The Chronicle of Higher Education August 11

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."

Top