to take it one step further than has been
the practice the last couple of years. We are going to collect
the data, and we are going to publish it. We are not going to
suppress those kinds of numbers in the future.
Mr. Towns. I am happy to hear that. Let me just--Dr.
Friday, I would like to hear your comments, because I have
followed your career and I have been so impressed with you, you
know, down through the years. I would sure like to hear you on
this.
Mr. Friday. What you have brought to fore here is one of
the fundamental problems in college sport. That coach's
salary--let us take a big-time coach. It is $500,000 in the
shoe contract, $300,000 or $400,000 in doing radio and
television, some of them have annuities that have amounts
involved, $300,000, $400,000, $500,000.
The pay that they get from the institution is by far the
smallest piece of the package. This is the way it has evolved.
Now, going back to the chairman's earlier question, maybe,
as you are suggesting here, these contracts should bear the
President's signature, and that he should have to authorize
these as appropriate uses of the university itself. You see
what happens is when you as a coach sign that contract, you
guarantee that your players are going to wear that uniform, and
you don't have any option about it.
So you are merchandising the university yourself, and that
is what the President's job is. And this is what I am sure
tonight the Commission will have something to say about.
Mr. Towns. Thank you. I know my time has expired.
Mr. Stearns. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Rush.
Mr. Rush. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
As I sit here, and as I listen to some of the comments--
and, you know, I have followed this issue for a number of
years, and it seems as though we are on a merry-go-round as we
try to change the practices and change some of the outcomes on
these particular issues, especially as it relates to how the
enormous input of--influx of dollars, how it has corrupted the
college athletic programs across this country.
And, really, right now it is like a quagmire that exists as
far as I am concerned. It is like a--it is a quicksand of
just--I don't know exactly how we are going to try to pull
college athletics out of this quagmire that exists.
I guess, you know, Mr. Chairman, I want to just ask the
committee, because I am particularly--I mean, as the
panelists--I am particularly concerned about the graduation
rates and the recruitment levels and the commitment to these
young people who are--who are looking for a better life for
themselves and for their family, and who put a lot of their
future and a lot of their--just they invest a lot.
I mean, an athlete invests a lot of their time and efforts
trying to get--come up out of some very, very difficult
circumstances. And they go off into these schools sometimes,
and then they are just treated like--you know, like shadow
property for the most part.
And I just--you know, I know Tom indicated some 13 years
ago that he passed legislation which was very important, and I
think that the--I am at a point where I am so frustrated that I
think that we need to really look at, how do we get--how do we
fight these institutions where their pocketbooks--fight them in
the pocketbooks? And use the RES or other kinds of legal
systems to force these schools to deal with the ramification of
what their practices are.
And so my question to the panel--because as a Member of
Congress, I mean, I am frustrated. I am very frustrated. You
know, I know that the NCAA is doing what it feels as though it
should be doing, and I know that the Knight Foundation is doing
what it should be doing. And Tom and others are trying to do
what they feel should be done.
And, you know, there are always ways that these
universities are--and these coaches and these other commercial
interests in our country--there are always ways for them to try
to figure out how to get beyond where we are all trying to head
to.
So my question is: is there a role that other Federal
agencies could play in terms of bringing these appointed
practices of these universities to a screeching halt? Can we
use the court systems better? Can we use the tax codes better?
Should we put at risk those institutions' tax exempt status if,
in fact, they continue to discriminate against their own
athletes, their own students, by forcing--I mean, by having
these severe disparities in terms of the graduation rates? I
mean, is that an appropriate way to proceed?
Mr. Friday. I would hope that the universities themselves,
now that they are in real arm lock trying to change this
situation, would be allowed to really work with the system.
Let me illustrate. The Commission recommended that you
wouldn't be allowed to play in a bowl game if you didn't
graduate 50 percent of your athletes. That gets to the money.
And when you cutoff the money flow, you get attention. And the
work that they are doing now with the academic reforms, you
remember, ties into this very point, because you have to
achieve or you don't participate.
Now, we haven't done these kinds of things before. But
money is generating half the problems we have got, so we have
got to attack it that way, and directly I think. Now, it would
have worked a real hardship in the last NCAA championship. But
when you tell these institutions that this is the standard, and
you say this to most young people, they achieve.
We had a 98 percent graduation rate in basketball, but that
was because Coach Smith really took an interest in every single
player. They spend $500,000 a year in counseling services for
these young men and women, and that is the reason they have
been so successful.
You will find this going on in almost all of the big
programs. The question is--now there is so much pressure to
leave early, and I am very pleased that the NCAA is working on
a way to be more fair in computing graduation rates, because
right now if you transfer out, you get penalized in the wrong
way by the formula the government has prescribed.
So please give them--give us time, through the NCAA's
efforts, the Commission's efforts, the faculty groups, the
governing boards. There are so many people now really listening
that I think some things will happen that will make a real
difference.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Chairman, I know--could I just follow up with
this question, and anybody can answer this. Tom, if you have
got some points. Okay. That is the universities. Now, here you
have the broadcasters who are under jurisdiction of this
committee. What do you suggest that we do? How would you
suggest that we deal with the broadcasters? Because they are
partners in this--in these efforts.
Mr. McMillen. I would like to answer that by using an
analogy. Back in the 1970's when the Olympic Committee was
reconstituted, there were many fifedoms of amateurs in America,
and the Amateur Sports Act put all of that together and make
the United States Olympic Committee all powerful. And it has
worked pretty well over the years, with a few problems
recently.
I am in favor of an all-powerful NCAA. I don't like the
conferences doing their thing. I don't like these--the
playoffs. I don't like any of that. I like to have an all-
powerful NCAA. I like them to control it based on academic
values, not commercial values.
There will be just as much money. They can tell the
broadcasters when they can broadcast, not the other way around.
And if schools don't want to play in that game, tax them like
businesses. That was the genesis and the foundation of the
legislation.
And I think Wizzer White back in 1984 when that--you know,
when the NCAA lost that case and television monies were
fragmented, this has all resulted from that--that any school--
Notre Dame, any school can go out and do its own TV deal. And
you have created an arms race, and the only way to control this
is to get the money under control.
Mr. Stearns. The gentleman's time has expired.
Did you want to answer, Mr. Renfro, to Mr. Rush's----
Mr. Renfro. I did want to make just a couple of brief
points. One is that we have made progress over the last two
decades in graduation rates.
When we started with Prop. 48 in the mid 1980's, graduation
rates in Division I of student athletes lagged behind the rest
of the student body. On average, today they exceed the
graduation rates of the rest of the student body by 3
percentage points. We have made that kind of progress.
In the last year, the graduation rates for African-American
basketball players at the Division I-A level, the most elite
level, went up 10 percentage points. That sounds like an
enormous success story. But it went from 28 percent to 38
percent. That still is completely unacceptable. It is higher
than the average graduation rates of other African-American
males in the general student body, but it simply isn't high
enough.
We have made progress. We are making--we believe we have
the best system in place right now to make additional progress.
And the thing that we are doing now that we have never done
before is hold the institutions accountable in terms of
scholarships, access to championships.
Mr. Stearns. We are going to do a quick second round. There
are some members who would like to do this. I don't have too
much.
Mr. Renfro, what do you think of Mr. McMillen's legislation
of some time ago? I mean, would you think that is worthwhile,
too, maybe for this committee to actually reenter--reintroduce
under my subcommittee and have a hearing on it and consider it
formally?
Mr. Renfro. I think it is a very interesting concept. It is
one that has been debated within intercollegiate athletics and
the NCAA off and on as long as I have been with the
association. I think that part of the problem has been whether
we--how we were going to be able to justify that kind of
legislation.
In other words, can we get it passed? Is it possible to do
it? And if we do, what will be its limitations? Will it be
narrow, or will it be broad? And if it is narrow, what does
that do and say about other areas where we have obligations to
create regulations?
I think it is worth debating. I think it is something that
we should certainly discuss. But I think that it is something
that you have got to look at all of the possible consequences
of doing it and how you are going to actually frame----
Mr. Stearns. How you are going to implement it.
Mr. Renfro. [continuing] how you are going to implement it,
yes.
Mr. Stearns. I see your problem as--Mr. Towns touched upon
it, I think. You just don't have enough people in enforcement--
as I understand it, approximately one for every 100 members of
the NCAA. The NCAA's enforcement of its own rules was somewhat
challenged, I guess is what we are thinking.
Mr. Towns. You mean one--an investigator for every 1,000.
Mr. Stearns. We have 100. You have 1,000? It is 1,000. We
have 1,000. Okay. Thank you. I thank my colleague.
Mr. Renfro. Right. We have about 18 investigators.
Mr. Stearns. Okay. So you can't possibly enforce this. You
can't possibly get a handle on it. And here we all agree it is
an arms race. Can you get more money from your membership to
increase your resources?
We are asking that colleges and universities be self-
policing. But I think there has got to be some hammer
somewhere, and you are it.
Mr. Renfro. If you were to depend entirely on those 18
investigators, it would be the most daunting task that I can
possibly think of. You have to remember that intercollegiate
athletics is very competitive, highly competitive. If you and I
are in the same conference, I am going to keep my eye on you. I
am going to make sure that you are operating according to the
rules, and when you don't I am going to try to do something
about it.
That is part of the self-policing process, and it has been
helpful. Those 18 investigators, in fact, are supplemented
quite a bit by the very competitive nature of intercollegiate
athletics. Can we do better and do more if we have more
resources to throw at the problem? Sure. I am positive that we
can.
Where is the logical limit to where that--you know, what is
the magical number that we get to that solves the problem that
essentially, you know, cuts out the cheating heart? And I don't
know whether we are going to get there or not.
Mr. Stearns. Dr. Friday, do you have any suggestion here?
Do you think that they ever--are they ever going to have enough
resources? Or do you think his idea--that the colleges and
universities self-police themselves because they are in
competition with each other?
Mr. Friday. Well, you would like to believe the latter.
Mr. Stearns. Yes.
Mr. Friday. The evidence before you doesn't show that.
Mr. Stearns. Right, it doesn't show that. Yes.
Mr. Friday. I think it would be good to proceed with this.
For example, the BCS situation in this country, a wholly
independent, self-determining group, dealing with hundreds of
millions of dollars, NCAA has nothing to do with that.
Now I know that Mr. Brand and his colleagues would look
with you on the stars maybe because it is a huge burden. But
when you are dealing with that kind of fund distribution and
that flow of money, you have got to have a central command
somewhere that looks at this and says, ``Wait a minute.'' They
do it in basketball and do it well.
Mr. Stearns. My time is--I will finish. Mr. Towns?
Mr. Towns. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Renfro, you know, I really am impressed with the
reforms. I think that is--they are great and long overdue. But
I do have a problem, though, in terms of with the reforms. You
know, a coach creates a problem. You eliminate X amount of
scholarships at that particular school. The coach goes on.
Why can't you attach this to the coach or the fact that if
he creates a mess, and has to lose X amount of scholarships,
wherever he goes he should lose scholarships. He should become
attached to that in some way, because, if not, I am not sure he
is going to really get the message.
Mr. Renfro. I think that is a very interesting idea, and it
is not the first time it has been proposed, or at least
discussed. And it may very well be the next place that we go. I
hope that you are as impressed with the reforms 3, 4, 5 years
from now as you are today. I believe that this is the best set
of reforms that we have ever put forward, and I hope that they
make a big difference.
What you are describing may very well be the place where we
need to go that--so that we up the ante to the level that the
behavior changes.
Mr. Towns. Yes.
Mr. McMillen. Just a quick comment on that. You are
absolutely right. The coach should pay a price. You know, if a
team's graduation rates fall below, good kids who are good
students are penalized, the coach can walk and not be
penalized. But that shows you that the problem with the NCAA is
they can't control that, because it is fragmented, and they
can't control the salaries. And the system right now is so
fragmented that no one really is in control, and that is really
the problem.
Mr. Towns. And that is unfortunate, because a lot of good
kids are being hurt, and it should not, you know--you know, I
don't know in terms of how to put this I guess. In order to
clean this up, it seems to me that you need to put forth a
great deal of effort on the front end here with a lot more
investigators.
Based on what I am hearing, some schools are doing so bad,
and some of the other things, you probably could use your 18
investigators in one school, you know. But I think that you
have to find a way to clean this up and then move forward.
You know, we were hoping that the student athlete's right
to know would do some of this. We felt that if we implemented
it, that it would create tutorial programs and all the kinds of
things that--you know, to help youngsters. But it has not
worked, you know, quite as well, so----
Mr. Renfro. Well, we hope to give it a boost in this next
year.
Mr. Towns. Right. Let me ask one other question, Mr.
Chairman, and then I am going to close. Why can't we take some
of this money from these bowl games and put it into helping in
terms of to enhance the kids' performance? I mean, why can't
we--for more tutorial services, more support kind of--why can't
we take some of that money and put it into those areas?
Mr. Renfro. You know, remember that the NCAA has no
jurisdiction over the monies from those bowl games. As
President Friday pointed out, that really is the purview of the
BCS conferences.
Mr. Towns. Right.
Mr. Renfro. Now a larger number of conferences. However, we
do have purview over the money from the CBS contract. The
distribution to the membership, to Division I, half of that is
based on their participation in the Final Four----
Mr. Towns. Right.
Mr. Renfro. [continuing] the basketball tournament.
Mr. Towns. Correct.
Mr. Renfro. The other half is based on what is called
broad-based half of the distribution--based on the number of
programs they have, the number of student athletes they have.
And included in that are funds that go to every institution--
$50,000 each year that go to each institution for academic
enhancement, to help those--to help the institutions with doing
exactly the type of thing that you are talking about. That is
$15 million that goes to Division I for that purpose.
We also have, through the Student Athlete Opportunity Fund,
another $17 million this year that will increase by 13 percent
per year over the life of the CBS contract, some of that which
may be used to help supplement the academic performance of
student athletes.
Mr. Towns. Dr. Friday?
Mr. Friday. The television networks--this thought just came
to mind. They might be encouraged to contribute to such a fund,
since they profit so much from the television exposure. I don't
know how you would do it, but you could----
Mr. Towns. Maybe we could talk to the FCC.
Mr. McMillen. You know who is in control of college sports
today?
Mr. Towns. Who?
Mr. McMillen. It is this. This is what is controlling
college sports, because, you know, with all due respect for the
good work that they have done--and I really do commend the
NCAA--it is sadly the case that that--this is what is in
control of college sports. And it is going to take some
serious, serious changes to really do something about that, and
I say that with all due respect for the good work the NCAA has
done.
Mr. Towns. Right. Thank you very much. My time has expired.
And I also would like to say that I really feel that you are
putting forth an effort, you know, and that is I think
important. I have not always felt that way; I want you to know
that.
Mr. McMillen. I understand, Congressman.
Mr. Towns. So I need to share that. But we still have a lot
of work to do. Thank you very much.
Mr. Stearns. Mr. Rush.
Mr. Rush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Friday, the word ``fragmentation'' has been bounced
about for most of this hearing. And it seems to be a part or at
least be one of the key components of the problem and also the
solution--how do we deal with the fragmentation? And how do you
suggest that we try to go about dealing with the fragmentation
and creating some kind of governing body that is powerful, that
can make decisions and control college athletics, regardless of
the interest of the commercial concerns? How do we--I mean, how
do you think we can move from where we are right now to a more
centralized and controllable----
Mr. Friday. Well, I think you are speaking directly to the
presidents of the institutions in this country, because they
have--they are--as Mr. Renfro said, they are in the position of
controlling the NCAA now. They can do these things if they make
up their minds to do them. They can control some of these
abuses, and they are working toward that now.
The academic reform work will go to Stage 2, and we will
see some sanctions applied. That can cost money. If you don't
achieve here, you don't go. You don't do this. Well, that is a
negative way of doing it. I would rather be positive. But if we
have come to that, then we will do it.
But I really think we ought to let that run its course for
a bit. If it doesn't work, then you come back into session.
Mr. Rush. Tom, how do you--what would you say?
Mr. McMillen. I wouldn't disagree with Dr. Friday. I think
that--I am not an advocate of Federal solution, but I think
that is going to be the solution in the long run. And I think
that, you know, the President should be in charge.
But because of this fragmentation, and that Supreme Court
decision, you now have the conferences, and you have all of
these different structures, autonomous structures, that are
doing their own thing, and the coaches are negotiating bigger
and bigger contracts, and really it is very difficult to put
that genie back in the bottle.
And so going back to what Congressman Towns said, you know,
Congress spends billions of dollars on higher education. This
is threatening the integrity of higher education in America. If
it cannot be policed by the presidents, then we need a Federal
solution. I think that is a fair answer.
Mr. Renfro. With all due respect, Tom, I hope that you are
wrong, that the only solution is something from this
institution. I think there is in that, however, a clear message
that the universities and university presidents must regain
control of their athletics programs. They must integrate those
programs back into the institution.
They are getting a lot from intercollegiate athletics. They
are benefiting a lot. They should pay for that. The athletic
programs shouldn't be expected to go out and raise all of those
dollars themselves. There is a connection that is logical. And
when you push intercollegiate athletics away, you can expect
that it is going to behave in ways that don't match the mission
of the university.
Mr. Friday. Mr. Chairman, in 1989, Louis Harris conducted a
survey of public opinion in this country about college sport.
The last of the findings was that 6 out of 10 Americans felt
that the day might come when the presidents wouldn't do it, and
you would have to do it. But let us hope that day doesn't come,
that we can trust the process and the institutions which we
hold so accountable for the moral fiber of the country. And
this is where the presidents have a job to do.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Stearns. Yes.
Mr. Rush. Before you conclude--I think you are headed
toward a conclusion--I would just like to go on the record just
to say that I look forward to the day when we can have a
hearing like this and have university presidents to come in, so
we can really just kind of--you know, from different--that
would be representative of the university presidents. I would
really----
Mr. Stearns. What you are saying is maybe we could have a
follow up after the NCAA has their report implemented, and
maybe bring university presidents in to say how it is being
done and----
Mr. Rush. Right.
Mr. Stearns. [continuing] see what the graduation rates
are, and things--what new things have been----
Mr. Rush. I would like to be a part of that.
Mr. Stearns. Okay.
Mr. Rush. I look forward to that.
Mr. Stearns. All right. Let me thank all of you by saying
that the hearing is completed, but we want to have unanimous
consent to allow other members who aren't here to submit their
opening statements. By unanimous consent, so ordered.
I want to thank all of you for your patience in this late
hearing.
The subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:30 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
[April 1, 2002, Monday, USA TODAY, FINAL EDITION]
March Madness Really About Frenzy For Money
By Tom McMillen
Whether Maryland or Indiana is crowned champion of college
basketball when the NCAA's wildly popular annual tournament ends
tonight, once again the real winner will be the almighty dollar.
The NCAA scored big: a $6-billion television contract, which
finances the NCAA and participating athletic programs. In addition,
universities ponied up another $4 billion for new facilities during the
past few years, even though the majority of athletic programs lost
money. And 40-plus coaches hit the jackpot with $1-million-plus annual
salaries.
Big-time college sports are eroding the integrity of our
institutions of higher learning. Rule breaking is now the norm. More
than 50% of our larger universities have been sanctioned by the NCAA
for athletic-rule violations during the past decade. A student-athlete
is an oxymoron at most institutions. Graduation is now the exception
rather than the rule for the majority of football and basketball
players.The influence of money on college sports is every bit as
pernicious as the money grab in politics, but it doesn't have to be so.
A Rhodes scholar and former runner-up for the Heisman Trophy, Justice
Byron White, provided the pathway to reform 17 years ago.
In 1984, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the landmark decision NCAA vs.
Oklahoma, stripped the NCAA of its monopoly power over broadcasting
rights to college athletic events. Justice White, in his dissent
against the decision, supported the NCAA's right to monopoly power.
White argued that the NCAA monopoly ``fosters the goal of amateurism by
spreading revenues among various schools and reducing the financial
incentives toward professionalism.''
Justice White wisely understood that the NCAA's loss of monopoly
broadcast power would lead to an escalating competition for money among
schools. White feared that ``no single institution could confidently
enforce its own standards, since it could not trust its competitors to
do the same.''
The result: Coaches and athletic administrators are constantly
pressured to spend more; to recruit successfully so they can win; to
win so they can fill stadiums and go on television and to the playoffs;
to make more money so that new, state-of-the-art arenas can be built,
salaries can be raised and so on.
Despite years of reform efforts, it is clear that the NCAA cannot
adequately reform itself. In fact, it is losing power to the
conferences that are chasing their own mega-television contracts.
Using as a model the 1978 Amateur Sports Act, which consolidated
the governance of amateur sports under the direction of the U.S.
Olympic Committee, the White House and Congress should consider passing
legislation that overturns the 1984 Supreme Court decision and grants
additional antitrust protection to the NCAA. Such legislation should
include the following caveats, which would ensure that the NCAA would
be more academic and less commercial in orientation:
College and university presidents would be firmly in control of the
NCAA, including the scheduling, recruiting and all aspects of
the administration of sports.
Monies would be distributed by the NCAA based upon academic values--
such as gender equity, academic counseling, academic
performance, diversity of sports programs--not on commercial
values such as winning or losing. Under a radically revised
revenue-distribution program, a single NCAA men's basketball
tournament game victory would no longer generate $780,000 for
the winning team.
Coaches' salaries would be aligned with university standards, and
coaches should receive job security.
Student-athletes who sign a contractual grant-in-aid should be
prohibited from entering the pros until they are 20 years old.
Student-athletes should be allowed to receive basic financial
stipends and earn additional reasonable outside income.
The NBA and NFL should strongly support developmental leagues for
athletes who do not meet academic college standards.
Right now, donations to athletic departments are tax deductible. So
the U.S. Tax Code is subsidizing the professionalism of sports on
college campuses. Under this proposal, the situation would change. If
schools wanted to leave the NCAA, they would lose their tax-exempt
status.
Sports are an important part of our university life, serving as a
unifying force for alumni and community; but we should not exaggerate
their importance. Little suggests that athletic success increases
donations to the overall university. By restoring the balance between
academics and sports, we can preserve the noblest ideals of both.
Failure to reform now will result in the continued escalation of
the money madness in big-time college athletics, with further damage to
higher education. Already our high schools are not immune from similar
exploitation. We are the only nation in the world that mixes our
schools with our sports, and as a result, we are compromising our
institutions of learning.
What major crisis will compel reform and halt the juggernaut? A
gambling scandal or corruption trial?
These proposed reforms will not end big-time college sports.
Competition will still be keen. Athletes will play just as hard to win,
no matter where the money goes. When the incentives are changed,
schools will think twice about sending their athletes on long road
trips, having them miss weeks of class. Maybe finally the athletic tail
will no longer wag the academic dog. When we cheer the national
champion of the future, wouldn't it be nice to cheer the team's
outstanding graduation rates as well as their athletic prowess?
______
Tom McMillen is a former co-chairman of the President's Council on
Physical Fitness and Sports, U.S. Congressman, member of the Knight
Commission and NBA player.
Copyright 2002 Gannett Company, Inc.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3982.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3982.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3982.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3982.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3982.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3982.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3982.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3982.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3982.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3982.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3982.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3982.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3982.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3982.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3982.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3982.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3982.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3982.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3982.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3982.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3982.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3982.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3982.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3982.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3982.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3982.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3982.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3982.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3982.033