MOAA State of the Association Address
Clint Bryant, Director of Athletics, Augusta State University and MOAA President

The Minority Opportunities Athletic Association (MOAA) Symposium took place today and President Clint Bryant delivered the state of the association to the attendees, officers and board members.

The look back on the past year and the outlook for 2009-10 was overwhelmingly positive. Bryant was enthusiastic about the fact that membership is currently up to 224 individual members, and the fact that 35 members were added as a result of MOAA’s booth at the NCAA Convention in January was very encouraging. Bryant expressed the need to continue to use this avenue to spread the word about MOAA and gain members in the years to come.

Also in the month of January, Bryant made the trip to Washington D.C. to attend the most historic Presidential Inauguration in our nation’s 233-year history. The fact that our country has come full circle in those two plus centuries back to its core beliefs through President Obama’s election thrills Bryant.

“Looking back from the steps of the Capitol, with approximately two million people in attendance, it was a sight that brought chill bumps to my skin and tears to my eyes,” Bryant stated. “There was not one negative incident of any kind, and I thought at that time, on that day, inclusion had reached its climax. Everyone was there for the same reason to accomplish the same purpose.”

Bryant wrapped up the address by looking at the big picture in terms of providing opportunities to minorities, and starting at the earliest stages of life. More children are killed each year due to gang violence than the number of soldiers we lose defending our freedom overseas. In addition, 1.2 million more children are presently living in poverty than they were a year ago, and minorities are three times more likely to fall into this demographic. He concluded by issuing a charge to those in attendance.

“We as minority athletics administrators have a charge to provide these young people with a chance—a chance to overcome these circumstances and be presented with the same opportunities as those around them.”

NATYCAA: Two-Year College Relations
Speakers: Dan Guerrero, Director of Athletics, UCLA and NACDA 3rd Vice President
Joe Castiglione, Director of Athletics, University of Oklahoma and NACDA Past President

Junior and community college student-athletes can significantly benefit a four-year institution’s athletics program. The experience they gained both academically and athletically since high school can make them an immediate asset to a big-time program. Unfortunately, on the other side lies the Academic Progress Rate (APR), and the fact of the matter is that these transfers have historically been known to negatively impact a program’s score.

Oklahoma AD Joe Castiglione resides on the NCAA’s Football Academic Working Group, which has a goal of helping institution’s figure out how to retain student-athletes and improve APR scores.

“The development of the APR has been the best possible real-time evaluator of progress toward a degree,” Castiglione said.

One of the reasons as to why the committee feels that the sport of football carries the lowest APR score is because institutions are more focused on keeping their student-athletes eligible than retaining them and making sure they leave campus with a diploma. The average athlete has 45-50 hours of coursework still to be completed once his or her eligibility has been exhausted. Another problem is that incoming freshman football players historically bring lower academic profiles with them from high school to the collegiate level. Two more problems exist in the great time demands of football players and data that shows that two-year transfers are likely to leave school when they’re eligibility is up.

The committee feels that if more institutions and their respective student-athletes would remember that they are ultimately there to obtain a degree and that athletics should be a close second instead of vice-versa, the APR problem would be closer to a solution. So how should they go about doing this? The committee is still formulating its official approval to submit to the board of directors, but the following are some solutions they’ve discussed that could work toward cleaning up mess that is the APR for so many programs.

• Instead of the current system that requires student-athletes to pass a minimum of six credit hours per quarter/semester, they’ll need to pass nine, which is 75 percent of the minimum number of credits an athlete needs to be enrolled in to be eligible to participate in athletics.
• Give the student-athletes five years of eligibility but eliminate all redshirts.
• Assign APR scores to coaches, athletics directors, athletics reps and chancellors to provide more widespread accountability.
    o Disclaimer from Castiglione about the initial reactions to this solution:
       “Yeah, that one didn’t go over very well.”
• Require all incoming freshmen to attend summer school.

The only sport in worse shape than football in terms of average APR score is men’s basketball. Sure the big schools struggle to cope with the NBA’s rule of making high school graduates wait one year before they become draft eligible, resulting in the athletes labeled “one-and-done’s” creating an APR nightmare, but those cases, although highly publicized, are rare and just a small percentage of the problem. Even though UCLA AD Dan Guerrero doesn’t feel that one size fits all when it comes to the APR shortcomings of both sports, he admits that men’s basketball struggles with some of the exact same issues as football.

Guerrero stated that the core of the Basketball Academic Working Group’s recommendations is the summer school issue that the football group is considering as well. Initially, the idea was to require every freshman basketball player to attend summer school because data shows that if these student-athletes get a jump start, they’ll have a better chance to succeed academically. Realizing that it was realistic to impose that on all programs and their athletes across the board, the concept was pulled back and reevaluated.

“Our new recommendation does not mandate summer school,” Guerrero said. “It puts the onus on every institution to assess every incoming student-athlete and evaluate what their possibilities are of being successful academically.”

NAAC: Failure to Monitor? A Look at National Trends in Monitoring Phone Calls and Text Messaging
Speakers: Dan Bartholomae, Assistant Athletics Director for Compliance, University of Pittsburgh
Chad Hawley, Assistant Commissioner for Compliance, Big Ten Conference

A rule that states that absolutely no text messaging is permitted to potential student-athletes seems simple enough. None means none, but when compliance departments fail to monitor the speedy thumbs and Blackberries of their coaches, the rule might as well have never been created. The rule of discussion is proposal 2006-40, which states: Electronically transmitted correspondence that may be sent to a prospective student-athlete is limited to electronic mail and facsimiles. All other forms of electronically transmitted correspondence (e.g., Instant Messenger, text messaging) are prohibited.

When asked, most coaches can agree that if they had to choose between text messaging being allowed unlimitedly across the board or it not being permitted at all, they’d choose the latter. Unfortunately, monitoring this behavior is costly and time consuming, and the majority of athletics departments are not taking the time or forking out the money to make it happen. Although companies such as ACS and Roberts Innovations do exist to aid in the process, only seven percent of texting infractions in the last year were caught via monitoring methods.

Surveys show that monitoring levels are increasing slowly since the ruling in 2006, but the numbers are nowhere near where they should be. In the same survey, the majority of administrators felt that educating coaches on the rules rather than monitoring whether or not they are following them is the way to go.

Putting coaches on the honor system whose livelihood depends on gaining competitive advantages and capturing W’s has proved costly in a few cases, most notably at the University at Albany. Assistant football coaches were caught sending 331 text messages to 220 prospective student-athletes, while the head baseball coach sent 56 of his own to five prospects. The NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions found that the university’s failure to detect and prevent the text messages sent demonstrated a failure to monitor. To prove that neglecting the 2006 decision would not be tolerated, Albany’s hand was forced, and it handed down self-imposed penalties such as a two-year probation and the loss of scholarships and various recruiting benefits.

NAAC: Coaches’ Views on Trends and Issues in College Basketball
Panelists: John Beilein, Head Men’s Basketball Coach, University of Michigan
Kirk Speraw, Head Men’s Basketball Coach, University of Central Florida
Muffett McGraw, Head Women’s Basketball Coach, University of Notre Dame
Joanne McCallie, Head Women’s Basketball Coach, Duke University

The disparity between peaks of the Grand Canyon can at times fail in comparison to the gap between head basketball coaches and their respective compliance administrators. That is exactly why this session was formulated, and much was accomplished as 142 compliance administrators met with four of college basketball’s most elite and experienced head coaches to try and throw ideas around about how each can do their part to bridge the gap.

Michigan Coach John Beilein led off the discussion by stating that his number one concern with the way the system is currently set up lies in the lack of consideration for the student-athlete. Known as much for his ability to mentor and teach life lessons to his players as he is for his ability to coach X’s and O’s, Beilein said, “The more we can see our young men and women, the better we can mentor and influence them. There are so many influences out there that are not necessarily looking out for their well-being.”

Admittedly, the consensus goal of the panel is to push the limit legally due to their innate competitive nature, but it is not always easy to know where that line is that cannot be crossed. With the constant changing of legislation, they felt it is next to impossible to keep up with all the minor details.

“It’s critical that we [coaches and compliance administrators] stay on the same page,” UCF Men’s Basketball Coach Kirk Speraw said. “There’s gotta be some common courtesy within the rules.”

Coach Speraw goes on to give an example of being at an event and having a recruit’s parent come up to him and start a conversation. The dilemma for him becomes, “Do I greet them and speak briefly to be cordial, or just say I can’t talk to you and walk away?”

Joanne McCallie, women’s basketball coach at Duke, suggests looking at where the rules can be simplified to benefit all parties, and to only keep the rules that can realistically be enforced.

“Fairness comes from enforcement, and enforcement is good if it’s timely,” McCallie said. “We need to pick and choose what we can enforce, and if we’re made aware of an infraction, we need to act on it immediately.”

Coming full circle, Coach Beilein wanted to reiterate the fact that they are all in the business for the welfare of the student-athletes. Without them, the profession of coaching would not exist, and without coaches, compliance administrators are left without a job as well.

“When you know something doesn’t make sense, and we know something makes sense, we need to fight to get it changed,” Beilein said. “Because we’re really fighting for our student-athletes.”

NACMA/ICLA: Promotional Licensing
Panel: Craig Westemeier, Assistant Director of Athletics for Trademarks and Licensing, University of Texas and ICLA President 
Mike Carlton, Senior Director of University Services, Collegiate Licensing Company 
Brian Pracht, Senior Associate Director of Athletics for External Operations, Wichita State University
Whit Babcock, Senior Associate Director of Athletics for External Operations, University of Missouri

More gap-bridging took place later in the afternoon as marketing and licensing directors gathered to learn how their fields relate, and what each department is trying to accomplish. Typically, licensing directors are trying to protect the brand, while the marketing staff is trying to create revenue. When these two departments work together, it can result in a well-oiled machine in which both parties are accomplishing their goals.

Topic number one that was discussed amongst the panel dealt with the level a sponsor must be on to take part in promotions on campus. Chiming in first was Brain Pracht of Wichita State, who simply stated, “We’ll take your money any way we can get it, but at the same time, we still want to protect our marks.” On a larger scale at institutions such as Texas and Missouri, they can be more careful about their dealings.

The conversation in the room quickly transitioned to how to handle licensing infractions. When do you seek legal action? When do you take care of it in house? When do you just let it go? A sentiment drove home by the entire panel is that the licensing department needs to pick its battles and go on a case-by-case basis. Giving an example of all three instances, when an infraction can possibly lead to a lot of negative exposure, ICLA President Craig Westemeier of Texas seeks out the legal team at Collegiate Licensing Company. If a restaurant incorporates the athletics logo with its own logo, he likes to handle that one-on-one and keep the legal system and his higher ups out of it, but if random banners are being hung across campus to promote a non-athletics event, he feels it is not worth the time to legislate. His number one piece of advice is to know the trademark laws inside and out so proper discretion can be used in every case that arises.

Another growing issue when it comes to licensing infractions comes when high school athletics departments copy university logos for their own programs. The three categories of these high school licensing infractions consist of in-state schools, out-of-state schools and out of country schools. Whit Babcock of Missouri is of the strong opinion that in-state schools using your collegiate logo only helps promote the brand and does not cause confusion with the fan base. It gets sticky when you’re at the University of Missouri and you get a call that a high school in North Dakota has been using your logo as its own. That actually happened to Missouri, and Babcock felt that it could not be tolerated. The panel was in agreement that those two instances are pretty cut and dry, but when notified that a school in a different part of the world is using your marks, there are a couple of approaches that can be taken. You have to ask yourself two questions. First, is your athletics department trying to market in this particular part of the world? If not, is it worth spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal dues to gain back just a couple thousand dollars in royalties?

The final topic really brought together both sides, and proves that issues will arise where the marketing and licensing people need to be on the same page in order to avoid potential conflict. When launching a marketing campaign, it is imperative to consult with the licensing directors in order to maximize the potential of the campaign. Missouri successfully pulled off a “Go Gold” campaign to raise interest in athletics because the marketing department made the licensing people aware, leading them to make sure gold merchandise was made plentiful throughout the community, and the end result saw it fly off the shelves at an unprecedented rate.