The Chronicle of Higher Education
August 11, 2000
The NCAA Debates the Meaning of Amateurism
By WELCH SUGGS
These days, what does amateurism have to do with college
sports?
Christine H.B. Grant has been trying to answer that question
for coaches and athletics administrators for three years now,
and she's still having a hard time. As a result, the National
Collegiate Athletic Association has put off any changes to its
most sacred principle for at least another 12 months. leagues,
signing contracts, getting paid to play, and even receiving
money for lessons. Such players are currently barred from
college competition under the association's rules, which state
that only "amateurs" are eligible for intercollegiate
athletics.
"Why have rules and regulations that we are unable to
enforce?" asks Ms. Grant, who sits on the N.C.A.A.'s Division
I Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet. "The N.C.A.A.
could never hire enough investigators to track what
prospective student-athletes have done prior to enrollment."
But other officials say that the new rules would put a heavy
burden on coaches to recruit from professional leagues as well
as from high schools, which in turn would give larger colleges
with more money and greater visibility an advantage over
smaller, lesser-known institutions. And all of them are wary
of altering the N.C.A.A.'s raison d'etre: providing a chance
for "amateur" athletes to compete while remaining students,
supposedly free from the pressures of professional sports.
The academic cabinet's amateurism committee, headed by Ms.
Grant, first proposed new rules for recruits last fall (The
Chronicle, October 29, 1999). After serious opposition greeted
some of the recommendations, such as a proposal to allow all
athletes to compete professionally for a year after high
school without losing any college eligibility, the panel
released a revised set of proposals last month, along with new
suggestions to cover athletes already enrolled in college.
In most sports, the proposals would mean simply that more
athletes would be eligible to compete for college teams. Some,
presumably, would be returning to college after putting a
professional career on hold.
"This means our basketball coaches would have to be recruiting
the C.B.A.," groused one conference official, referring to the
minor-league Continental Basketball Association. Baseball and
hockey coaches also might find themselves in a similar
position, recruiting players whose enthusiasm for the pros
might have cooled after a couple of years of bus rides from,
say, Fort Wayne, Ind., to Fargo, N.D.
However, Ms. Grant explains it differently: The new set of
proposals assumes that the overwhelming majority of athletes
will proceed from high school to college, competing in sports
while primarily involved in getting an education. Those that
interrupt their education for sports will pay a penalty,
losing a year of eligibility to compete in college and being
required to attend college for a year before playing.
"The most important aspect of amateurism is that it is tied
directly to academics," Ms. Grant says. "We have not discarded
the concept, but tried to clarify that an amateur is, first of
all, a full-time student who is in a continuous educational
process. ... They cannot devote themselves full time to
sport."
Jeremy Foley, the athletics director at the University of
Florida, says "there's a lot of division in the world of
intercollegiate athletics about whether this is the direction
we need to go in.
"Part of the proposal makes sense, but part of it raises red
flags," says Mr. Foley, a member of the N.C.A.A.'s Division I
management council.
He points out that athletes in most sports have had two
choices: A career in the professional ranks or the opportunity
to spend four years in college, hopefully learning something
besides the nuances of the matchup zone defense or how to
handle a relay baton. "It's an either/or proposition," he
says. "This new proposal means they get a chance to do both."
He and his peers are not sure what to think of that
possibility, he says.
David B. Knight, a chemistry professor at the University of
North Carolina at Greensboro, has heard that line before. Mr.
Knight is chairman of the academic cabinet, whose members have
championed the new standards. Mr. Knight, Ms. Grant, and
others have been defending the idea before plenty of skeptics,
and both Mr. Knight and Mr. Foley agree that most athletics
administrators are still suspicious of such a radical change.
Many of them have raised issues that have to do with specific
sports, as well as broader concerns about the philosophy
behind the change.
"It's a very complicated topic," admits Mr. Knight. "The
people who will have to administer the rules, whenever they
are fully formed, are concerned with a nuance here and a
nuance there," instead of focusing on the big picture.
Mr. Knight frames the debate over amateurism very simply: It's
a matter of athletes' welfare versus creating a level
playing field for all Division I colleges. Revamping of
amateurism standards would benefit athletes by allowing them
to explore their options and, possibly, to make some money
along the way.
But nobody knows how the new proposals would affect what
sports officials like to call "competitive equity" among
college sports programs. Would a large number of, say,
minor-league baseball players decide to quit professional ball
to sit out for a year and then play a couple of years of N.C.A.A. baseball? If so, then college coaches might have to
recruit minor-leaguers, and larger and better programs would
have an advantage because they could travel more and spend
more time scouting.
"Most people would support legislative proposals that clearly
benefit student-athletes, but they're reluctant to upset
competitive equity," Mr. Knight says.
To deal with those concerns, the academics cabinet is
suggesting that the N.C.A.A. hold off on voting on the
proposals for another year. The management council would send
the package off to members for their comments after its
meeting this October, and would not vote on them until April
or even October 2001, Mr. Knight says.
Until then, he, Ms. Grant, and others will continue traveling
to conference meetings and other gatherings to appease
suspicious officials. He says he's had plenty of converts
already.
"Most people who support this deregulation have changed their
mind" over time, Mr. Knight says. "Initially, they didn't,
because on the face of it, it's real change."
Copyright 2000 by The Chronicle of Higher Education
Top |