The NCAA News --
February 16, 2004
Competitive
equity matters, but student-athletes
come first
By Myles Brand
National Collegiate Athletic Association
Any review of NCAA literature -- from the
Manuals to the history to the currently developed strategic plan -- reveals a
written commitment to the student-athlete being at the center of all Association
business. NCAA bylaws and guiding principles ensure a commitment to
student-athlete welfare, the primacy of the student- athlete educational
experience, and the integration of athletics into higher education.
Over time, however, the notion of competitive
balance among institutions -- and the fear of someone gaining an unfair
advantage that comes along with that -- has challenged the NCAA's commitment to
the primacy of the student-athlete. Since its inception, the NCAA has
established a legislative process that tries to create and maintain a level
playing field so that schools of all shapes, sizes and philosophies can compete
together over a broad range of sports in the same division or subdivision. That
competitive balance has been steadfastly protected in both the legislative and
interpretative process through the years. An unintended consequence, though, is
that from time to time student-athletes are disadvantaged or harmed by what has
become the first order of business, which is the concern for competitive
balance.
While competitive balance is genuinely
important, it is not the primary pillar of the NCAA structure. The
student-athlete is to be at the center of all we do, and it is time that the
NCAA's actions match its written principles.
By now, the notion of the "less
bureaucratic/more responsive" or the "kinder/
gentler" NCAA has been publicized enough to be familiar to most members of
the Association. But there still is some confusion about what the concept
really means and how it should be applied. Being "more responsive" to
student-athlete needs is just that -- making sure that the student-athlete is
the centerpiece of how we conduct our business. Student-athletes should receive
the benefit of the doubt in eligibility appeals or waiver requests when case
precedent is unclear. Student-athletes should have the same kind of flexibility
in financial aid that other students have. And the same educational
opportunities that are afforded to all students also should be afforded to
student-athletes.
That may be a simple concept to embrace, but
implementing the concept without destroying the competitive balance among
institutions is the challenge. It will require a culture shift for some members
of the Association and for the national office staff. It will require a review
of how the membership services staff approaches the job it does, and how the
membership may empower the staff to do more of the "heavy lifting"
when it comes to waiver requests and eligibility appeals than it has in the
past. I have encouraged the staff and several membership groups to embrace this
new approach, and there already are several examples in which it has been
successfully applied.
This shift does not mean that some of the
fundamental principles of amateurism will be abandoned. The membership has made
it clear in its legislation regarding how student-athletes should fare related
to areas such as extra benefits, signing with agents, submitting their names in
a professional draft and in recruiting procedures, and certainly the "will
of the membership" will remain the same in those areas. There is nothing
about the "kinder/gentler" approach that intervenes there.
But in gray areas where
circumstances yield unclear interpretation, the pattern has been for the staff
and the membership committees to focus on maintaining that level playing field
over the primacy of the student-athlete. The goal is to change that to where
the student-athlete is given the benefit of the doubt rather than favoring the
competitive balance in cases in which it is inappropriate to do so.
The "kinder/gentler"
approach also is relevant in Division I financial aid legislation. Division I
members have as a matter of course placed limits on the value of scholarships
and in some cases the number of scholarships, generally to assure that the
wealthiest schools do not use their wealth to either stockpile athletes or
provide scholarships that are valued more than those at other programs with
fewer resources.
One of the more important
legislative proposals in the current Division I cycle is to allow
student-athletes the flexibility to accept institutional financial aid based on
athletics ability up to the full grant level, plus permit non-athletics aid
(for example, Pell Grants or academic scholarships) up to the cost of attendance.
I support this idea as a way to successfully balance the primary obligation to
student-athlete welfare with the ability for all schools to maintain
competitiveness within their division or subdivision. In this instance, we do
not abandon the concept of student-athlete welfare, nor do we abandon the
competitive balance. The proposal accommodates both.
The NCAA's philosophical allegiance always
should be to the primacy of the student-athlete. This does not mean that we
should turn away from the notion of the level playing field as an important and
critical philosophical tenet, but the cultural shift is to more consistently
embrace the high status of the student-athlete.
The primary product of intercollegiate
athletics is not entertainment, nor is it the exposure athletics brings to the
university -- it is the education of those who participate. It is important to
all who are engaged in the administration of intercollegiate athletics to not
give in to the fear that one institution might gain a modest competitive
advantage because of this shift in philosophy.
Institutions of various shapes and sizes
have shown over the last 100 years the creativity and resolve to learn how to
compete with others in their division or subdivision. While athletics administrators
may be hesitant of such changes, that fear is unfounded.
We are at a point where we need to move
forward with the primacy of student-athlete welfare. The impetus for the change
is the changing times themselves. This is the time to make this significant
adjustment. The key is to refocus our thinking and actions on the notion that
our guiding principle is the student-athlete.
We have long put that concern in writing,
and now it is time to keep our word.
Myles Brand is president of the
NCAA.