> From: "(Wayne Smith)" <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: NCAA President's Commission
> Many of the new rules (such as limitations on numbers of coaches and
> scholarships) have come into being due to the very difficult economic
> times. Here are two that are expected to be discussed in the near
> future (My commentary in parentheses):
>
> (1) Elimination of athletic scholarships at all levels.
> ----------- -- -------- ------------ -- --- ------
>
> (It's about time. Sorry, but colleges and universities are academic
> institutions, not trade schools).
>
WOW!!! This would result in an incredibly profound change in
intercollegiate athletics! And perhaps a good one--although the answer
to that depends very much on what one sees as the goal of such programs.
However, as another list member commented, how could such scholarships *
*really* be eliminated? The only students(?) who could be really
screened out would be those whose academic performance does not meet the
institution's admission requirements, and nearly every place--no matter
how prestigious--makes exceptions for a variety of reasons. An uncanny
number of those "exceptions," BTW, go to revenue sport athletes. (As an
example, the University of Washington, which historically had the higest
admission standards in the state, always admitted some 500 "special
case" students. These were largely intended to go to minorities who
were seen as being educationally disadvantaged as a result of their
socioeconomic backgrounds. In addition to these, however, the football
and men's basketball programs were specifically allotted a large number
of exceptions to the admissions standards themselves----like maybe 50 a
year between the two sports. In fairness, I should add that I have a
vague recollection that the same person who told me about this--and was
in an excellent position to know--also commented the athletic admissions
exceptions were being either downscaled or phased out completely over
several years.)
The need-based argument would still keep an awful lot of athletes in
college, which is perfectly appropriate. I do think that elimination of
true athletic scholarships, if it really *were* possible, along with
elimination of recruiting, as also mentioned in the same post, would
result in some major shifts among the current Division I powerhouses in
football, basketball, perhaps baseball, and certainly in some cases at
least, hockey. Again, the enforcement seems pretty difficult.
I think the best way to reintroduce sanity into intercollegiate
athletics is to remove the financial incentives associated with success
(=victory). All TV and playoff/championship revenues, if shared equally
among all participants, would certainly make the schools less likely to
encourage (or at least wink at) questionable practices. It would also
cut down on the huge investment made in a lot of these programs, which
frankly, fun as they are, are draining off needed resources for academic
programs.
On a completely different note--Mike M. already responded privately to
my query about #goals/minutes played (for NMU, in my case). Mike said
minutes played are not usually recorde. I was quite surprised--I know
this is routinely tracked in football and basketball, and that's how
letterawards are usually determined. Any one else out there have any
specific details on this, perhaps for their own programs, anyway?
I also added in my response to Mike's message, that I think total
minutes played is a lot better thing to record than total penalty
minutes assessed, which just emphasizes the goon image of hockey. How
many football teams keep stats (much less publicize them!) on the number
of yards each player has accumulated in penalties, or the number of
ejections?
***********************************
* Steve Christopher, NMU *
* "Go 'Cats!''Goin' for it again in *
* '93--With a little less "O" *
* and a lot more "D"! *
* [log in to unmask] *
***********************************
|
