TO:
PRESIDENTIAL TASK FORCE MEMBERS
FROM: THE
COALITION ON INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS (COIA; V. Shepherd &
DATE:
RE: A REPORT
TO THE NCAA PRESIDENTIAL TASK FORCE
On
The topics covered in these
reports and the Task Force Subcommittee to which they relate are:
I.
Fiscal
responsibility (p. 3-4; Subcommittee on Fiscal Responsibility (SFR))
II.
Financial issues
concerning coaching staffs (pp. 5-7; SFR and Subcommittee on Presidential
Leadership (SPL))
III.
Presidential
leadership (p. 8; SPL)
IV.
Commercialization
(p. 9; Subcommittee on Values and Standards (SVS))
V.
Purpose and
nature of the collegiate model (pp. 10-11; SVS)
VI.
Conferences and
national competitions (p. 12; SVS and SPL)
VII.
Integration of
athletics into the life of the campus (pp. 13-14; SVS)
VIII.
Admissions and
diversity: addressing the impact of high admissions and eligibility standards (pp.
15-16; SVS)
The need for a quick response
dictated by the Task Force's schedule means that the input from COIA has not
been discussed and approved by its member senates. Our comments are forwarded without this
formal review and endorsement by the full membership because we recognize in
the Task Force a rare opportunity to contribute to an important initiative for
change in college sports. These reports
represent the best efforts by COIA to offer constructive feedback in the time
frame available.
The representatives of the COIA
member senates have approved the following general statement:
The leadership of the
Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics expresses strong support for the initial
work of the NCAA Presidential Task Force. We see the Task Force shaping
powerful new structures that can support national, regional, and local decision
making about college sports. These new structures more closely reflect the
values of our academic institutions, and so help college sports fulfill its
appropriate role. The Task Force goals that
we see as of greatest promise include:
a. Strengthening
presidential leadership nationally by articulating the nature and core values
of the collegiate model of athletics which is based on the priority of academics;
b. Building a national
presidential leadership group to communicate those values and interpret their relevance
to major national issues, and to support local decision making in line with
those values;
c. Devising accounting
templates, data collection, and data sharing that can increase fiscal
transparency and promote fiscal responsibility in decision making and
accountability;
d. Formulating best
practice models to guide financial and other decision making on the national,
regional, and local levels, and align it with core values;
e. Strengthening
presidential leadership on the local level by involving faculty, academic
administrators, and others committed to the values of the collegiate model in
campus athletics governance, and working with all those involved with athletics
to integrate athletics fully in the academic mission.
The Coalition
leadership wishes to express thanks to the Task Force members for their
commitment to this effort. The strong
support of the NCAA and the active involvement of Athletics Directors and
faculty athletics representatives with the work of the Task Force indicate a growing
willingness to work together on problems of critical importance. We appreciate
that COIA, as a national faculty governance-based group, has been included in
this cooperative effort. We remain
committed to contributing constructively to the work of the Task Force, and
look forward to further opportunities to participate in this initiative.
I. FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
We
support the initiative of the Subcommittee on Fiscal Responsibility to seek
increased transparency in athletics budgets and fiscal data, for local and
national decision makers, and for constituencies with interests in athletics
and institutional integrity. We strongly
endorse revising and standardizing categories for national data collection,
developing best practice guides to ensure that such data are optimally used in
local and national decision making, and strengthening the NCAA recertification
process to ensure that member schools are accountable for fiscal
responsibility. The current Subcommittee
draft reports do not clarify how transparency applies to information supplied
to internal and external constituencies such as the faculty, alumni, students, and
the public We recommend the goal be to
provide to all constituencies with legitimate interests in the athletics
enterprise the degree of access appropriate to their interest, both for
informational and oversight purposes.
.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The
categories of data collection outlined by the Subcommittee are thoughtful and
impressively detailed. The question of
what data to collect and how they could be deployed is complex, and the
suggestions below are initial attempts to find ways to improve an excellent
framework.
General comments on Subcommittee on Fiscal
Responsibility Draft Reports
·
Much of the
information desired is currently reported as Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act
(EADA) data. The categories could be
configured in such a way as to maximize use of this data to simplify the process
and reduce cost. However, the accuracy
of reported EADA data needs to be improved, and there should be common
definitions of what data should be included under each category now used for
EADA reporting.
·
The Subcommittee
draft implies the restoration of fiscal integrity as a category of NCAA
recertification oversight, and we strongly support this; capital expenditures including
debt service expenses should be included in recertification data.
·
The Subcommittee
or a successor group should develop a comparably detailed annual data reporting
format for capital expenditures.
·
The goal of using
shared data to improve decision making requires that clear best-practice guidelines
be developed; in particular, specific best practices should be developed that
will help counter tendencies to use comparative salary data to raise salaries,
even when athletics salary levels are higher than institutional values
warrant. Such a best practice might, for
example, prioritize the use of local salary structures as an initial framework for
comparison.
·
The Subcommittee should
clarify how “base” and “guaranteed” salaries will be reported and interpreted.
·
With regard to
athletics, contracts between booster and other 501(c)(3) organizations and the
university should require financial transparency to protect university
integrity. In the absence of contracts, best practices should be developed
regarding the relationship between the university, its athletics department,
and external entities such as booster clubs, foundations that support athletics
and independent operations, e.g., sports camps.
·
Sports camps
appear to be a particularly complex area of accounting; the complexity and
variety of models may require more reflection in perfecting the accounting
categories.
·
Full accounting should
include costs of specialized campus FTE in units other than the Athletics
Department whose effort is devoted to athletics.
Specific recommendations concerning the Subcommittee
draft report of October 10, 2005
1.
For operating revenue items 1 and 3, distinguish
ticket sale revenues from mandatory contributions to athletics programs and
related booster organizations in order to purchase tickets; make a distinction
between such contributions (to be reported in 1) from truly voluntary
contributions by alumni and others (to be reported in 3).
2.
For item 3, include contributions to booster
organizations for organizational operating costs, scholarships, etc.
3.
For items 4, 20, and 22, the limitation to
contractually guaranteed amounts should be expanded to include all such
revenues and expenditures. Data for all
forms of outside revenues that accrue to coaches solely due to their positions
as university coaches should be available for internal decision making
purposes.
4.
For item 11, include, proportionally, student fees for
mixed-use facilities that benefit athletics; where Athletics Department sources
finance facilities that provide benefits to the campus, costs should be
prorated accordingly.
5.
For item 35, there seems no reason why miscellaneous
items may constitute up to 10% of expenditures; the figure for miscellaneous
revenues in item 15 is limited to 5%, and that is appropriate for expenditures
as well.
6.
For dashboard item (h), report expenditures not only
per student-athlete and per coach, but also by specific team, as in the EADA
data.
7.
The following dashboard data point should be added: the
ratio of per-student cost in athletics academic advising and support to
per-student cost for general undergraduate advising and support.
II. FINANCIAL ISSUES CONCERNING COACHING
STAFFS
Part of the rise in athletic
spending is spiraling coaches’ salaries. Tying coaches' salaries to winning has
disconnected them from the educational mission of the institution. We need to find ways to control the “coaching
market” and to align academic “winning” with success in athletic programs.
Coaches’ salaries and staff sizes reflect how athletics has moved further away
from the NCAA goals of maintaining intercollegiate athletics as an integral
part of the educational mission.
When
we speak of “market forces” influencing salaries in academics, we are generally
referring to large external markets influencing limited university
markets. However, the external market
for coaches is small, relative to the university market – coaching positions in
professional leagues are far fewer in number than college and university
positions. It is basically universities
themselves that are driving the coaching market, not professional leagues or
the entertainment industry. The rising
“coaching market” is internal, and reflects the extraordinary value schools
have come to place on winning in high-profile sports. This is a distortion of the true purpose of
intercollegiate athletics and the collegiate model.
There seem to be at least four reasons for extremely
high Division IA head coaching salaries:
- The value placed by an
institution on winning in high-profile sports, and a perception that
coaches who can produce winning teams are limited in number (true
particularly in terms of the impact of a coaches’ media visibility on
recruitment – an activity where the coach adds no educational value).
- The fact that
successful coaches in highly visible programs at the top of a collegiate
athletics “pyramid” who may find opportunities in professional leagues are
retained by means of extremely lucrative contracts that distort the salary
structure.
- The values of the
entertainment culture have pervaded college sports, and there is an
expectation that coaches with national media exposure and lucrative endorsement
contracts can negotiate in the same manner as media figures and with
similar methods.
- Increasing media
revenues are available to apply to personnel costs in athletics, and there
is a belief that those who can claim responsibility for generating them,
including head coaches in the revenue sports, deserve the largest share;
head coaching salaries raise the
salary pyramid for the entire coaching staff.
While
the influence of these factors is understandable, none of the factors reflects
the collegiate model of athletics, and the cumulative effect has severely
eroded that model. This will be
extremely difficult to correct, particularly in light of antitrust
constraints. Only local leadership,
aligned with the values of college sports, can influence behavior nationally.
RECOMMENDATIONS
- Financial incentives
for winning should be eliminated from contracts. If the institution endorses the
collegiate model, contracts should reward effective training in athletic
performance, leadership, integrity, discipline, and sportsmanship. Contracts should focus on academic
success and all around development of athletes and recruitment of athletes
who exemplify how athletic and academic success complement one another.
- Periodic reviews of
coaches should measure success according to the values of the institution,
for example, the priority of academics, and should involve faculty and
academic administrators.
- We strongly support
the initiative of the Subcommittee on Presidential Leadership to address
the separation between salaries for coaches from the salaries of the rest
of the institution’s personnel.
Compensation for outstanding coaches should not be in excess of
rewards for outstanding academics (particularly those in fields such as
law, medicine, and business) where substantial external markets exist.
- Clauses in coaching
contracts related to outside compensation, deferred compensation, contracts
with external corporations, and on-campus activities not related to
college sports (such as sports camps) should be contracted through the
university and adhere to university rules on conflict of interests and
conflict of commitment to ensure that these activities will be consistent
with institutional values and interests, and preserve institutional
control. Coaches’ compensation should be as transparent to the public as
those of other university employees.
- The number of
assistant coaches permissible under NCAA and conference rules should be
reviewed, and, if justified, reduced to levels appropriate to the
collegiate model.
- Schools should seek to
develop assistant coaches as coaching candidates through professional
development consistent with campus traditions and values, and whenever
possible pursue internal hiring, with thoughtful consideration for
diversity.
- Best practice models
should be developed through the Task Force including models of appropriate
proportionality between head and assistant coach salaries.
- The use of long-term
or three to five-year rolling contracts as a vehicle to provide coaches
enough security to prioritize student development over winning should be
considered. This could be costly in cases where coaches must be dismissed,
but the benefit to restoring the collegiate model could be significant.
Presidents should consider including appropriate clauses to terminate
contracts without cost to the institution where there has been wrongdoing
by the coach.
- Presidents should consider
assembling on retainer, through the NCAA, a list of consulting
professionals available for assistance in salary and contract negotiation.
Many
of the issues that pertain to coaches’ contracts also apply to other athletic
department personnel, such as Athletics Directors. In particular, incentive clauses connected to
winning should not be a feature of any such contracts.
Appendix: Existing COIA policy recommendations
relevant to coaches:
The
following statements, adopted as recommendations by COIA as part of its 2005
document on academic integrity (http://www.uoneuro.uoregon.edu/~tublitz/COIA/AID.html),
are relevant to issues concerning coaches’ terms of employment:
a. Head coaches must share accountability for
the academic achievement of the athletes they select for admissions
consideration. Data on continuing eligibility and graduation rates of each
recruiting class brought by individual head coaches to their institutions
should be maintained, relevant to the period during which the coach was
employed at that institution and according to uniform standards, to establish a
public record of the academic success of each coach. This record should
follow a coach from institution to institution. Such a process will increase
the likelihood that a coach’s commitment to appropriate academic-athletics balance
will have an impact on the assessment of his or her success and the shape of
his or her careers. It will also help ensure that in seeking team success,
coaches are less likely to recruit students who are not likely to succeed
academically at their institutions, a practice that damages schools, students,
and intercollegiate sports.
b. The campus administration and athletics
department, in consultation with the Campus Athletics Board, should establish
clear policies regarding how the academic success of athletes bears on coaches’
job descriptions, and how academic performance will be weighed in reviews and
personnel decisions regarding coaching staffs. Campus procedures should
allow the Campus Athletics Board or its personnel subcommittee to review policy
implementation, and to report annually to the campus administration and Faculty
Governance Body its assessment of the integrity with which these policies are
implemented.
III. PRESIDENTIAL
LEADERSHIP
We
support the concept of Presidential Leadership as it has been amply and
eloquently defined by the NCAA rules, the Association of Governing Bodies (AGB),
the Knight Commission, and the Presidential Task Force itself. Presidents who
assume responsibility for athletics on the local level should be able to rely
on the support of all of the internal and external constituencies as outlined
in the draft report by the Subcommittee on Presidential Leadership.
RECOMMENDATIONS
- We emphasize that the
list of external and internal constituents that presidents can rely on for
advice and support also includes faculty.
Tenured faculties are stable, they are in touch with the
university’s mission, and they have no vested interest in athletics. Therefore they can and should be the
strongest supporters of presidential responsibility. In addition, local Faculty
Athletics Representatives (
- We support the
suggestion of a network of “core presidential spokespersons” coordinated
through the NCAA.
- It is important to
remember that “presidential responsibility” implies more than presidential
prerogative. The phrase also implies accountability by the presidents to
the constituents that support presidential responsibility.
- COIA and Division IA
FARs wish to continue to work with the Subcommittee on Presidential Leadership
to refine and define best practices for presidential leadership in
athletics.
- We support the
following best practices that the SPL has drafted:
a.
A strengthened NCAA recertification process that
measures programs against best practices, adapted to local conditions, with
significant incentives.
b.
The drafting of best practice guidelines to complement
those already drafted by the AGB and the COIA, and the use of these guidelines
by the NCAA to reinforce presidential leadership.
c.
The development of model contracts for coaches and
administrators to include language that rewards contributions to the academic
and personal development of athletes, e.g., improved graduation rates (See section
VII. Integration of Athletics into the Life of the Campus, recommendation 1F,
p. 14).
d.
Effective and appropriate communication with
constituencies about the role of presidents.
IV. COMMERCIALIZATION
We
agree with the Subcommittee on Academic Values and Standards that commercialism
and over-commercialization
present a threat to the integrity of intercollegiate sports. These terms are
difficult to define and delimit, but there is a widely-held feeling that
athletic programs have gotten onto the wrong track, and we must find ways to
get back on the right track. Most of all, we must seek mechanisms to manage the
demands of television networks and corporate sponsors.
Corporate
support opportunities are a rising influence across the university; however,
this cannot be accepted as an excuse for over-commercialization in
athletics, any more than it can be in academics. Academic policy makers have
responded to increased commercial activity within the university by instituting
controls to define conflict of interest and conflict of commitment. There has
not been the same level of oversight to determine these conflict issues in
athletic programs. Moreover, the issues of maintaining proper alignment with
institutional mission, values, and control are increasingly central to
assessments of corporate support opportunities for academics. These processes
of assessment need to become equally developed for athletics.
Athletics
is perhaps the most visible part of our universities to the public, and
negative issues in athletics can have a dramatic impact on the image and
mission of the university as a whole. Universities are non-profit, educational
institutions; many are governmental agencies with public restrictions; they
traditionally cherish academic freedom, freedom of thought, and freedom of
information, and are devoted to the public good. Commercial interests that devalue the
commitment and mission of the institution must be carefully examined.
Increases in athletic revenues are typically invested
in new growth in athletic programs; this growth often creates a need for
further revenues, in a cycle of escalating needs. Presidents should seek data to clarify in what
respects revenue increments promote only this cycle of further growth in
athletics costs, without contributing towards the solution of existing revenue
problems.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1.
The Task Force should encourage as a best practice
that each campus appoint a committee to monitor and review procedures for
assessing commercial opportunities and ongoing commercial arrangements relating
to athletics, both on campus and at the conference level. Such committees should include a substantial
number of faculty and the campus FAR. If a campus committee monitoring more
general issues of institutional commercialization exists, this athletics
function should be included in its portfolio if feasible.
2.
Commercialization of intercollegiate athletics is
driven largely by increasing media coverage of events. The presidents should continue to take steps
to urge the media to increase the highlighting of academic achievements of
institutions and their athletes.
3.
The presidents should have an increased role in
negotiating contractual arrangements at the local and conference level.
V. Purpose and Nature of the Collegiate Model
The
fundamental mission of a university is intellectual in nature. Among the
primary missions of universities is the creation and dissemination of
knowledge. Collegiate athletic programs must complement this intellectual
mission. To help clarify this collegiate model of athletics, we suggest the
following as a concise statement of its nature:
College sports can help develop the character of
athletes, create a focus for campus community, and sustain ties between
schools, alumni, and the public. These
attributes shape the collegiate model of athletics, which is extra-curricular
competition among students whose immediate goals must be educational. Unlike professional sports, in the collegiate
model students who participate in athletics are not to receive financial
rewards for participation beyond what the NCAA allows, and their immediate
goals should be related to educational objectives. The goals usually associated with athletic
competition (e.g., winning and excellence in athletic performance) should
complement but not supersede the goals of educational accomplishments and
personal growth.
Challenges to the Collegiate Model
In
a number of sports, particularly the revenue sports, professional standards of
athletic performance and entertainment create a framework of expectations that
challenge the collegiate model. These include:
Commercialization: Division IA revenue sports compete with professional
sports for television audiences and media contract dollars. As the popularity of college sports as media
entertainment has grown, media presentation has increasingly blurred the
distinction between college and professional sports, and public awareness of
the distinction between professional and collegiate models of competition does
not now appear strong. Maintaining competitiveness as entertainment entails
increasing costs in the areas of personnel, equipment, and travel; these costs
rise in tandem with revenues. Because
revenue sports income must also underwrite costs of non-revenue sports,
financial pressures are increasingly acute.
These financial pressures have further blurred the distinction between
professional and collegiate sports, as financial criteria increasingly motivate
decisions for athletics programs, for example, the recent addition of a 12th football
game. Such a decision, made for frankly
financial reasons, engages athletes in a revenue generating role, rather than
as students whose development is the motive for competition. The addition of the twelfth football game
generated immediate responses advocating pay-for-play models that would
fundamentally undermine the collegiate model.
Athletic Performance Standards: As noted
earlier, the absence of financial rewards for the athletes distinguishes the
collegiate model from professional sports; the prioritization of academics and
development of the whole person distinguishes the collegiate model from pure
amateur competition. The goals of
athletes and coaches to seek the highest level of performance standards are in
tension with the idea of a limited commitment to athletics which is integral to
the collegiate model.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The NCAA and
its member institutions should clarify and broadly publicize the distinction
between collegiate and professional sports. Best practices should be developed
that include explicit recognition of the distinction between them.
2. Universities
have begun to promote academic programs more actively in conjunction with
athletic events through the media. This
effort should include statements by a university representative clarifying the
role of athletics in the institution and its compatibility with the academic
mission. This message might be made
stronger if conveyed by a person of stature in the institution but in any event
should be a standard part of the institution’s public communications during all
major athletic events.
3. Recognizing
the pressures on athletic departments,
institutional decision-making with respect to athletics should emphasize
the welfare of student-athletes and the institutional mission rather than
be based solely on finances without
regard to the goals of the collegiate model.
4. Expenditure patterns and salary structures in
college athletics should not be based on the norms and practices of
professional sports (see section II “Financial issues concerning coaching
staffs”).
VI.
Conferences and National Competition
COIA addressed the importance of conferences
in its 2003 Framework document (http://www.uoneuro.uoregon.edu/~tublitz/COIA/Framework.html):
“Conferences enhance the role of athletics by creating
traditions of rivalry central to school identity, and alumni and community
loyalty. As a level of athletics
governance, the conference can create or influence policies concerning academic
standards, athlete welfare, limits of program scale, and so forth. The
conference has its fullest effect when its members share regional identity,
academic standards and goals, and/or long-standing common traditions.”
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Conference
participation need not be limited to athletics and presidents should improve
academic interactions between institutions in a conference. Future conference configurations should thus
be designed on the basis of academic, athletic, and geographic considerations,
which should enhance both the athletic and academic programs. Presidents should take the position that the
major factors in the realignment of conferences should include academic peer
relationships and other factors that have been traditionally considered, rather
than media-driven or financially-driven factors,
2. The NCAA
should request that conference commissioners develop and publicize policies
reflecting academic concerns in areas such as initial and continuing
eligibility standards, and competition scheduling, including TV contracts and
game days and times.
3. Conferences
should go beyond won-lost records and athletic performance to recognize
academic success and excellence through formal awards and other programs.
VII. INTEGRATION OF ATHLETICS INTO THE LIFE OF THE CAMPUS
The
activities of the athletic department must faithfully embrace the mission and
goals of the University. In order to reach this objective, athletics needs to
be more integrated within the academic structure of the campus. This goal includes integration of:
- The Athletics
Department in campus budget decision making;
- The Athletics
Department in general governance structures, including faculty governance;
- The Athletics Department
in salary structure;
- The Athletics
Department appointment and merit criteria with values of the academic
mission;
- The Athletics
Department staff, at all levels, in the cultural and academic life of the
whole campus;
- The athletes into the
student body in terms of the admissions process and campus experience;
and,
- The academic advising
for athletes in the campus academic advising and support structure.
The
first five of these relate principally to the relation between the Athletics
Department and the campus; the latter two to the relation between athletes and
other students. We have been
invited by the Subcommittee on Academic Values and Standards to prioritize
among these dimensions and comment on them.
RECOMMENDATIONS
We strongly
support increased integration of athletics in the decision making and community
life of campuses dedicated to the academic mission. The following
recommendations are in order of implementation rather than importance:
- The relationship
between the Athletics Department and the campus:
a.
The university
officers responsible for budgetary decisions about athletics should include, in
addition to the President and Athletics Director (AD), the chief academic
officer of the university (the Provost or Vice President for Academic Affairs)
and the Chief Financial Officer.
b.
Major athletic department decisions (e.g., hiring of
head coaches and the AD, changes in the total number of intercollegiate sports,
initiation of major capital projects) should be made in consultation with
faculty leaders and through faculty governance channels.
c.
The AD, FAR and Campus Athletics Board chair should
each make an annual report to the Faculty Governance Body.
d.
Athletics administrators at all levels should work
closely with others in the rest of the university on items of common concern,
e.g. admissions, advising, financial issues, and student services. For example,
it would be natural for these contacts to be made through the Faculty
Governance Body and appropriate faculty governance committees.
e.
Athletic
department staff should share appropriate campus-wide service assignments, be
involved in appropriate academic activities, and be welcomed by faculty and
academic administrators. Wherever possible, the AD should be appointed ex officio to the institution’s Faculty Governance
Body. Athletic departments should welcome faculty in appropriate athletic
department activities.
f.
Contracts,
policies, and performance criteria should be configured to reward contributions
to the academic and personal development of athletes – the goal of winning is
intrinsic to sports; the institution must create strong financial and
professional incentives for athletics personnel to focus on the educational
mission.
2.
The relationship between athletes and other students:
a.
In admissions and in the living and academic
conditions of campus life, athletes should be viewed and treated as much as
possible like other students with an extra-curricular commitment.
b.
College administrators, faculty, and athletic
departments should mitigate the time demands on athletes to allow them to
pursue the full range of educational experiences open to other students.
c.
Academic advising and academic support for athletes
should be structured to give athletes as valuable and meaningful an educational
experience as possible and not just to maintain their eligibility.
d.
Participation in athletics should not limit an athlete’s
choice of major to the extent practicable.
e.
Life skills and personal development programs should
integrate student athletes with the rest of the student population.
VIII. ADMISSIONS AND DIVERSITY: ADDRESSING THE
IMPACT OF HIGH ADMISSIONS AND ELIGIBILITY STANDARDS
We strongly applaud and support the recently
implemented NCAA Division I academic reforms for new and returning student
athletes. These reforms, which include both incentives and disincentives,
provide a strong basis for reducing the myriad of admission and eligibility
problems currently facing intercollegiate athletics.
Although these eligibility requirements will
certainly improve the overall academic preparation of the athlete population,
they will adversely affect a small group of athletes who no longer meet the new
requirements. Rejection of these applicants may lead to claims of
discrimination, particularly if certain minority groups are disproportionately
affected by these new standards. This may occur for example in the high profile
collegiate sports of men’s football and basketball which often have a high
percentage of minority athletes.
We suggest the following goals be kept in mind when
dealing with this complex issue:
- The goals of diversity
and of providing equal opportunities should be consistent with the
educational mission of institutions of higher education but should not be
an argument for maintaining practices that undermine that educational
mission.
- Admission of athletes
should be based on their potential for academic success and not primarily
on their athletic contribution to the institution.
- Increasing the
diversity of the general student population should not rely primarily on
the admission of minority student athletes.
- Research into current
admission practices should be conducted by the NCAA to allow us to
anticipate ways in which reforming admissions standards will affect
minority student populations.
Schools should use this research to develop appropriate academic
recruitment and scholarship programs.
- Universities and
athletic departments should engage high schools and communities to combat
the inaccurate perception that sports skills are a more attainable path to
success than academic skills. The conduct of the university and its
athletic department should not send mixed messages on this subject.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following points are
derived from existing COIA policies, and represent positions endorsed by the
full Coalition membership.
1. General admissions policies
should be the same for all athletes and non-athletes. Campus administrations and Faculty Governance
Bodies should work together to develop these policies.
2. Campus administrations and Faculty Governance
Bodies should develop policies that set standard criteria for special
admissions, consistent with maintaining the overall academic mission of the
institution. Special admissions should be balanced for all student groups
including special admissions for athletes.
Institutional efforts to promote diversity should be applied
consistently to the entire body of applications and should not be used to
justify special admissions for athletes.
3. Analogous
policies and procedures should be developed by campus administration and campus
governance bodies to govern the admission of transfer students who are
scholarship athletes. Athletes who transfer to four-year institutions from
two-year institutions face particular difficulties. We are not aware of
good data pertaining to the academic success of athletes who transfer from
junior colleges. Because concerns about possible problems are
longstanding, we support the following recommendation:
The NCAA should compile data and undertake a
systematic study of the success rate of athletes transferring from junior
colleges and of problems particular to this transition, with the goal of
providing information that can help guide schools in admissions decisions and
effective advising. Such a study should include a survey of the impact of
recent NCAA academic reforms on junior college transfer students.
4. The Campus Athletics Board should receive
information on all scholarship athlete admits, and should annually certify
compliance with the policies discussed above to the campus Faculty Governance
Body.
5. Campuses
should develop means to track and share with the Faculty Governance Body the
academic performance of scholarship athletes who enroll through special
admissions, to permit better understanding of how successfully the campus
supports the academic needs of these students and what costs to the campus this
may involve. Faculty Governance Bodies should also be provided with data
concerning the academic progress of all athletes, allowing them to assess the
range of admissions qualifications appropriate to athletes, adhering in all
cases to the requirements of protections under the Family Educational Rights
and Privacy Act (FERPA).