Ocean State University softball team is participating in an away from home competition this Saturday. There are not many options for entertainment in the location of the competition, so the coaches would like to surprise the team with a trip to a museum after the game. The museum will provide a cultural experience for the student-athletes but is 150 miles away. As part of this trip, the student-athletes will receive transportation to the museum, meals and one night of lodging.
Is it permissible for the coaches to provide these expenses for the student-athletes to go to the museum?
No. NCAA Bylaw 16.7.1 states that the institution may pay the actual costs (but may not provide cash) for reasonable entertainment that takes place within a 100-mile radius of where a team plays or practices in connection with an away-from-home contest or en route to or from such a contest. In addition, an institution may pay the actual costs (but may not provide cash) for reasonable entertainment that takes place within a 30-mile radius of the institution’s campus or practice site during vacation periods when the team is required to reside on campus (or at a practice site normally used by the institution) and classes are not in session.
This is an actual fact pattern of a secondary rules violation posted on LSDBi. The student-athletes were required to repay the expenses to a charity of their choice and their eligibility had to be reinstated. The rationale did indicate that the NCAA staff provided relief from withholding due to the culpability of the coaching staff in providing the surprise trip.
The Ocean State University (OSU) women’s tennis team competed this past weekend, but because of inclement weather two of the singles matches were not completed. OSU won enough matches to win the competition even without the last two singles matches. Since two of the student-athletes did not get to finish their matches and the results were not included in the scoring of the competition, are they charged with a season of competition?
For purposes of this example, this competition will be the student-athletes’ only participation during the 2011-12 academic year.
Yes. NCAA Staff Interpretation- 11/18/87- Use of season of competition when event is not completed- states that student-athletes would be charged with a season of competition for any event (including scrimmages) in which they started participation; regardless of whether they finish (i.e.,discontinued game due to inclement weather, contestant drops out of event) that particular event or contest. Determined that the student-athlete would be charged with a season of competition regardless of whether that individuals performance was included in the final scoring of the event. Referred to LIC for confirmation.
The Myth of the ‘Student-Athlete’
People often dismiss philosophical disputes as mere quibbles about words. But shifts in terminology can turn the tide in public debates. Think of the advantage Republicans gained when discussion of the Affordable Health Care Act became discussion of “Obamacare.” (Conversely, suppose we talked about “Bush-ed” instead of “No Child Left Behind”). Or consider how much thinking about feminism has changed with the demise of “men” as a term for people in general.
These thoughts about philosophy and language occur to me as a significant portion of our nation takes part in the mounting frenzy of “March Madness,” the national college basketball championship. Throughout the tournament, announcers and commentators careful enough to heed the insistence of the National Collegiate Athletic Association, will refer to the players as “student-athletes.”
But is this term accurate? Or should we perhaps leave it behind for a more honest and precise name?
The term “student-athletes” implies that all enrolled students who play college sports are engaged in secondary (“extra-curricular”) activities that enhance their education. Their status, the term suggests, is essentially the same as members of the debate team or the band. As the N.C.A.A. puts it, “Student-athletes must, therefore, be students first.”
There are, of course, many cases of athletes who are primarily students, particularly in “minor” (i.e., non-revenue producing) sports. But what about Division I football and men’s basketball, the big-time programs with revenues in the tens of millions of dollars that are a major source of their schools’ national reputation? Are the members of these teams typically students first?
The N.C.A.A.’s own 2011 survey showed that by a wide variety of measures the answer is no. For example, football and men’s basketball players (who are my primary focus here) identify themselves more strongly as athletes than as students, gave more weight in choosing their college to athletics than to academics, and, at least in season, spend more time on athletics than on their studies (and a large majority say they spend as much or more time on sports during the off-season).
The same priority is reflected in the colleges’ own practices. Football and men’s basketball players are admitted and given full scholarships almost entirely because of their athletic abilities. Academic criteria for their admission are far below those for other students (for example, their average SAT scores are about 200 points lower than those of nonathletes). Realistically, given the amount of time most such athletes devote to their sports, they would have to be academically superior to the average student to do as well in their classes. As a result, according to another N.C.A.A. report, the graduation rate (given six years to complete the degree) for football players is 16 percent below the college average, and the rate for men’s basketball players is 25 percent below. Even these numbers understate the situation, since colleges provide underqualified athletes with advisers who point them toward easier courses and majors and offer extraordinary amounts of academic coaching and tutoring, primarily designed to keep athletes eligible to play.
It’s clear, then, that on the whole members of these teams are athletes first and students second, both from their own standpoint and from that of their schools.
Of course, many supporters of college athletics see no problem here. They think that athletics provides great entertainment, develops loyalty to schools, and has itself an important educational role for team members — not to mention the millions of dollars it brings in. So what’s the harm if high-profile players are more athletes than students?
At a minimum, there’s the harm of saying that players are primarily students when they are not. This is a falsehood institutionalized for the benefit of a profit-making system, and educational institutions should have no part in it.
The deeper harm, however, lies in the fact that, in the United States, there is a strong strain of anti-intellectualism that undervalues intellectual culture and overvalues athletics. As a result, intellectual culture receives far less support than it should, and is generally regarded as at best the idiosyncratic interest of an eccentric minority. Athletics, by contrast, is more than generously funded and embraced as an essential part of our national life.
When colleges, our main centers of intellectual culture, lower standards of academic excellence in order to increase standards of athletic excellence, they implicitly support the popular marginalization of the intellectual enterprise. It is often said that the money brought in by athletics supports educational programs. But the large majority of schools lose money on athletics, and the fact that some depend on sports income confirms, in monetary terms, the perceived superiority of athletics.
To show proper respect for and support of their own central values, colleges need to ensure that their athletes truly are students first of all. To do this they could look no further than their standard practice regarding nonathletic extracurricular activities. They could take account of athletic potential in the admission process the same way they do potential for debate, theater, student government or service projects. All admitted students would have to fall within the same range of academic ability, with exceptionally talented athletes meeting the same standards as applicants with exceptional talents in other areas.
Such a move should be obvious for the many schools that lose large amounts of money on their athletic programs and have relatively little success with them. (I don’t, however, underestimate the pressures to continue even such disastrous programs.) But there’s little practical point to suggesting this move to colleges that make large amounts of money from athletics and strongly identify themselves with winning at the highest level.
Still, it’s hard to see how even these schools can maintain the myth that their revenue-producing players are primarily students, particularly as the moral case grows stronger f or paying the athletes who are central to the tens of millions of dollars some teams bring in each year. But there is a way that profit-making athletic powerhouses could avoid the hypocrisy of the student-athlete.
They could admit athletes who fall far short of their regular academic criteria as “associate students” (or maybe even “athlete-students”), who take just two or three courses a term and are not expected to receive a bachelor’s degree after four years. They would instead receive an associate’s degree (like that currently awarded by some colleges), which would, after four years, put them in a position to gain regular admission to a college where they could complete a bachelor’s degree in two more years. (There would, of course, still be athletes who met standard criteria of admission and so would be expected to earn a regular degree in four years.)
This would end the bad faith involved in pretending that unqualified students, devoted primarily to playing sports, could truly earn a bachelor’s degree. But it would also give a significant educational purpose to the under-qualified athlete’s four years on campus.
Although this is hardly an ideal solution, it’s better than trying to maintain the myth of the student-athlete. But what a magnificent gesture it would be if, say, a school with a legendary and lucrative football program could find the courage to give up the money and the glory for a ringing endorsement of intellectual values.
Back Board is a basketball student-athlete at Ocean State University. Back was a freshman last year and took 2 remedial courses. Unfortunately Back did not pass one of the remedial courses and is taking the course again this year as a sophomore. Can the institution use the repeated course to meet progress toward degree requirements?
No. NCAA Official Interpretation- 2/1/90- Use of repeated remedial course- states that the provisions of Bylaws 14.4.2, 220.127.116.11 and 18.104.22.168 would not permit a student-athlete to use a repeated remedial course subsequent to the initial year of enrollment in order to satisfy the requirements of Bylaw 14.5.2 (satisfactory progress).