IMPACT OF PROPOSITION 48 -ATHLETIC INTEGRITY
(Wednesday, June 13- 9:15-10:15 a.m.)
Let me introduce myself. I am Jen Shillingford, director of athletics at Bryn Mawr College and a rather warm welcome to you this morning. If things go as they did yesterday, you will be freezing in about an hour. I would like to start this morning with a story that illustrates a little bit of
creativity and flexibility. A good many years ago I was a basketball coach on the college level.
I was the basketball coach before anything happened. I preceded Kathy Rush, which is like being the president before Abraham Lincoln. It has all the same effects. Sometime during that period of time that I was coach, the fieldhouse burned to the ground and we were able to practice only in a nearby gymnasium.
It took us about 20 minutes to get there and I arrived for one practice without the basketbaJls. It is one thing to run a basketball season without a gym, but without balls you are in real trouble. I convinced two lines of women athletes that they should run up and down the floor dribbling nothing and the two others
should attempt to intercept nothing and I convinced them well enough so they did it, while my manager ran back to get the basketballs. During this period of time a young priest came in at the end. He surveyed this situation for quite awhile, meandered his way up to me and said, t'Mrs. Shillingford, will you tell
the players not to bounce the balls on the newly varnished area?" I said, "Father, I think you can count
on it today." Well today Leo and I are going to be a bit flexible and a bit creative. Unfortunately and regrettably Dr. Stone is unable to join us. His budget is before the state legislature and he must remain in the state until it is passed. We are, however, quite fortunate because John Toner and Homer Rice are
with us. Now Leo Miles will present points of view. The points of view will be on integrity in athletics and some of that will deal with the impact of Proposition 48 and,I presume,subsequent legislature. Questions will occur at the end and we welcome all. I am therefore pleased to present a man who really needs no introduction. He is the director of athletics at the University of Connecticut, a former president of NACDA and the present president of the NCAA. Ladies and gentlemen, John Toner.
Thank you very much Jenepher and good morning to all. I don't know where the rest of the gang is. They must be out there at that wonderful beach. Seeing John Bridges here is a surprise. He told me
yesterday that he can't apply all the knowledge he already knows to his job, so why should he not play golf. The subject this morning is of course 48. It's difficult for me to get up and just outline the legislation, but I would like to take this opportunity to update everyone on what is going on as we approach implementation time for 48 and also what else is going on in the area of regulating academic standards. Proposition 48 is only one of a whole series of moves that have been made to really, for the first time, attempt to regulate standards. We've traditionally always assumed that the diversity and wide-ran~e of missions vary
so much, there ought to be some way to regulate minimum standards in 250-300 institutions to a point where we can expect a fairness and equity to take place. It's a very difficult role. The discussions about 48
on the floor of the convention two years ago indicated that it's a very difficult thing to do. But, in the interest of fairness, I think I'm speaking for the NCAACouncil entirely, when I state that the special committee on academic research sought out and did contract with Advanced Technology, Inc. of West Virginia, a research group,and their mission is to really gather data and to try to answer 4-5 serious questions about 48. That will provide a basis for the NCAA membership to hopefully implement any change that is necessary in 48 to insure the fact that it will be fair and equitable to membership of Division one.
I would like to read to you some of the questions that we are asking the special committee on
academic research and Advanced Technology to come up with. We really want to know if standardized test scores are related to athletes' college academic performance and graduation rates. Are there other combinations of high school core-curriculum, high school grade point average or standardized test scores that will provide a prediction of Proposition 48? Are we likely to see a rise in student-athletes' standardized test scores when they are required to take the high school core-curriculum as defined in 48? Are the minimum standardized test scores in 48- that is SAT of 700 and ACT of 15, comparable? What are
the percentages of the student-athletes who fall below 700 or 15 and below the 2.0 high school grade point average in the core-curriculum as defined in the title?
Now in response to the questionnaire that was sent out to 278 Division I institutions, more than 200 have agreed to take part in this research project seeking the answers to these five simple questions. All of those responses have been received. The special committee on academic research met just ten days ago and received the results of the questionnaires. They have requested from Advanced Technology more information regarding cuts from all the data, but for the first time, and certainly for th~ first time that we know of, there is a data bank of information on which the merits can be judged. I am sorry that I can't give to you detailed information or early indicators of what the research holds. It will probably be the middle of July before those things will be really known enough to at least start working and start planning to go public. But it is a fact that by the middle of August, when the NCAACouncil meets in its "summer session, that the facts will be in and the recommended answers to these five questions will be available to us. Immediately after that council meeting, recommendations of the council and data information from the study will be published in ~ ~ ~ and distributed as widely as we can.
I think one thing though may be evident and that is that any high school student who has taken basic core-curriculum, pre-college educational courses may measure up as predictives on standardized test scores. Hopefully, this might prove to be true when the data is finally analyzed. But if it is true, it will be a great boon to all of us, as we advance toward standards. Now I am going to give up this microphone to
Homer and to Leo and hope that we have questions later on. I would not want to end opening remarks with- out commenting on the fact that the NCAA membership appears to be bound and determined to continue the regulation of academic standards. This study that we are undertaking is only an indicator that the one paramount order is to be fair in whatever we do. But, there have been many inquiries from high schools
over the nation and there are 22,900 high schools in this country. I learned that because I sent a letter to everyone of them and in that letter I indicated to high school principals and guidance counselors that the Division I MCAA attempt to regulate standards is not going to go away. Although we are carefully trying to determine through our research that there be fairness, it does not seem to indicate that the future holds less promise of a reduction of standards, but more importantly, a more rigid formula for standards. On that note,I would just as soon wait for questions.
JEN SHILLINGFORD :
I am pleased now to introduce Dr. Homer Rice. Homer is a graduate of Centre College, Eastern Kentucky
and Columbia Pacific University. He was an outstanding athlete and coach. Homer has coached at the University of North Carolina as well as the Cincinnati Bengals. In 1980, Homer made the choice to leave professional athletics to become the director of athletics and assistant to the president at Georgia Tech. He tells me
that was not on the basis of a salary. A prolific writer and lecturer, Dr. Rice has numerous awards. Many of you know him as the leader of NACDA's graduate seminar at the Management Institute and will you please welcome your colleague.
Thank you Jen. We come to meetings and often times a speaker will get up and say that on the way to the meeting a funny thing happened to me. I want you to know I've been going to meetings like this for over thirty years and nothing funny ever happened to me on the way to a meeting until today. A friend of mine told me coming down here that he had to leave his wife home. It was their anniversary. So he left her a present. He called back and said, "Honey, did you get the present?" She said, "Why yes. I cooked it and I had it for dinner." He said, "you cooked that bird? That bird cost $10,000. It speaks eight different languages." She said, "Well, it should have said something."
I just hope that we can say something up here that will be effective to what we are here for. This might be the most important issue in our entire programs. You talk about integrity, an original perfect statement. You talk about education, which means to train mentally and morally. We have a program at
Georgia Tech that I've been involved with almost my entire career, 34 years, called the Total Person
Concept. This has become our purpose. We don't have time to go into all this, but I just want to share this with you because our purpose is to train these young people for a life ahead of success. We are
doing many things to promote that and I offer you the opportunity to come and visit with us. You may be
ahead of us on this subject, but I would like for you to come and visit and see what we are doing, because we'd like to share this with as many as we possibly can. We need the means, that is why we meet and go through all these meetings to find out ways to treat the funds to have our programs. We have to be
successful. We have to win to the extent to keep these things going and provide these means. We need the legislation,of course,to control or govern the actions of members of the conference, nationally or whatever.
I'm going to go back into a story that happened to me and from that you can tell where I am coming
from. First of all, I want you to understand that I am in favor of Proposition 48. Nowone thing I like about NACDA is that it is our only organization. I was a member of the coaching profession. We had a great organization. We had to have a great organization. I'm still a member of it. It is
important to me that this is our organization and we sink or swim with this organization. This is the
way we have an opportunity to express ourselves and respect each other. Even though we differ in opinions and whatever, we can always work out our differences and so on and that way promote a better program for these young people.
I'm in favor of Proposition 48. I don't know if it is the soundest or perhaps the best tning. I'u\ in favor of it for certain reasons. Now, I would have liked to have been last on this panel. It was
scheduled that)way in the beginning, so that is how I planned my program. As Pete knows, as a coach you'd like to have the chance to talk last because you know you have a chance to win. But that is not important because what I want to talk to you about has to do with the experience I had. I was in intercollegiate athletics for 27 years before I went into the National Football League. During those three years I spent with the NFL I learned more about what is going on in intercollegiate athletics than I did during the
previous 27 years all put together. I found out some things that are very interesting to all of us. It's been written many times. It's amazing thatI found out about these things ~nd later on these things exploded. We had two glaring problems, recruiting ethics and academic standards.
I got involved in the study because of our interest in this. There is a direct correlation between
the two. Now the one who suffers through this is the student-athlete. There is no question about it. We exploit the athletes we bring to our campuses. Now once they exhaust their ~ollege eligibility we put them out on the street without the qualifications to earn a decent living. They remember the promises made to them and all the people are going to do things to help them, but when both the promises and the promisors vanish, then they have nothing left to turn to but alcohol, drugs and in some cases both.
A young man was recruited by a particular major university. He happened to be from a poor family.
His academic standards were very low compared to other members of his class, but he was offered a scholarship, given an automobile by a friend of the school, and his parents received money to repair their home. In his sophomore year a so-called agent, somehow got this young man to sign a secret document. Later on he was drafted in the NFL. Before that happened the agent would loan him money. Then he introduced him to
a party where he found out about cocaine. He became a user of the habit and of course he needed more and
more money as this developed. The agent was there to loan him more and more money. After his fourth year of college he was picked in the pro draft and went on. By this time the agent owned this individual. He
was trapped. He was so deep in debt that his lucrative bonus and substantial salary weren't enough to cover his expenses. His debts continued to pile up. His habit with cocaine increased. He needed more and more money for his habit and when it appeared there was no other alternative, he went to his coach, which happened to be me.
I want you to understand this; The players in most cases do not trust the coaches nor the manage~ent in the NFL or pro sports. Somehow I warned this player's parents and I was able to help him out of th~s situation. When I was able to help this person, for some reason,others began to come to me. It was the same story, involved with agents, drugs and alcoholism. 'l11en,in most cases a young man revealed other
things to me, such as how their academic courses were altered, not just in college, but beginning in high school. They were given grades they did not make and in some cases credit for classes they did not attend. Somehow they are able to get through four years of college and some even graduate. In each case their attitude was,why not? They were offered inducements to attend the institutions. It was always an
automobile, usually spending money, clothes and other inducements. Of course, this does not go on in every major institution. We understand this, but the shame is that it does go on. The greater shame is that it begins in our high schools.
I think this is where I pick up and talk about the academic standards because,from that point,I became
so interested I wanted to do a study and just take those individuals and work with those who were in trouble. I found out that the majority of these individuals would not have predicted a 1.6 grade point average under the former 1.6 NCAA entrance qualification for financial aid participation. }lany of these individuals did
not take math and English in their high school. Now, you think fewer than two percent ever make it to this
level and they are there an average of 4~ years. To compound the problem, once they. finish their professional career they are unprepared to Ro out on the street and earn a livin~. This is a sad state and this is what
we have been a part of. As I said they relied more and more upon alcohol or drugs or both. This is the
sad shape they get into. That is why I believe that dropping 1.6 when we did years ago was necessary, but
that was ten or more years ago. You can imagine the high school football coach. I have been one. I was one for eleven years. The pressure today on winning at that level is great. They do not want to put that
young person into a program where he might have difficulty and not be eligible for his sport. They point out that all you need is a 2.0 grade point average from your total program here at our school to
get into the college and go into the pros, which is a story that they all dream of. As I said only two percent make it there from college. From high school it's going to be much, much less than that.
That is the dilemma we find ourselves in. We bring them into our colleges and they are at the best
schools in America. They are misfits and somehow we can't keep them in there. Okay, we may have winning teams, successful programs. but what happens to the individual when his time is up? He can't go out and
make it; this is what is happening. Somehow these ~re related together. You can say this is an isolated situation, but these individuals told me about stories of every club in the league, so it was going on everywhere. It made me realize that only two percent make it there. What about the other 98 percent that do not make it there? they are put on the street that much earlier.
That is why I am for Proposition 48. It is a signal that goes back to our high schools. We must give help and guidance to them. If you have been in coaching, and you've gone out recruiting, under the
present situation, it is not what courses you take, it's what does he need to qualify. That has been the measure. If you've ever recruited,you'd know what I'm talking about. I've done much of it on the college level. That is why we need a core-curriculum. We need to prepare these young people for college. We can train them for a life after football or whatever sport they are involved in. Then we need some type of national testing to indicate what that hag proven, tbe core-curriculum they have taken.
I also like the proposition because it does have a loophole for that achiever. There is always that individual down there that is going to do it regardless and finding that person~ of course, is going to
be difficult. We'do have a loophole where we can offer a person financial aid. Once he understands and
gets acclimated to the institution, then he can participate and go on and become the individual he should. This is where I stand and I think that, as I said before, this is a very important issue. It is up to us
to figure out a way to solve it so we can do what we were intended to do in the very beginning: to educate these young people and make life for them in the future worthwhile.
Thank you Homer. I alluded in the beginning of this session to the need for flexibility and it is
a great pleasure now to introduce my co-moderator, who has now become a panelist. He is being kind enough to pinch hit for Dr. Stone's slot. Leo Miles is a graduate of Virginia State University and is presently the athletic director at Howard University. He has had an outstanding athletic career and an outstanding career of service in many areas. He has been a public school prinicpal, a coach, a professional athlete and has served in the armed forces. He's an outstanding official and he has received numerous awards. In his athletic career he was named all-American as an undergraduate and then, of course, went on to the New York Giants. He is an outstanding official, and for the past sixteen ye~rs served in the NFL and has officiated
in post-season competition for the past two years. I'm very pleased to present my very flexible co-moderator, Leo Miles.
I'd like to say good morning. The views which I am about to present are mine and not Dr. Stone's.
John has given you the appetizer and Homer's given you the entree. I will now try to give you the dessert. During the process of eating your dessert,sometimes you become uncomfortable because you might have eaten too much. My basic view is don't let your emotions dominate your intellect. You should let your intellect dominate your emotions. I view Proposition 48 in it's present form as an emotional piece of legislation brought on by a tremendous amount of stress that was created by the press because of what was going on, primarily in the west in terms of the academic situation at junior colleges and things of that nature. A great deal of pressure was being placed on the chancellors and presidents in that area and they were looking for some way to get that pressure and stress off of their backs. So a group of them got together to form and to get 48 working, so that the stress that they were experiencing could be transferred on to other people. So, I view that as an emotional piece of legislation and they purported that Proposition 48 would increase athletic integrity.
I say to you Proposition 48 has nothing to do with increasing athletic integrity. What it has done, in my opinion, is told the elementary schools and high schools that they have been doing a poor job of teaching youngsters, which I think is good. On the same hand, the university had an opportunity, in my opinion, to put some integrity in their programs by simply requiring that if we are going to require 2.O's to get in, then we ought to require 2.O's to stay in and to continue to do your athletic performances on
the basis of a 2.0 average. There are some conferences that allow students to participate in athletics at less than a 2.0 average. If we are seriously interested in having our youngsters graduate, they cannot graduate from college unless they have a 2.0 average. If we are going to allow them to graduate then we should require for them,to continue to participate in athletics, to have a 2.0 average.
Yesterday we heard George indicating our greatest commodity is in our minds. I say if Proposition 48 remains as it is now, a great number of our youth will not have the opportunity to proceed and to get ahead of Division I institutions. I think that the quality of athletics in Division I will decrease
a little, but the quality in Division II will increase significantly. Because of the number of limitations on athletic scholarships, the number of people who do not qualify to get into Division I may not be able to
get into Division II because there are not enough scholarships to go around to accommodate. Consequently, I see decreased opportunity not only for blacks but for whites too. They come into the same situation that a lot of black people are in: economics, culturally not exposed to certain aspects of a situation. SAT scores can tell you, depending on how you look at it, what you don't know, what you might know. I see that SAT as not determining anybody's future or potential. I see it as a means of keeping you out. It says you can't
come unless you get these scores, so I see that as another means of excluding whomever you'd like to exclude in that particular situation.
I think those of you who remember the 1.6 situation remember that a number of people were taking SAT
tests for outstanding athletes who didn't qualify. Basically, these people took the tests and suddenly the athletes qualified because they had enough points on the score to compare it with their grade point average. Therefore, they now qualify. I see that as a means of coming back. Coaches have indicated to you that if a guy is good they are going to get him some way. Now, if these youngsters are poor and don't quality, a beneficiary will come from somewhere and you'll find out that all of a sudden a youngster that doesn't have any money, some way finds enough money to pay his own way through school for that first year. That way, he can qualify to play the next year.
All of us are now suffering from the economic inflation that we have in the United' States. We will now again suffer from grade point inflation that will take place in the high schools because of these hostile teachers. Coaches will simply give these youngsters the grades so they can qualify. Unfortunately, what is going to happen is that we, at the college level, are going to assume that because we have raised our standards and because these students now have a 2.0 average, etc., that they can now be better than what they really are. As a consequence, you are getting the same product that you had before, only now they are going to suffer more because you are going to assume that they know more. In reality, they know the same. These are some of the things that I see that are involved.
A couple of things will happen as a result of this legislation going through as it is presently written. In raising academic standards, you can hide a multitude of sins that can be hidden under disguise of
raising academic standards. When most of us from historically black institutions got up to oppose Proposition 48, the first thing that came to mind for the press is that we are against raising academic standards. We're not against raising academic standards. We're against Proposition 48 because we know that as it stands now, it certainly will deny the opportunity to a lot of our youngsters. We are opposed to 48 as it stands now. We're not opposed to raising academic standards. We have always taken those students who show promise; who for some reason may not test well. We bring them in and give them the kind of guidance and the support
they need, with the intention for them to graduate from our institutions. We know the youth are the future of our country and therefore we were fighting for the future of our country, not against raising academic standards. The future of our country is in our young. We must have white, black, green, purple; whatever color they may be. God made them that way. We must give the opportunity to all these youths to move for- ward and to make this country better, to keep it strong so that all of us will have an opportunity to grow up and make a significant contribution to our way of life.
Thank you Leo. Our original intention was to have the panel respond to one another and then to go to a question and answer period. In the interest of time, I'd like to open it to the floor but I will ask if the panelists would like to respond to one another, we'll accept their thoughts initially. To give you a quick outline, I think that John Toner outlined 48 and its present position. He described for you what is going to occur in terms of research, which should be available around August lst. He was for Proposition 48. I believe Homer Rice is for Proposition 48. He certainly believes in academic standards and recruiting
rules and indicated how both the curriculum and natior.al test scores might be used within the Proposition. Leo mentioned that he is against Proposition 48 in its present state. He certainly is not opposed to academic standards. He alluded to the fact that the onus is not necessarily on the secondary schools but
may indeed be right in our own back yard. He questioned the origin of 48, mentioned grade point inflation, which I thought was a very interesting concept, and indicated that he thought the SAT scores could be
positive or negative depending on how you interpret them. With that in mind, we will be happy to entertain thoughts from the panel or from the floor.
FROM THE FLOOR:
I don't have a question.
Bob Moorman, CIAA. I'd like to ask a specific question to John. First of all, we are Division II and it would be great if this gneB through. We ~.lill cet the Steinbergs and Arnold ~almers into our institutions.
I'd like to make just a comment. You don't legislate integrity.
The high schools that you are talking about, are they raising the standards of core-curriculum more than
just the grades? I know across the country you have to have a C in some places, etc., but are we getting
any indication of a change in the core-curriculum? I think, which is a most important thing, if core-curriculum goes through, we don't need to worry about the grades.
Several states, as we all know, have needed a state law that to graduate with a diploma from high school, one must take a core-curriculum. To enter a state university in some states now,it is necessary to have a high school transcript that shows a core-curriculum record in college preparatory subjects. I wanted to make a comment though about legislating integrity. Of course, that is an acceptable fact in everyone's
mind that you can't legislate integrity, but you must continue to try. Proposition 48, as Leo mentioned,
the most publicized fact, but we all must remember that it is a rule that only regulates athletic eligibility during the first year of attendance in a Division I institution. Other legislation has been enacted to
insure that to playa sub~equent year in his or her particular sport, one must pass a quantitative number
of 24 credits toward a specific degree. That is a giant step and probably overshadows the real significance and importance of athletic eligibility during that first year.
The point I want to make is that we must continue to try to understand one another. The diversity
of our institutions is great, but almost without exception we have published admission standards. We have published normal progress standards to a degree, but not too often in a quantitative sense. We have it in a qualitative sense. The Association has adopted a quantitative standard to a degree. What we don't have though, is an awareness of where the student-athlete fits in the published admission standards of an institution, or in the major program toward a degree of the student-athlete. In my opinion, it would be
great for us to be looking to the future and demanding that we audit and certify one to another where our students are admitted. We have special admit programs, some of which allow special admits up to 10% of
an entering class, with absolutely no standards. There is a lot of good reason for special admit programs, but they ought to be publishable and we ought to know the ratio of student-athletes in that program to the general special admit student body. We ought to know the major programs of study and the ratio of the student-athlete in them to the regular student body. If we do those things, perhaps we would be taking
a giant step towards a degree of integrity. It is that constant fear that the other guy is doing something that I can't, that has almost destroyed any sense of standard in the academic area at the high ?ressure and big revenue sport program in our Division I institutions.
CHARLIE SCOTT :
Charlie Scott, Mississippi State University. I agree with John in his statements here. Proposition 48 received the publicity that Proposition 56 did and will have far more reaching affects on what we are
looking for in academics. I wanted to cite an experience that relates to the situation here. John said
that he was unable to talk about the data, which the NCAA has contracted to develop and I understand that. Before Proposition 48 or 56 came into being, I had instituted,at the University of Alabama, a longitudinal study, a pilot study for longitudinal study. I had a young lady doing that study, a very accomplished
young lady. She had a doctor's degree in education and was a third year law student at that time. When
she started working for me, she didn't know the difference between a football and a basketball. She learned an awful lot about athletics in the process. This longitudinal study involved looking at all of the student- athletes for five years. Some strange things appeared in that study. So I asked her, as a second part of it, to go back to a much earlier date and follow all of the athletes who came in in successive years and follow them over a period of five years. She came to me one day and said, "Dr. Scott, there is something strange about this data. Along about 1974, things changed completely." I said, "Are you sure it was
1974 or was it 1972?" She said, "I think it was 1974." But she came back a little while later and said,
"How qid you know?" I said, "Well, in 1972, the NCAA withdrew the 1.6 rule." Now what she observed is that for students who had enrolled before that date, the graduation rate was essentially twice the graduation
rate after that date. So I would suggest that before we get emotional about 48, and lose our intellect, that we await the data that this company is developing and let's see what has taken place.
CLARENCE UNDERWOOD :
Clarence Underwood, Big Ten Conference Office. i have one question to ask Homer Rice. You identified several professional athletes who had been exploited by institutions in undergraduate days and you helped
them somehow. I'm wondering now what will happen to them under rule 48. What will happen to those athletes
who do not meet 48 requirements and are admitted under the loophole? What have institutions done that they will know underthe rule 48 that they did not know under the 2.0 rule to make sure those athletes who come in on a loophole will graduate or make progress toward a degree?
I don't know if I can specifically answer your question, but I can make a comment on that. The
point that I've been trying to make is,somehowwe have to go back to the high schools and help there so they take the courses of math, English and the core program. Then they have an opportunity to do well in
college and do well after college. I just gave you some isolated incidences that I have been experiencing. I think we have to go back there Where it starts and help that part of it so they have a better opportunity to come through this thing later on. If that is done. then they won't be in the situation they are in now.
I don't think that will make a difference from what has happened before.
Willis Ram of South Carolina State. I had the occasion over the last fourteen years to serve as an academic career advisor to a major institution, Florida State University and to be a dean and counselor in a historically black school. I have some very strong feelings about the SAT and the use to which it
is p~t. Over the last four years and since a year ago, or better, Proposition 48 cropped up. I had a reason to begin to get involved with school administrators at the high school and elementary level because my
concern became,very hurriedly, that I recognized athletics is but a microcosm to the total educational pichure. Education itself is a microcosm of the full society. As a dean and as a counselor I've long since
recognized that we have a societal problem that related to a decrease in our academic abilities among our high school and elementary students. I say it to reinforce what Dr. Rice just said. Perhaps a part of
what we can be doing as athletic administrators at this point, is to get involved with the superintendents, the principals and the instructors in our various school systems. I am actively involved now with superintendents, principals and instructors across the state of South Carolina. I use what influence I have as an athletic administrator to say,in effect,that there is something that we can do collectively
to improve the educational process for all students. If we do that well enough then the athletes will come to the college that I work for in better shape than they have come in the past.
I have a grave difficulty with the matter of us isolating athletes because I am not sure I know what that means. At the high school level, kids compete because it's fun and they can do it voluntarily. The doors are open to them. We get the select group that we call talented athletes and somehow we set them aside and do all kinds of funny things with them. But I think the concentration should be, until we
get this whole matter straight with 48, on working with the high school administrators to try and make life better educationally for all students. I think our athletes will come out better in the long run.
Larry Travis, Georgia Tech. To go along with Dr. Rice, I'd like to ask Mr. Toner what the NCAA is doing to educate the high school situation. There was a study done by Princeton University School of
Education that said the awareness of Proposition 48 had a lot to do with the size of the high school and
the number of athletes that were recruited out of that high school. It seems to me that the thing we need
to do, if we are going to continue with Proposition 48, is educate the high schools at all levels. I'm not sure exactly what we are doing in that regard.
I did make mention of the fact that I did send a letter to 22,900 high schools. That's all the high schools in the country. The NCAA, in the meantime, publishedb. ~ t:.2-College Freshman Eligibility Requirements ~ ~Division! Institutions. That guideline went out along with the letter that I mentioned. I will read to you a paragraph from it: "Considerable attention has been focused on the standardized test score portion of the legislation 48 and the possibility that this section might be
modified prior to the 1986 effective date. This is speculative, further it seems unlikely that the core- curriculum requirement will be changed. Current high school students should assume that all of the existing regulations will have to be met." That is the essence of the story and that guideline is in every high
school in the country.
Dr. Bucky Wagner, Georgia Southern. I've also spent, as Dr. Ham has, about twelve years as an
academic advisor and about seven years as the dean of student services. Admissions and financial aid departments reported to me. I spent eleven years as a football coach. I did a dissertation'that covered the student-athlete as he applied to non-student-athletes relative to academic progress. I think that we have to look at this picture. I explain that because I think that I am a self-proclaimed expert on this.
We look at this whole picture. Right now we are looking at a little part of the admission aspect relative to test scores. We have a whole picture of recruiting, progress, and academic requirements for admissions. We also have a whole situation that has happened to higher education and secondary education over the
past fifteen years with a tremendous pressure that equal opportunity has put upon busing. Those problems have,gone into our junior colleges and have gone into our senior institutions. There are institutions that are major public institutions that serve their state constituents. Some are private institutions and don't have the problems that we might have.
But, we have to realize that when we talk about academic subjects only and a "C" average, we have
made a significant change into directing high school curriculum. We have to get our kids in the right curriculum, making sure that they have success in that curriculum. There are very few English teachers and math teachers in high schools that are going to let the kids slip by. Now,when we had the proliferation
of courses in hi~h school. certainlv. thev could take some shop courses. Or, they could take some other courses, get "As" and "Bs" and get a 2.0. We all know that we were too low there, that we let some very non-students into our institutions to compete in collegiate athletics. We have made a significant move by having a 2.0 in the academic subjects.
We must look because there is a loophole. Major high schools have perhaps three levels of courses and one of those levels will be remedial, cne will be compensatory and will not be college level. Kids will be able to take English in that level, get"Bs" and still not be prepared for our institution. So, we must know that a "C" is a "c" in college preparatory English. Secondly, we have to set a cutting point for admission for an athlete. That is what we are talking about when we say 700. We are probably not being fair. If you were to walk in a non-student who had 650 or 690 and just barely made a "C" average, he is probably not a very good risk to come into your institution. When you take a young man or a young woman who has been successful, who knows success, who has had to go through the discipline of scholastic
athletics, and who is looked up to in their community, you have a different person. That is why we have admission exceptions, and I don't feel that we need to look into our admission requirements. We need to look at those students that don't fit into our normal admission standards and have special skills. Studies have found that when you set cutting points for athletes and non-athletes at the lower level, the athlete will out perform the non-athlete at that level. Maybe at the higher level he won't. The fellow that is not involved in athletics may out perform him. So, we have got a problem.
We also have a problem when the national test score average on the SAT for minority students is
around 703. You always cut out half of them and you probably cut off the half that were male because the women always score better. We shouldn't deny opportunity through the test score. We've made significant progress with our normal progress rules. We can't hide the kid anymore as long as he declares a major.
We can't have a kid in the school of business and bail him out by giving him all the coaches' courses. It is not going to work anymore. We have made significant progress there. We should say, "Coach, you bring
in 20 people a year. If you lose them, you can't replace them." Now he has to look that youngster in the eye when he recruits them and say, "Do I have a chance to get him to become a senior? Or can I just bring him in for a year, play him as a freshman? Maybe I'II get two years out of him. He is a great athlete, but if I lose him, I can't replace him."' We have made significant progress. We should be alert at reducing opportunities for young men coming in because when we set cutting levels at that level for student-athletes we are discriminating. They do better down there than a normal student.
JEN SHILLINGFORD :
It was good to end with an expert. I would like to first of all remind you, as John stated, that our committee will have its survey collected and completed. It will probably appear in The NCAA News in either late July or early August. You may want to keep abreast of that. Also, at lO:3a:-the:N~ President's Council Meeting will take place right here. Would you join me please in thanking John Toner, Homer Rice and Leo Miles for a very interesting session.