As usual, the NCAA is not doing enough to help its
student-athletes.
Several proposals were approved by various committees at the
NCAA convention earlier this week, including the Academic Progress
Rate, which would require teams to graduate 50 percent of their
players to avoid losing scholarships, and extending the college
football season from 11 to 12 games.
While the concept behind the latest academic reform in the
Academic Progress Rate is sound ““ some of the graduation
rates at schools are hideous ““ taking scholarships away would
only hurt student-athletes. The logic behind this reasoning is
horrible. Finding a team that is struggling academically and taking
away scholarships would only lessen the chance student-athletes
would graduate.
It is very disturbing that many schools’ graduation rates
are below 50 percent ““ if the NCAA were to immediately
enforce this rule, 30 percent of football teams, 24 percent of
baseball teams and 20 percent of men’s basketball teams would
lose scholarships.
But for those teams falling under the 50 percent cut line, 10
percent of scholarships would be lost. That’s nine less
football players on a team who would get a scholarship and two less
basketball players from team where the student-athletes obviously
need help graduating.
“This is a strong package of reforms, and I applaud the
board of directors and the Committee on Academic Performance for
their efforts,” NCAA President Myles Brand said at the
convention. “The penalties are strong, and they will hold
teams accountable and lead to increased academic success for
student-athletes.”
While the prospect of losing scholarships could be enough to
motivate an athletic department to make changes because losing
scholarships would mean a huge hit for recruiting, there are other
ways to solve this problem without hurting student-athletes.
The NCAA should hurt schools where they would feel the most pain
““ in the pocketbook.
Fine schools a hefty amount, or make them give a percentage of
their profits to the NCAA, or even more radical, ban them from
postseason play.
But that would never fly ““ money controls the NCAA, as was
shown in the other major NCAA news of the week, when the NCAA
Division I Management Council gave approval to allow Division I
football teams to play 12 games every season, instead of the normal
11.
There is no way to justify the additional game in terms of
caring about student-athletes. One more game every year will more
than likely mean the season ends one week later, with games getting
closer and closer to final exams.
This move also shows the hypocrisy that exists in the Bowl
Championship Series. Athletic directors and conference
commissioners have often tried to take the higher moral ground,
saying a true playoff system does not exist because they have the
student-athletes’ interests in mind. They always say more
games and a longer season will hurt student-athletes in the
classroom.
If that’s the case, wouldn’t a 12th game have the
same effect? How exactly is a 12th game helping football players
academically? A 12th game will just mean more and more teams end
their seasons in December, right before final exams.
A 12th game allows schools to make more money, which is one of
the main reasons why there is no playoff system in college football
““ the schools are making way too much money off the BCS to
change.
Several proposals in basketball were initially approved in the
area of how coaches could interact with players and recruits over
the offseason.
There would be less limits on how much a coach could interact
with an incoming recruit the summer before his or her freshman
year. This move would permit more coach-player contact year-round
and allow coaches to observe voluntary workouts over the
off-season.
These decisions, for the most part, make sense to an extent.
Players are expected to work out and practice year round, yet for
many of these workouts, the coach is not allowed to participate. As
long as some off-season workout limits are kept, I don’t see
a problem with letting the coach get involved just before the
recruit starts college.
One proposal that was shot down was one that could have been
beneficial in light of the recruiting scandals across the country
““ a proposal that would have allowed the school to pay for
one parent to make a visit with recruits on official visits. There
would be no better or easier way to ensure the recruits don’t
do anything wrong than having a parent there.
But that’s the NCAA ““ it often has good intentions,
but it lets other interests and money get in the way of helping its
student-athletes as much as possible.
E-mail Quiñonez at gquinonez@media.ucla.edu.