Over the last several years, the National Collegiate Athletic Association has been the focus of more criticism than perhaps at any other time in its history. The organization is embroiled in several class-action lawsuits, has been called in front of Congress, has dealt with the fallout of a high-profile enforcement investigation gone awry at the University of Miami, and has been on the defensive for the actions it took against Pennsylvania State University. Meanwhile, Division I members have wrestled with the challenge of operating under one “big tent” as new revenue streams widen the divide between the haves and have-nots.
The good news is that all of this turmoil has given intercollegiate athletics momentum to enact meaningful change. In January, at the annual NCAA convention, Division I members took a big step toward major reform by increasing scholarship limits to cover the actual cost of attending college and by adding new protections to athletics-aid agreements.
But meaningful change will not come until the NCAA deals with the source of many of its problems—its Byzantine rules. The Division I manual has grown over the years to the point that it is virtually impossible for even the most well-intentioned coaches or administrators to avoid breaking a rule in the course of doing their jobs. Here are some ideas to streamline the rule book, increase fairness to athletes and, where possible, return more decision-making control back to campus.
Make an athlete’s ability to transfer and compete immediately a negotiated term of an aid agreement. In football and basketball, student-athletes are not eligible to compete after transferring until they serve an academic year in residence. Instead, transfer terms should be flexible. With multiyear aid agreements, which most athletes would sign, it is reasonable for an institution to request a multiyear commitment.
Heavily recruited prospects, however, would have more leverage to negotiate favorable transfer terms in their aid agreements. Coaches might balk at the challenges created by this increase in “free agency,” but it could also work in their favor. For example, top players might have conditions in their agreements that would allow them to transfer if coaches depart. That could lead colleges to measure the risk of mass transfers before deciding to fire a coach.
This approach may help tackle concerns regarding “one-and-done” men’s basketball players. While the NBA may not change its requirements that players be 19 and a year out of high school, the NCAA could discuss with the league the draft eligibility of students who have not fulfilled the terms of their aid agreements. The most elite prospects would probably not sign a multiyear agreement, but there are very few “one-and-done” caliber players, so this rule may be helpful in preventing many athletes from leaving college too early.
Eliminate initial-eligibility standards. Fundamentally, these rules, which set minimum academic requirements, control access to education. “Nonqualifiers,” or those who appear to be on the road to nonqualifier status, are likely to be passed over in the recruiting process. These standards, for the most part, exist to regulate the recruitment of highly talented but academically at-risk prospects in men’s basketball and football.
As a result, initial-eligibility rules have a disparate impact on African-American prospects from urban school districts. Instead of a national standard to determine who may receive athletics aid, institutions should have the autonomy to consider a prospect’s application in the same manner they do with all other students when determining whether to award a scholarship and the opportunity to earn a degree.
Besides, controls are already in place to prevent colleges from recklessly lowering admissions standards. The Academic Progress Rate, which did not exist when initial-eligibility standards were adopted, would prevent colleges from attempting to gain an unfair advantage with an open-admissions process. Further, the initial-eligibility standards invite academic fraud, which is difficult to detect. These standards also place undue pressure on high-school teachers and administrators to cut corners to prevent a local star athlete from losing a scholarship opportunity. This, too, is hard to prove, aside from the rare whistle-blower situation.
Recently, freshman ineligibility has been discussed as a means to help men’s basketball and football players better acclimate to college life. This approach unnecessarily impacts too many athletes. Instead, a small number of the most academically at-risk freshmen athletes should be permitted to take a reduced course load (e.g. nine hours) during the season provided an academic plan is in place to ensure that these students have earned the same number of credits as their peers by the start of the sophomore year.
Redefine amateurism standards. It seems reasonable that the notion of an “amateur” athlete could be preserved by just narrowing the focus of that term to address only the relationship between the athlete and the institution, which allows only for the provision of cost of attendance and benefits incidental to participation. If prospects or students have sufficient fame to receive compensation from others for use of their names or likenesses, that arrangement would be outside the scope of the amateur relationship with their colleges. Controls could be used to prevent improper booster involvement, such as requiring disclosure of all outside agreements.
Limit recruiting to specific times. Recruiting is extremely competitive and overregulated. As an alternative, each sport should simply determine the time periods in which recruiting activities may not occur (including telephone calls, emails, or texts). During these periods, coaches could continue to review video of prospects and communicate with high-school coaches. For example, in football, this restriction could apply for the majority of August and September, thereby allowing coaches to devote their time and attention to their teams, and prospects would be left alone to focus on the start of the school year.
During a recruiting period, NCAA rules would not govern the mode or frequency of recruiting contact or communication. Further, off-campus contact with high-school juniors and seniors should be permitted. If a coach prefers to spend most of his or her time with juniors, more time would be available to other coaches to speak with seniors. These would be strategic decisions left to the coaches. Intrusion on prospects could be mitigated by precluding contact or communication during school hours. Finally, spreading the recruiting activities more evenly among juniors and seniors could lessen the intrusion on a particular prospect.
Replace the 20-hour rule. It is fairly clear that the 20-hour rule, which sets a weekly limit on athletic activities, does not accurately reflect the time spent by athletes on their sport. As an alternative, the rules should simply say how many days off from athletics students must have over a specified period of time. During the off-season, the number of days off should increase. On days in which required activities may occur, there would be no NCAA rules governing time limits. Instead, practice schedules would be approved by institutional personnel.
There is a self-policing element to this approach. Generally speaking, coaches will not run their athletes into the ground, as that will ultimately have a negative impact on the team’s performance. Instances of abuse, however, would be handled on a local level by institutional administrators.
Some of these concepts may be viewed as overly simplistic, naïve, or blind to the realities of today’s recruiting landscape. But the NCAA must consider whole new approaches to its rules because true reform will not happen by critiquing one bylaw at a time.