U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

93–982PDF 2004

SUPPORTING OUR INTERCOLLEGIATE STUDENTATHLETES: PROPOSED NCAA REFORMS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND

COMMERCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MAY 18, 2004

Serial No. 108–91

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman

W.J. ‘‘BILLY’’ TAUZIN, Louisiana

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida

FRED UPTON, Michigan

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania

CHRISTOPHER COX, California

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky

CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING,

Mississippi, Vice Chairman

VITO FOSSELLA, New York

STEVE BUYER, Indiana

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania

MARY BONO, California

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

LEE TERRY, Nebraska

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

C.L. ‘‘BUTCH’’ OTTER, Idaho

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan

Ranking Member

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio

BART GORDON, Tennessee

PETER DEUTSCH, Florida

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois

ANNA G. ESHOO, California

BART STUPAK, Michigan

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland

GENE GREEN, Texas

KAREN MCCARTHY, Missouri

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado

LOIS CAPPS, California

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania

CHRISTOPHER JOHN, Louisiana

TOM ALLEN, Maine

JIM DAVIS, Florida

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois

HILDA L. SOLIS, California

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas

BUD ALBRIGHT, Staff Director

JAMES D. BARNETTE, General Counsel

REID P.F. STUNTZ, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida, Chairman

FRED UPTON, Michigan

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

Vice Chairman

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania

MARY BONO, California

LEE TERRY, Nebraska

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

C.L. ‘‘BUTCH’’ OTTER, Idaho

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma

JOE BARTON, Texas,

(Ex Officio)

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois

Ranking Member

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio

PETER DEUTSCH, Florida

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois

BART STUPAK, Michigan

GENE GREEN, Texas

KAREN MCCARTHY, Missouri

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado

JIM DAVIS, Florida

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,

(Ex Officio)

(II)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Testimony of:

Friday, William C., President Emeritus, University of North Carolina,

Co-Chairman, Knight Foundation Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics ............................................................................................................... 9

McMillen, Hon. C. Thomas, Co-Chairman, President’s Counsel on Physical Fitness .................................................................................................... 15

Renfro, Wallace, Senior Advisor to the President, National Collegiate

Athletic Association ...................................................................................... 15

(III)

(1)

SUPPORTING OUR INTERCOLLEGIATE STUDENT-ATHLETES: PROPOSED NCAA REFORMS

TUESDAY, MAY 18, 2004

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE,

AND CONSUMER PROTECTION,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:30 p.m., in room

2123 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Cliff Stearns (chairman)

presiding.

Members present: Representatives Stearns, Barton (ex officio),

Schakowsky, Towns, and Rush.

Staff present: Chris Leahy, majority counsel and pocicy coordinator; David Cavicke, majority counsel; Brian McCullough, majority professional staff; Will Carty, legislative clerk; Chad Grant,

staff assistant; Jonathan Cordone, minority counsel.

Mr. STEARNS. The subcommittee will come to order here.

I am pleased to welcome you all to the Commerce, Trade, and

Consumer Protection Subcommittee on supporting our intercollegiate student-athletes proposed NCAA reforms.

Last March this subcommittee examined the NCAA’s response to

certain recruiting practice related to official campus visits by prospective student-athletes. Prompted by a number of high profile

scandals involving recruiting practices at some NCAA Division I

schools, the NCAA formed a task force to investigate abuses associated with recruitment visits and the institutional policies used by

the NCAA member institution to enforce recruiting standards.

According to them, 31 schools have been penalized for major recruiting violations since 2000. This constitutes a minority of NCAA

members. However, the conduct of a few bad actors has highlighted

the influence commercialism is having on amateur intercollegiate

athletics.

It also highlights the need for better enforcement of standards at

member institutions. During our March hearing, the NCAA

stressed the importance of having both rigorous recruiting and academic standards, along with commitment from member institutions

to faithfully implement those standards and vigorously enforce

them.

I look forward to hearing about the progress made to date, as

well as the NCAA’s reform proposal concerning recruitment, academic performance standards that were recently approved.

2

As consumers of college sports media, we all have an interest in

insuring that our college student-athletes are not being exploited

by growing commercial interest and by the unethical and immoral

behavior of a few, particularly in those programs that generate

large revenue streams from lucrative media and commercial contracts.

As some have said, the play for pay atmosphere generated by

these practices and policies has institutionalized the mentality of

an ‘‘arms race’’ and de-emphasized academic performance and

achievement.

Colleagues, this is not acceptable. It is, therefore, my hope that

rather than reacting to the headlines and the next big scandal,

which will surely come, we can create a long-term vision for the future of amateur college sports that reestablishes an ‘‘academics

first culture,’’ that also supports our student athletes’ excellence on

the field, court or track.

For our college student-athletes, mental training should be as

vigorous as physical training, for life after the game. According to

the NCAA only 1.3 percent of senior NCAA basketball players

make it to the pros, while only 2 percent of football players do so.

Given the slim odds of making the big time in professional

sports, we clearly need to insure that the sacrifice that these student-athletes make to pursue athletics do not compromise their opportunities to make the big time after graduation in business, academia, medicine, engineering, and so forth.

To help move us forward toward a comprehensive long-term vision for intercollegiate athletics, I would like to thank the Knight

Commission for their work in the area of college athletics reform.

The Commission’s model for intercollegiate athletics is there is a

careful assessment. Their recommendation is to create an agenda

of academic reform, de-escalation of the athletic arms race, and deemphasis of the commercialism as outlined in their 2001 reports.

Now, frankly, these are solid steps toward a long-term plan

which I think this country desperately needs.

The subcommittee would also like to commend the NCAA for trying to get a handle on the problem facing athletics and their impact

on our student athletes. Their work continues to be very helpful as

we flesh out the issues facing recruiting and the academic form.

I am also sure they would be the first to agree that more, of

course, has to be done. Universities, too, must also bear responsibility for the conduct of their own athletic programs and the recruitment practices and policies that follow.

Accountability requires the university to do their utmost to implement the NCAA standards in good faith and pursue vigorous enforcement.

In conclusion, the big business of college athletics has changed

forever the playing field for our Nation’s student athletes. Gone are

the days when college sports celebrated the amateur in athletes.

An away game simply meant getting your studying done on the bus

or in the bleachers between games or races.

Today many of the pressures today are not only academic, but

also financial and, as we have seen, institutional for these young

people. It is incumbent upon us to see that the NCAA is fulfilling

its mission. Schools are implementing and enforcing the NCAA

3

standards properly, and those student athletes entering intercollegiate athletics today enjoy the benefit of a superb system of higher

education, an education that prepares them for life, not just for the

next game.

And with that I recognize Ms. Schakowsky.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Clifford Stearns follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFFORD STEARNS, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

Good morning. I am pleased to welcome all of you to the Commerce, Trade and

Consumer Protection Subcommittee’s hearing on ‘‘Supporting Our Intercollegiate

Student-Athletes: Proposed NCAA Reforms.’’

Last March this Subcommittee examined the NCAA’s response to certain recruiting practices related to official campus visits by prospective student-athletes.

Prompted by a number of high-profile scandals involving recruiting practices at

some NCAA Division I schools, the NCAA formed a Task Force to investigate abuses

associated with recruitment visits and the institutional policies used by NCAA

member institutions to enforce recruiting standards. According to the NCAA, 31

schools have been penalized for major recruiting violations since 2000. This constitutes a minority of NCAA members; however, the conduct of a few bad actors has

highlighted the influence commercialism is having on amateur intercollegiate athletics. It also highlights the need for better enforcement of NCAA standards at

member institutions. During our March hearing, the NCAA stressed importance of

having both rigorous recruiting and academic standards along with commitment

from member institutions to faithfully implement those standards and vigorously

enforce them. I look forward to hearing about the progress made to date as well as

the NCAA’s reform proposals concerning recruiting and academic performance

standards that were recently approved.

As consumers of college sports media, we all have a interest in ensuring that our

college student-athletes are not being exploited by growing commercial interests and

the unethical and immoral behavior of a few - particularly in those programs that

generate large revenue streams from lucrative media and commercial contracts. As

some have said, the ‘‘play for pay’’ atmosphere generated by these practices and

policies has institutionalized the mentality of an ‘‘arms race’’ and deemphasized academic performance and achievement. This is not acceptable.

It is therefore my hope that rather than reacting to the headlines and next big

scandal, we can create a long-term vision for the future of amateur college sports

that re-establishes an academics-first culture that also supports our student-athletes’ excellence on the field, court, or track. For our college student-athletes, mental

training should be as vigorous as physical training for life after the game. According

to the NCAA, only 1.3% of senior NCAA basketball players make it to the pros while

only 2% of football players do so. Given the slim odds of making the ‘‘big time’’ in

professional sports, we clearly need to ensure that the sacrifices that these studentathletes make to pursue athletics don’t compromise their opportunities to make the

‘‘big time’’ after graduation—in business, academia, medicine, engineering, and so

on.To help move us toward a comprehensive long-term vision for intercollegiate athletics, I would like to thank the Knight Commission for their work in the area of

college athletics reform. The Commission’s model for intercollegiate athletics deserves a careful assessment. Their recommendations to create an agenda of academic reform, de-escalation of the athletics arms race, and de-emphasis of the commercialism in intercollegiate athletics, as outlined in their 2001 report, are solid

steps toward the long-term plan we desperately need.

The Subcommittee also would like to commend the NCAA for trying to get a handle on the problems facing intercollegiate athletics and their impact on our studentathletes. Their work continues to be very helpful as we flesh out the issues facing

recruiting and the academic reform. I’m also sure they would be the first to agree

that more has to be done. Universities too must also bear responsibility for the conduct of their own athletic programs and the recruitment practices and policies they

follow. Accountability requires that Universities do their utmost to implement the

NCAA standards in good faith and pursue vigorous enforcement.

The big business of college athletics has changed forever the playing field for our

nation’s student athletes. Gone are the days when college sports celebrated the

‘‘amateur’’ in athlete and away games simply meant getting your studying done on

the bus or in the bleachers between games or races. Today, many of the pressures

today are not only academic but also financial and, as we have seen, institutional

4

for these young people. And it is incumbent upon us to see that the NCAA is fulfilling its mission, schools are implementing and enforcing NCAA standards properly, and that those student-athletes entering intercollegiate athletics today enjoy

the benefit of a superb system of higher education—an education that prepares

them for life not just the next game.

I would like to thank the representatives from the NCAA and Knight Commission

for joining us today, and I look forward to their testimony.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am happy that we are holding this hearing today to give us the

opportunity to follow up on issues related to NCAA recruiting policies and also to learn more about academic reform proposals as

they relate to Division I student athletes.

I would like to thank our witnesses for being here today to help

shed some light on those issues.

We talked in the previous hearing on the NCAA about a problem

with the culture in our top university athletic programs, a culture

where alcohol and drugs are all too commonplace, a culture where

abysmal graduation rates are the norm rather than the exception,

a culture that tolerates violence against women.

I am pleased that the NCAA recognizes that there is a problem

and is working toward reform on issues surrounding recruiting

trips and the academic performance of student athletes. However,

I am concerned that some of the new proposals don’t go far enough.

For example, I am concerned that the proposed NCAA recruiting

rules still fail to set standards regarding alcohol use and unsupervised entertainment of recruits and instead leave it up to individual institutions to make those rules.

Before the final rules are approved, I hope that those issues will

be revisited and standards adopted that really make the point that

we tolerate nothing less than the best behavior for our student-athletes, just as we expect them from all of our students.

Furthermore, I was alarmed to learn about the graduation rates

of some of our elite student-athletes. I know we all agree that it’s

unacceptable when only 32 percent of the men’s teams participating in the NCAA basketball tournament this year manage to

graduate at least 50 percent of their players within 6 years of their

initial enrollment. I was shocked to learn that four teams failed to

graduate a single player in 4 years.

Statistics like these demand bold steps and comprehensive reform that truly holds school presidents, coaches, and institutions

accountable for the education they are providing or failing to provide student-athletes.

I am eager to hear more from Mr. Renfro about the NCAA’s proposed academic reforms. I am also looking forward to hearing from

Dr. Friday of the Knight Foundation Commission on intercollegiate

athletics, a group that is committed to reforming college sports into

a system with integrity and accountability.

It is not just about making new rules that dictate what type of

planes recruits can fly in or creating formulas that simply quantify

academic progress rates. While those details are important, it is

also important to remind ourselves about the real goal of reform,

transforming college sports into a culture that fosters healthy and

fun athletic competition while remaining focused on the academic

success of student athletes and their development into honest and

respectful adults.

5

Thank you.

Mr. STEARNS. I thank the gentlelady.

The chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Texas,

Mr. Barton.

Chairman BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I will waive my opening

statement and just put it in the record.

I do want to welcome the panel, especially former Congressman

McMillen, a distinguished member of this body, and just make a

comment on the graduation rates. At least in Texas the two schools

that had tournament reps. in both the men and women’s tournament, the women were a lot smarter. They graduated about 50

percent higher than the guys. That is a good thing for our Texas

women.

With that I yield back.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Joe Barton follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BARTON, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY

AND COMMERCE

Collegiate athletics play a significant cultural role in American society. Saturday

afternoon college football games—whether at the alma mater or the local university—have become ritual gatherings enjoyed by friends, family, and classmates for

years. The tradition and pageantry of New Year’s Day parades used to be the highlight of many a school, host city, and the participants that signified the conclusion

of a successful season.

Unfortunately the shine is wearing off for some schools and the accomplishments

of their athletes. Competition on the field is often overshadowed by problems off the

field. Scandals involving collegiate athletes are increasingly a part of the weekly

news. The fact that we know the problems exist means reform is overdue.

The annual basketball championships produce enormous excitement for avid fans

every March. In fact, so many people watch the basketball tournament that the current NCAA contract with CBS to televise the event is worth over $6 billion dollars

for 11 years.

This is great news for many collegiate athletes that benefit from the burgeoning

pie the NCAA redistributes to its member schools. This revenue stream may crosssubsidize other sports at these schools. Unfortunately, the very same athletes that

are essential to the success of the basketball tournament may be the least likely

to benefit by earning an education and a degree. Division I men’s basketball has

the lowest graduation rate of any sport. Although women’s basketball is better,

some of the schools exhibit similar sub par graduation rates.

This is not the first time in the history of collegiate sports there have been calls

for reform. Our witnesses today can testify that some of the same arguments—commercialization and lowering academic integrity—have been made as far back as

1929. So are we tilting at windmills? Do we expect to make a few changes and then

things will quiet down when the next season begins? I would like to think we are

on the verge of doing something meaningful for collegiate sports.

The NCAA’s proposals to reform the recruiting process are a good first step. Additionally, the academic reforms approved a few weeks ago make perfect sense, but

may not solve the problem because the fundamentals creating the problem are only

getting worse.

The bigger problem is that we as a society consume athletic events as fast as they

can be served up. We need not go further than cable TV or the radio to find multiple, 24 hour all sports networks discussing collegiate athletics as well as professional sports. And the schools seem all too willing to provide us what we want, day

and night. Basketball tournaments in Hawaii and Alaska, Thursday night football

games, and basketball games every night of the week are all in pursuit of one objective: MONEY.

The conference realignments are the best indication of why reforms need to occur.

The ACC conference just signed a 7-year contract for football that is worth $257 million dollars and will require more Thursday night games. When schools undertake

this money chase, they are approaching the same status as professional sports. Even

more disturbing is that many of the athletic departments are adding fuel to the fire

by applying this model to their other sports—without the revenue.

6

The chase for money may prevail at some schools. Unfortunately, the schools that

can’t match the expenditures of their rivals will ultimately reduce, not increase, the

opportunities for student athletes to compete in a sport they love.

I yield back.

Mr. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman.

And I now will ask you, the first panel and only panel, to come

forward. We have Dr. William C. Friday, who is President—oh,

sorry. Mr. Towns.

My distinguished colleague from New York, Mr. Towns, is recognized for an opening statement.

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Let me begin by thanking you for holding this hearing today on

NCAA recruiting practices. College athletics play a an important

role in helping thousands of young men and women into more responsible, caring adults. Sports teaches youngsters about the value

of hard work, team play, and how to deal with life’s adversities and

challenges.

We must insure that universities continue to nurture our student

athletes in furtherance of these ideals and do not let them fall pray

to financial and competitive pressures corrupting major college athletics.

I have had a longstanding interest in insuring that academics remain an integral part of college athletics. Having been one of the

authors of the Student-Athletes Right to Know Act, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge my former member and friend of this

body for his work in that regard, Tom McMillen, who also played

a key role in passing this legislation.

The law required all institutions of higher education to disclose

their graduation rates for their respective athletic teams. This was

an important step in holding universities accountable and informing student athletes about a school’s commitment to helping them

obtain a degree.

However, some programs have been willing to live with the embarrassment of a virtual no percent graduation rate if it means one

Final Four or another bowl championship appearance. So I am

pleased that the NCAA Board of Directors adopted this landmark

academic reform package by penalizing and rewarding universities

for their student-athletes’ academic successes and failures.

Coaches and ADs may finally pay as much attention to studentathletes’ work in the classroom as they do to their exploits on the

field. While I had hoped that sunshine on school graduation rates

would embarrass coaches into taking the type of action, this has

not been the case unfortunately. And incentive or disincentive programs will end the lipservice to academic integrity that has persisted too long on our college campuses.

I think these reforms are a critical step in the right direction.

For those who say that we have no role in this process and should

let the NCAA do its job, I remind everyone that the NCAA is made

up of member institutions which receive billions of dollars from this

institution. I strongly believe that Congress should not be in the

business of regulating institutions of higher learning. However, I

believe that we have a role in insuring that these institutions remain centers of higher learning, not business enterprises that

make money on the backs of young athletes.

7

So, again, Mr. Chairman, I applaud you and the ranking member

for holding this hearing today, and I look forward to hearing from

the witnesses because I think that we are now in a position where

we need to do something about a very serious problem that exists

out there that nobody now is talking about.

Mr. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Rush.

Mr. RUSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I fully concur with the comments of my colleague

from New York, my good friend, Mr. Towns.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for recognizing me, and I

also want to thank you for holding this hearing. While I acknowledge the problems with recruiting techniques in college athletics as

we reel by the recent scandals at the Universities of Alabama and

Colorado, I would like to touch on a problem that has infected

intercollegiate athletics for a long time, and that is the exploitation

of student athletes, particularly African American student-athletes

for the benefit of the university.

Anyone who follows college sports knows that the recruitment of

young athletes starts way before the senior year of high school. As

was documented in the film ‘‘Hoop Dreams,’’ which took place in

Chicago, talented young athletes are recognized and groomed for

the college and even pro game at a very early age.

The problem with such techniques is that the various schools

who show interest in these young men, really just kids, really do

not have the young athlete’s best interest at heart. Instead, they

are interested in elevating or maintaining their college athletic programs, which is a money maker for the different schools.

Often what happens is that the school uses the talents of young

athletes only to abandon them when their eligibility has expired.

Too often these young men never end up even graduating from college. They never make it to the professional level, and their college

experience has been a quick flash in the pan with nothing to show

for it.

Worse, this exploitation falls disproportionately hard on African

American males. The disparity in graduation rates for whites and

black athletes is really appalling. With a few notable exceptions,

most schools have much lower graduation rates for African American athletes than they do for their white counterparts.

Let me give you an example. This year’s co-national champion in

college football, Louisiana State University, only graduated 45 percent of their students, 34 percent of their black students, compared

to 56 percent of the white students. This disparity is even troubling, extremely troubling given that the other co-national champion, the University of Southern California, graduated 61 percent

of their black players compared with 60 percent of their white players.

Mr. Chairman, as such, I would like the panel to address this

troubling aspect of college sports and how reckless recruiting techniques contribute to this problem.

Universities, as was mentioned by my colleagues, have a duty to

nurture and educate our young people and not simply put them

through a meat grinder for the school’s coffers. This is especially

true given that the vast majority of schools, whether they are pubVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:17 Aug 31, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 93982.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
8

lic or private, they receive public funds, and these funds are contingent upon each individual school’s policy, stated policy, that they

would not discriminate.

There is a nondiscrimination clause that exists for our colleges

and universities across the Nation, particularly those that receive

Federal funds.

And, Mr. Chairman, I welcome our panel today, and I hope this

hearing will address my concerns, and I want to thank you, and

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman.

[Additional statement submitted for the record follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA CUBIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. It provides the subcommittee

with a valuable opportunity to follow up on our previous hearing regarding the

NCAA by taking a close look at the academic reform proposals the NCAA Division

I Board of Directors has recommended.

I’d also like to thank the distinguished panelists who have joined us today. I am

confident we will all benefit greatly from the institutional knowledge and pragmatic

experience these gentlemen will share with us today.

Just a short time ago, this Subcommittee came together to examine NCAA recruiting practices. We came away from that hearing with an understanding of the

fact that many recruiting violations result from the fact that NCAA member institutions are simply beyond the scope of the NCAA’s authority. I also cultivated a new

respect for the goals of the NCAA. I truly believe this association is founded upon

a desire to craft policies and regulations designed to protect collegiate athletes and

guide their academic progress.

A couple of months ago, the NCAA was under attack for the unacceptable behavior of some of its affiliated schools. I applaud the NCAA for acting so quickly and

willingly to answer this national criticism by formulating a comprehensive academic

reform proposal designed to hold institutions accountable for their student athletes’

academic progress. If the governing body of intercollegiate athletics is actively concerned as to how athletes perform in the classroom, then it is certainly fair to expect

the same oversight from individual universities.

That said, we are here today to see what means the NCAA intends to employ to

hold schools accountable for enforcing these new academic standards. The pressure

of competition cannot be allowed to supercede a reasonable standard of academic

progress. The NCAA and its member institutions must agree on a policy that ensures athletes will be aptly prepared to compete in America’s workforce at the conclusion of their athletic careers.

I thank the Chairman again and yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. STEARNS. We will now have the panel come forward.

Dr. William C. Friday, President Emeritus, University of North

Carolina, Co-chairman, the Knight Foundation Commission on

Intercollegiate Athletics, a former colleague of the Honorable C.

Thomas McMillen, a member of the Knight Commission and, of

course, also a former NBA, Co-chair of the President’s Council of

Physical Fitness and Rhodes Scholar, and Mr. Willy Renfro, Senior

Advisor to the President, the National Collegiate Athletic Association.

I thank all of you, and as Mr. Towns and Mr. Rush mentioned,

these are critical for our students, and we are in competition right

now with the Secretary of Defense. He is briefing all of the Democrats, both parties. So if you see lack of members here, it is not because we do not have an interest. I think as Mr. Towns and Mr.

Rush have pointed out, who have been leaders in this area for

many years, we have in this afternoon on a Tuesday, a very important subject, something that we fervently need to solve, and we are

9

just very pleased that you are patient to come here in the afternoon

and give your opening statement.

So, Dr. Friday, thank you for coming, and we look forward to

hearing what you have to say.

STATEMENTS OF WILLIAM C. FRIDAY, PRESIDENT EMERITUS,

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, CO-CHAIRMAN, KNIGHT

FOUNDATION COMMISSION ON INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS; ACCOMPANIED BY HON. C. THOMAS McMILLEN, COCHAIRMAN, PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL ON PHYSICAL FITNESS;

AND WALLACE I. RENFRO, SENIOR ADVISOR TO THE PRESIDENT, THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION

Mr. FRIDAY. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Schakowsky, and

other distinguished members of the group, I wish to submit for the

record a complete set of the reports of the Knight Foundation’s

Commission on Intercollegiate Sports for your file.

Mr. STEARNS. By unanimous consent, so ordered.

Mr. FRIDAY. The integrity and character of our Nation’s colleges

and universities that play major sports, particularly football and

basketball, are being eroded. This commission’s current goals are

the work to expose questionable practices and behavior, to propose

solution to those practices, and to work in partnership with elected

representatives of the National Collegiate Athletic Association, the

Association of Governing Boards, coaches, administrators, and the

media to bring about meaningful reform and to do so promptly.

The commission’s ultimate vision for athletics is that it be fully

integrated into the university’s institutional mission.

Division IA football and Division IA basketball particularly are

increasingly serving the mission of entertainment and institutional

revenue generation, and before I comment on critical needs for reform, it’s important to comment on some progress and hard work

that’s going on right now.

In March, the Association of Governing Boards of this country

issued a statement of policy for board of trustee representatives

and responsibilities for intercollegiate athletics, what they are responsible for. Adoption by individual boards across the country is

going to be monitored and will be measured by the end of the year.

The Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics and other groups organized by the faculties across this country are providing a much

needed faculty voice on their own campuses because they have so

much to do with this problem, and they are engaged in the national

debate.

The President and the Board of Directors of the NCAA have provided leadership in several ways, and especially in the recent academic reforms that have been proposed. Those reforms, packaged

as they are and tied as they are to scholarship and post season participation are very constructive.

This subcommittee’s last hearing focused on recruiting practices

and abuses, as events reported at some universities brought these

problems to the forefront. The NCAA’s recent discussions concerning the recruiting process further highlight the fact that current recruiting culture must change.

Recruiting abuses, instances of academic fraud and excessive

spending are the result of establishing winning, entertainment, and

10

revenue generation as the most important goals of intercollegiate

sports. Reform in recruiting is important, but there are several

other critical areas also.

Institutions have a moral obligation, we believe, to help every individual admitted as a student athlete to achieve success in completing a degree. The data that has just been referred to indicate

that there is much room for improvement along these lines, particularly in Division I basketball.

The Knight Commission reviewed the graduation rates, and as

you have heard, the results of that study three of the Final Four

teams, three of those four in that competition, graduated fewer

than 30 percent of their athletes. I am convinced that the NCAA’s

revenue distribution plan that now rewards teams for the number

of wins in the tournament without consideration of academic performance should be changed in a meaningful way.

As the NCAA strengthens its continuing eligibility requirements

and institutes penalties associated with poor academic performance, legitimate concerns over academic fraud have arisen. To address them, admission and academic support services for athletes

should be conducted in the very same way all other academic processes are handled in the university.

And further, faculty must fulfill their obligations as stewards of

institutional academic integrity. The recent passage of the NCAA

academic performance program which ties unacceptable academic

performance to meaningful sanctions is a very strong step in the

right direction. The standards established to trigger the penalties

must be closely monitored to create improvement.

Despite the tremendous growth in revenue generated by the post

season events in Division IA football and Division I basketball, financial reports consistently indicate that a small percentage of institutions actually generate more revenue than expenses from their

athletic departments.

Indeed, Division IA as a whole has recorded expenses over revenues each of the past 10 years. Generating profit is not meant to

be the goal of what should be done as an educationally related endeavor, nor, however, should reports of so-called profits be used to

justify the current model.

One reason expenses most often exceed revenue is the tremendous escalation in the salaries of football coaches and men’s basketball coaches. Many coaches are paid in excess of $1 million a year.

Another reasons is that athletic facilities have been built with

excesses that you may not be able to find in professional sports. As

an example a West Coast university recently expanded its football

stadium at a cost of over $90 million, including a locker room for

its football team for $3.2 million. The extras in that locker room

include a thumbprint activated safe box, Internet access, and an individual ventilating system for each player’s locker.

Often the debt incurred to build and expand existing athletic facilities is in the millions of dollars and growing. The arms race in

intercollegiate athletics must stop.

The NCAA is in the midst of a $6 billion, 11-year contract with

CBS to television its Division I men’s basketball tournament. The

NCAA distributes this revenue primarily based on wins in the tournament and the size of institutions’ overall athletic programs.

11

The 2003 football post season bowl games, including the bowl championship series known as BCS, generated $181 million, 90

percent of which was distributed to the six conferences that comprised the BCS alliance.

It is also noteworthy that the BCS, its revenue distribution formula and its structure is managed completely independent of the

NCAA governance system.

The inequitable distribution of revenues generated by these

events has caused an unprecedented 50 percent venue gap between

the six conferences that originated the BCS and the remaining five

Division I conferences. Revenue distribution formulas then must be

changed if true reform is to be achieved.

NCAA financial reports indicate that 75 percent of all expenditures in Division I men’s athletics are for football and basketball.

This allocation has remained consistent for the past 10 years, increasing from 50 percent of all men’s athletic expenditures prior to

that decade.

Greater transparency, uniformity and accuracy in the fiscal reporting of FAR athletics are, therefore essential. As an example, in

many cases significant costs associated with buildings and operating athletic facilities are not reported in the athletic department

budget, thus calling into question the validity of even the few institutions that supposedly generate more revenue than expenses.

Presidents and trustees must know that the true picture of athletic expenses to understand the real cost of athletics to an institution. Only then can a proper evaluation be made as to whether athletics are consuming too much of the institution’s discretionary dollar without enhancing academics.

This commission will have much to say on the financing of college sports with the release of a study we now have underway, and

we will share it with you.

Institutions have given away too much for television exposure

and money also. One week during the last year’s regular season

college football was nationally televised for five consecutive nights,

Tuesday through Saturday. This is not about students who participate and their needs. It is about show business and money.

Further, networks dictate to institutions what hour of the day or

night games shall be played, and now to gain even more television

exposure and dollars, some of the institutions will compete with the

traditions of the Sabbath day by playing football and basketball on

Sunday evening as the network schedules. The only day college

football is not played is Monday night, and that is only because of

the popularity of the NFL.

Mr. STEARNS. I am just going to have you sum up a little bit.

Mr. FRIDAY. I thank you for creating this opportunity to be heard

and to report on more than a decade of work.

It is urgent that the American sports fan understand the consequences of this constant pressure to win. Intercollegiate sports

are a highly important part of the mission of the American college

and university, but academic fraud, recruiting violations, excessive

compensation, operating an entertainment industry, failing to provide student athletes with an adequate learning experience, and

serving as an NFL and NBA farm club clearly are not. It is time

for that difference to be understood.

12

We thank you for what you are doing.

[The prepared statement of William Friday follows:]

13

14

15

Mr. STEARNS. And I thank you, Dr. Friday.

Mr. McMillen.

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM McMILLEN

Mr. MCMILLEN. Mr. Chairman, I do not have a formal statement,

but I presume in the question and answers I will support and assist Dr. Friday.

Mr. STEARNS. Okay. Very good.

Mr. Renfro.

STATEMENT OF WALLACE I. RENFRO

Mr. RENFRO. Chairman Stearns, Ranking Member Schakowsky,

and other distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am Wallace Renfro, Senior Advisor to NCAA President Myles Brand, and

I want to thank you for this opportunity.

The defining characteristic of the collegiate model of athletics in

America is that those who compete are students. Last month the

Division I board of directors reaffirmed its commitment to this

principle. The board approved an incentives/disincentives package

that marks the first time Division I has tied a team’s academic success to the number of grants and aids available to it, access to

NCAA championships, and even certification of the program.

Last fall tougher academic standards for entering freshmen and

enrolled student athletes were implemented based on the most

comprehensive research data base ever compiled to predict academic success. For example, we know that the best predictor for

success in college is success in a broad range of high school core

courses, even better than success on standardized tests.

So the number of required high school core courses has been increased from 13 to 14 and will increase again in 2008 to 16. We

know what it takes for student-athletes once enrolled to proceed toward graduation in a timely manner. Standards are now in place

16

that require student athletes to complete 20 percent of their degree

requirements each year.

In addition, specific annual cumulative grade point average

benchmarks are prescribed. We know with a level of scientific assurance that we have never enjoyed before that if students athletes

meet these standards, they will graduate and will be well on their

way to a successful life.

These reform efforts have been lead by university presidents, but

an early advocate for academic reform has been the Knight Commission, and Bill Friday has worked tirelessly, both from within

the system as President of the University of North Carolina and

through his association with the Knight Commission. Dr. Friday is

a friend of college sports and its appropriate role within the university.

But the critics of reform are already on the attack. The worst are

the cynics who predict that reform efforts will fail because faculty

will succumb to pressure and commit academic fraud. They say

higher standards result in increased fraud. The argument is nonsense. Its logical counterpart is that reducing standards will reduce

such practices and the elimination of all standards will end academic fraud for good.

Faculties around the country should be insulted. Academic fraud

is the result of lost integrity, not higher standards, nor is it fair

to characterize all coaches as knuckle dragging neanderthals just

interested in academic success. The vast majority of coaches view

themselves as educators who take pride in the classroom achievements of their charges.

We must be vigilant, of course, toward efforts to peck away at

these reform efforts, but the messages sent forth with these reforms are clear. To the student athletes, prepare well in high

school. Make legitimate and measurable progress toward a degree

in college because if you do not, you will not participate in sports.

To the university and specific sports programs, educate the student athletes under your charge. Achieve a defined measure of academic success for your team because if you do not, you risk losing

scholarships, being withheld from championships or having your

program be certified. These are the most profound research based

reform efforts ever affirmed for intercollegiate athletics.

Division I Vice President David Berst testified before this subcommittee in March as Chair of the NCAA task force on recruiting.

The task force was charged to fast track a review of practices

where alcohol and sex were used as recruiting inducements and to

recommend solutions.

The time line for the task force was clear. We will not go through

another football recruiting season without new standards in place.

The task force made it’s first preliminary report in April and

noted that recruiting practices over time have created a culture of

entitlement among prospective student athletes. Competition for a

highly skilled prospects has raised expectations for transportation

via private jet, five-star luxury suites, extravagant meals, and

game day simulations that glorify the feats of these athletes before

they ever enrolled or set foot on the field.

The central focus of the preliminary recommendations is to return recruiting visits to the purpose for which they were intended,

17

a thorough examination of what each campus has to offer both athletically and academically.

The preliminary report proposes legislation addressing these

areas of entitlement. In addition, each institution will be required

to develop written guidelines for its recruiting processes based on

the guidelines.

The task force will also develop procedures for the NCAA office

working with its member conferences to initially approve each

school’s visit policies, and then to hold the institutions accountable

through its enforcement process.

In addition, the focus will continue on other recommendations

that will reduce the celebrity status of prospects. The type of behaviors alleged in the past must become a thing of the past. Some

institutions may write policies more stringent than others, but

none may continue to tolerate the use of alcohol, drugs or sex as

inducements.

The confidence of the public and the integrity of college sports

must be restored with the development of sound guidelines and

new standards of acceptable behavior.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Wallace I. Renfro follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WALLACE I. RENFRO, SENIOR ADVISOR TO THE NCAA

PRESIDENT

Chairman Stearns, Ranking Member Schakowsky and other distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the National Collegiate Athletic Association,

I appreciate the opportunity to appear today and discuss the academic reform of

intercollegiate athletics, as well as provide an update on the work of the NCAA

Task Force on Recruiting. I am Wallace Renfro, senior advisor to the NCAA President Myles Brand. I have been employed by the NCAA for more than 30 years in

public affairs and media relations. Currently, I work directly with President Brand

and provide advice and counsel in a variety of areas, including communications. The

NCAA is a private association of approximately 1,200 four-year institutions of higher education and athletics conferences. There are some 360,000 student-athletes

competing at these NCAA member schools.

The defining characteristic of the collegiate model of athletics in America is that

those individuals who compete on the field or court are students. It is to their education and life preparation that those engaged in intercollegiate athletics—coaches,

administrators and university presidents—must attend most ardently. Last month,

the Division I Board of Directors—a decision-making body of university presidents

that sets national policy for the 320 members of Division I—reaffirmed its commitment to ensuring the academic success of the more than 150,000 student-athletes

in the division. It approved a package of rewards and penalties that will hold colleges and universities, as well as their athletics programs, accountable for educating

their student-athletes. Commonly referred to as the incentives/disincentives phase

of academic reform, passage of the package of legislation marks the first time Division I has tied a sports team’s academic success to the number of athletics grantsin-aid available to the team, access to NCAA championships, and even certification

of the program.

This Board action followed implementation last fall of new and tougher academic

standards for entering freshmen and enrolled student-athletes. These standards are

based on the largest and most comprehensive research database ever compiled to

predict academic success. For example, we know from nearly two decades of data

that the best predictor for success in college is success in a broad range of high

school core courses—better even than success on standardized tests. So the Board

has already increased the number of high school core courses required from 13 to

14 and will increase the number again in 2008 to 16.

We also know from the research what it takes for an enrolled student-athlete to

precede toward graduation in a timely manner. We know, for example, for a freshman to be on track to graduate in five years, he or she must complete at least 24

hours of course work in the first year and have a cumulative grade-point-average

of at least 1.800. That became the new standard to determine appropriate progress

18

towards a degree. But the Board also said a student-athlete must complete 40 percent of his or her degree requirements by the end of the second year, 60 percent

by the end of the third year and 80 percent by the end of the fourth year. In addition, specific cumulative grade-point-average benchmarks are proscribed at the end

of each year. We know with a level of assurance that we have never enjoyed before

that if student-athletes meet these standards, they will have an excellent chance to

graduate and will be well on their way to a successful life.

BRIEF HISTORY

These reform efforts have been a number of years in the making. Since the mid1980s, college and university presidents have been working to address a disturbing

trend among student-athletes with regard to their academic success. On average,

Division I student-athletes who first enrolled in college in the early 1980s were

graduating two percentage points below the general student body. There were even

a few embarrassing and unacceptable examples of student-athletes emerging from

four years of college unable to read or write.

The early reform efforts were based more on anecdote than research and more on

theory than science. Nonetheless, the first proposal—Prop 48, as it has become commonly known—began having the desired results. It raised the bar for entering freshmen and established requirements for satisfactory progress for enrolled student-athletes. Graduation rates for student-athlete rose. They began first to close the gap

on those of the general student body and then to surpass them. Today, student-athletes graduate three percentage points higher than the general student body.

Women graduate at significantly higher rates then men, and student-athletes in the

Olympic sports typically do better than those in the revenue sports.

Indeed, it has been the lackluster academic performance of student-athletes in Division I football and the abysmal success rate of those in men’s basketball that

prompted the latest round of reforms. While student-athletes in Division I are graduating at a rate of 62 percent (compared to 59 percent for the general student-body),

football players are graduating at a rate of 54 percent—five points below the entire

student body and two points below all males in the student body. Student-athletes

in men’s basketball currently graduate at a rate of 42 percent—unacceptably below

both the general and male student body.

Even more discouraging is the graduation rate of men’s basketball student-athletes in Division I-A, the 117 most elite institutions in the country. Here, the graduation rate of African-American male basketball players is 38 percent. And that figure is up 10 percentage points in one year. While the 38 percent is only four points

below the graduation rate of African-American males in the general student population at Division I-A institutions, it is unacceptable. As disturbing as these numbers are, they do not represent the worst story. There are 10 men’s basketball programs in Division I that according to the federally mandated method of calculating

graduation rates have not graduated a single student-athlete over the past five

years, and 46 programs have failed to graduate an African-American male basketball player in the same span of time.

GRADUATION RATES CALCULATIONS

The Student Right to Know Act of 1990, a bill co-sponsored by Congressman

Towns, required all colleges and universities to submit their graduation rates of

both the general student body and student-athletes for publication and dissemination to prospects and their families. The NCAA has published those graduation

rates for the last 13 years, and they have helped quantify the issue of poor academic

success rates among certain athletics programs. Until recently, that is. The Department of Education mandated last year that the rates of those who were scheduled

to graduate (six years after initial enrollment, according to the federal guidelines)

must be ‘‘suppressed,’’ or blocked out, in those instances where the number of individuals enrolled in a specific cohort or the number individuals who graduated in a

specific cohort was less than three. This mandate means that a program that had

two individuals enter as freshmen in 1996 and that graduated both would have its

success ‘‘suppressed.’’ Worse, a program that had five freshmen enter in 1996 and

had none graduate by 2002 could hide its failure behind the same suppression rule.

Coaches have complained for years that the federal guidelines also treated programs unfairly with regard to transfers. The coaches are right. The federal guidelines assign the entire success rate for graduation to the institution where a student

first enrolls. A student or student-athlete who left the institution in good academic

standing or who would have been academically eligible to compete at the same institution had he or she returned counted against the school. And no institution got

19

credit for a transfer-in who did graduate in the required six years from original enrollment.

The NCAA will collect and publish the data on its own, beginning this summer.

In addition, the NCAA is preparing to calculate a supplemental rate for studentathletes that will account for transfers into and leaving a program. This new Graduation Success Rate will more accurately define how individual programs are doing

with regard to graduation rates and will bring sunshine to those programs where

academic failure could be hidden from public scrutiny.

CYNICS AND NAYSAYERS

The votes by the Division I Board of Directors on the new reform initiatives had

barely been reported last month when the critics went on the attack. The worst are

the cynics who have declared that the reform efforts will fail because faculty will

succumb to the unrestrained pressure of coaches and fans and commit academic

fraud to ensure that student-athletes remain eligible and athletics programs remain

successful. Their arguments are specious. They would have us believe that higher

academic standards result in increased instances of academic fraud. The logical

counterpart is that reduced standards will reduce academic fraud, and the elimination of all standards will end academic fraud for good.

The Board rejects completely the notion that tougher standards are a barrier to

improving academic performance. Faculties around the country should be insulted

by the suggestion that their collective integrity will wilt in the heat of competitive

pressure. Academic fraud is the result of loss of integrity and not the result of higher standards or enhanced expectations. Nor is it fair to characterize all coaches as

knuckle-dragging Neanderthals who are disinterested in the academic success of

their student-athletes. The vast majority of coaches view themselves as educators

who take pride in the classroom achievements of their charges.

All who are involved in the administration of intercollegiate athletics must be

vigilant toward efforts to peck away at these reform efforts. This is where the attack

on integrity and the efficacy of these new standards will come. Where specific programs or individual coaches bemoan the harshness of the new standards because

they can no longer be competitive, we will hear that a star athlete has been treated

unfairly and unjustly or that the ‘‘unintended consequences’’ of reform must be set

right. Those who care more for wins and losses than caps and gowns will look for

the weakest link—the inattention that comes with satisfaction that reform is complete. Where there is academic fraud, it must be uncovered and punished. Where

there are adjustments to be made to these standards based on new and better research, we must respond appropriately. We cannot allow cynicism, however, to undermine real academic reform. Nor can we permit perfection to be the enemy of

progress.

The messages sent forth by the Division I Board of Directors with passage of the

new academic standards last fall and the incentives/disincentives package last

month are clear. To the student-athletes: Prepare well in high school, make legitimate and measurable progress toward a degree in college because if you do not, you

will not participate in sports. To the university and specific sports programs: Educate the student-athletes under your charge, achieve a defined measure of academic

success for your team because if you do not, you risk losing scholarships, being withheld from championships or having your program decertified. These are the most

profound, research-based reform efforts ever affirmed for intercollegiate athletics.

They will result in improved academic success for student-athletes.Recruiting Task

Force Update

Division I Vice-President David Berst testified before this subcommittee in March

as chair of the NCAA Task Force on Recruiting. He reported on allegations that

some institutions—the University of Colorado has been the most visible and most

often in the media—have used recruiting practices that exceed the standards for acceptable behavior. Specifically, there have been charges that alcohol, drugs and sex

have been used as recruiting inducements for young men. Mr. Berst noted that such

practices are reprehensible and will not be tolerated, and he noted that President

Brand had formed a task force within a few days of the first headlines. The task

force was charged to ‘‘fast track’’ a review of the issue and to recommend solutions.

The timeline for the task force was clear from the beginning. We will not go through

another football recruiting season without new standards in place.

The task force has made its first report to President Brand and to the Division

I governance structure. (A copy of the report is attached to this testimony for the

subcommittee’s review.) In the report, the task force noted that recruiting practices

over time have created a ‘‘culture of entitlement’’ among prospective student-athletes. The competition among institutions for highly skilled prospects has escalated

20

expectations among prospects for transportation via private jet, five-star luxury

suites, extravagant meals, and ‘‘game day’’ simulations that glorify the feats of these

athletes before they have ever enrolled or set foot on the field.

The central focus of the task force’s preliminary recommendations is to return recruiting visits to the purpose for which they were originally intended. The five official visits afforded prospective Division I student-athletes are intended to allow a

thorough examination of what each campus has to offer both athletically as well as

academically. Specifically, the report noted that official visits provide an opportunity:

• For prospective student-athletes and their families to fairly and ethically assess

their opportunities for academic and athletic success and integration into the

collegiate experience. This should be a shared responsibility by all participants

with minimal emphasis on preferences or inducements;

• For institutions to fairly and reasonably evaluate a prospective student-athlete for

admission and participation in the intercollegiate program;

• To establish a set of principles and guidelines for the conduct of the recruiting

process with full regard for reasonable and acceptable forms of behavior;

• To maintain principles of institutional and personal accountability with a set of

internal controls sufficient to monitor compliance and ensure public confidence;

and

• To support diversity and athletics opportunities of women and nonrevenue sports.

The preliminary task force report proposes legislation regarding transportation of

prospects, meals and lodging, game-day activities and entertainment. In addition,

the report recommends legislation that will require each institution to develop and

submit written guidelines for its recruiting process with full regard for reasonable

and acceptable forms of behavior. The guidelines should also promote institutional

accountability through a set of internal controls sufficient to monitor compliance.

In its review of the report, the Division I Management Council urged the task

force to develop a process for the NCAA national office, working with its member

conferences, to initially approve each institution’s campus visit policies and then to

hold the institutions accountable through its enforcement process. In addition, the

Council directed the task force to focus on other recommendations that would reduce

the celebrity status of prospects and emphasize the opportunities for prospects and

his or her family to make informed decisions about selection of a college and participation in the athletics program.

Clearly, the goal is to set national standards that will guide individual campus

policies with the aim of normalizing campus visits, providing a structure in which

informed evaluations can be made and then holding institutions accountable for

their actions. The type of behaviors alleged in the past must become a thing of the

past. Some institutions may write policies more stringent than others, but none may

continue to tolerate the use of alcohol, drugs or sex as inducements. Regardless of

how deep past practices may run, the confidence of the public in the integrity of

college sports must be restored to the development of sound guidelines and new

standards of acceptable behavior.

Thank you.

RECOMMENDATIONS OF NCAA TASK FORCE ON RECRUITING

WORKING DOCUMENT AS OF APRIL 12, 2004

Call to Action. Within a few days of headlines alleging excesses in the recruitment of prospective student-athletes related to the use of alcohol and entertainment

at ‘‘strip clubs,’’ NCAA President Myles Brand responded on February 17, 2004, by

calling for the appointment of an NCAA Task Force on Recruiting to review NCAA

rules and practices related to ‘‘official campus visits’’ and to propose appropriate

changes before the 2004-05 recruiting season.

While it was noted that alleged illegal conduct is a matter that should be left to

law enforcement officials to adjudicate and that institutions are the first line of defense to set standards for moral and ethical behavior, the NCAA also has a unique

role to ensure that proper national rules and guidelines are in place to govern athletics recruiting practices, to assess accountability for failures and to act as a resource to assist in developing an institutional compliance program.

Timeline for Project. The task force members were selected by February 24

(members are identified at the end of this report) and the group met via conference

call on March 5 and in-person on March 29, 2004. The task force also completed

certain other assignments during that period via e-mail communication. An eleven

member NCAA staff group also met with the task force on March 29 and separately

on February 24 and March 3.

21

This working document of task force recommendations was presented to the Division I Management Council on April 20 and will be reviewed by the Division I Board

of Directors on April 29, 2004. It is anticipated that the task force then will review

the reactions of those groups and other reactions received soon after the April meetings and that a revised working document, will be circulated to the 31 Division I

conferences, various coaches associations and other interested groups for discussion

and debate during the spring and early summer. Following consideration of the reactions and comments received from all groups, the task force’s final recommendations will be considered by the Division I Management Council on July 19, with the

expectation that the Board of Directors will be asked on August 5 to use its authority to adopt emergency legislation so that necessary rule changes will be in effect

immediately, and most importantly, before the 2004-05 recruiting season.

Public Confidence and Guiding Principles. The task force began its evaluation of the ‘‘official campus visit’’ experience from the point of view that NCAA recruiting practices have not always developed out of concern for what a prospect

must learn to select a college, but rather were often adjusted in order to address

perceived recruiting advantages for some institutions in the competitive recruiting

environment in Division I athletics. For example, modifications regarding entertainment of prospects within a specified number of miles from campus as compared to

anywhere within city limits have been debated by the membership several times.

This project, buoyed by broad-based support following media accounts of abuses,

provides an opportunity to reevaluate the campus visit experience and to make recommendations for changes that more approximate the expected recruiting experiences of other exceptional prospective students, such as a science student or music

or art prodigies.

The task force agreed that current recruiting practices often exacerbate a prospective student-athlete’s sense of entitlement, rather than reinforce that student-athletes also are expected to contribute constructively to the academic mission of the

institution and in turn, benefit by gaining knowledge and tools through education

in order to contribute to society. Further, the principles established for campus visits should serve as a foundation that withstands public scrutiny and that serve to

maintain public confidence in the integrity of those involved in intercollegiate athletics.

The following statement and principles were adopted.

The campus visit of a prospect is an opportunity:

• For prospective student-athletes and their families to fairly and ethically assess

their opportunities for academic and athletic success and integration into the

collegiate experience and should be a shared responsibility by all participants

with minimal emphasis on preferences or inducements;

• For institutions to fairly and reasonably evaluate a prospective student-athlete for

admission and participation in the intercollegiate program;

• To establish a set of principles and guidelines for the conduct of the recruiting

process with full regard for reasonable and acceptable forms of behavior;

• To maintain principles of institutional and personal accountability with a set of

internal controls sufficient to monitor compliance and ensure public confidence;

and

• To support diversity and the athletic opportunities of women and nonrevenue

sports.

DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDED LEGISLATION

The task force reviewed numerous alternatives to the current NCAA rules governing campus visits. There was agreement among the group that a recommendation to change a current regulation would require a minimum of 60 percent support

among the group (i.e. 11 of 18) in order to move the initiative forward for further

consideration by the membership. Based on that standard, the task force agreed to

SUPPORT the following recommendations:

1. Transportation.

a. Recommendation: Require institutions providing air transportation to prospects

to and from an official campus visit to use commercial transportation at coachclass airfare and to prohibit upgrades. [For 17, Abstain 1.]

Rationale: The proposed recommendation should assist institutions in establishing a reasonable environment for the conduct of an official visit, while minimizing excessive expectations created by the use of private or charter airplanes.

The group noted that an institution may seek a waiver from the NCAA Administrative Review Subcommittee to address an emergency situation where the

use of commercial transportation is not practical or feasible. In addition, while

22

it was recognized that institutions are not always located at convenient distances from a commercial airport, it was noted that this fact should not be

avoided during recruitment and should not be a surprise to the prospect when

traveling to the institution for initial enrollment.

b. Recommendation: Prohibit institutions from using special vehicles (e.g., modified with televisions or special de ́cor or appointments) to transport prospects

around campus during the official visit. The task force noted that institutions

should be expected to use private or institutional vehicles generally used by personnel to transport prospective students on campus tours. [Unanimous Voice

Vote.]

Rationale: The proposed recommendation should assist institutions in

establishing a reasonable and appropriate environment for the conduct

of an official visit.

2. Meals and Lodging.

• Recommendation: Require prospects (and prospect’s parents or legal guardians)

to be housed in standard lodging that does not include special accessories (e.g.,

Jacuzzis, suites) that are not available generally to all guests residing at the

lodging establishment; further, to require prospects (and prospect’s parents or

legal guardians) to eat standard meals on an official visit that are comparable

to those provided to student-athletes during the academic year and to permit

a reasonable snack (e.g., pizza, hamburger) to be provided in addition to the

meals. [For 16, against 0, abstain 1.]

Rationale: The proposed recommendation will assist in establishing a reasonable and appropriate environment that more closely resembles normal life for

an enrolled student-athlete. The task force noted that although the legislation

would not require institutions to provide meals on campus, the practice should

be encouraged as a ‘‘best practice’’ for institutions to consider when providing

meals to prospects (and the prospect’s parents or legal guardians).

3. Game-Day Activities.

• Recommendation: Prohibit institutions from arranging miscellaneous, personalized promotional activities and from engaging in any game-day simulations during a prospect’s official visit. Such a recommendation would prohibit such activities as personalized jerseys, personalized audio or video scoreboard presentations and running onto the field with the team during pregame introductions,

but would not preclude prospects from being present in the locker room prior

or subsequent to a competition or standing on the sidelines during pregame activities prior to being seated in the regular seating areas during the competition. [For 16, against 1.]

Rationale: The proposed recommendation will assist in establishing a reasonable and acceptable environment for the conduct of the official visit, and will

help to eliminate the ‘‘keeping up with the Joneses’’ mentality that often leads

to excessive activities during the official visit designed to induce the prospect

to attend the institution.

4. Institutional Policies Related to Official Visits.

• Recommendation: To require institutions to certify that written departmental

policies related to official visits that apply to prospects, student-hosts, coaches

and other athletics administrators have been established and are on file. Institutions would be responsible for the development of appropriate policies regarding specified issues, including policies related to alcohol, hosts, unsupervised entertainment and sessions regarding academic programs and services, and would

be held accountable through the NCAA enforcement program for compliance

with these policies. [Unanimous Voice Vote.]

Rationale: The proposed recommendation will ensure establishment of a set of

principles and guidelines for the recruiting process with full regard for reasonable and acceptable forms of behavior and promote institutional accountability

through a set of internal controls sufficient to monitor compliance. This recommendation also recognizes that setting national rules regarding policies such

as curfews and sites where entertainment may take place would not be as effective in changing current behaviors as permitting institutions to adapt policies

to each institution’s unique environment along with clear accountability standards for compliance through the national organization.

5. Entertainment.

• Recommendation: To require that hosts used for the entertainment of prospects

consist of either current student-athletes who are members of the team in the

sport in which the prospect is being recruited or that they be designated in a

23

manner consistent with the institution’s policies for providing tours to prospective students generally who make campus visits. [Unanimous Voice Vote.]

Rationale: The proposed recommendation will establish a more reasonable environment for prospects and their families to fairly assess their opportunities

for academic and athletics success and their ability to integrate into the intercollegiate experience. Further, it will assist in establishing an environment that

is consistent with the recruitment of other prospective students who make campus visits.

6. Other items.

a. The group previously expressed support for the following recommendations:

• Expanding current unethical conduct regulations applicable to prospective student-athletes, student-athletes and institutional staff members to address inappropriate behavior (e.g., under-age drinking, use of drugs, entertainment activities) that may occur during a prospect’s official visit. • Requiring a prospect making an official visit and the student-athlete serving as

a host to sign a form indicating that he or she will not engage in inappropriate

conduct during the official visit as defined by the institutions.

b. The task force also discussed but did not act at this time to eliminate the cash

allowance provided to the student hosts and agreed to further discuss the merits

of such a proposal in developing the appropriate environment to ensure institutional

accountability related to the entertainment of prospects (and their parents) during

an official visit. Some support for vouchers or credit certificates was expressed.

NOT RECOMMENDED

The task force considered, but DECLINED to support the following recommendations. These are included in the report to invite comments by constituent groups before final task force recommendations are considered by the Management Council

and Board of Directors in July and August.

1. Allow institutions to pay the airline transportation costs of a parent or

legal guardian accompanying the prospect during the official visit. [For

7, against 10, abstain 1.] The task force acknowledged that, in some instances,

it may be helpful for a prospect’s parent or legal guardian to be present during

the official visit and should be encouraged, but also noted that attending the

visit without his or her parent also provides the institution insight into how the

prospect will integrate into the intercollegiate experience. Interest was expressed in providing flexibility to encourage parents and family members who

do accompany the prospect to participate more fully. It also was noted that

clearly stated institutional policy regarding conduct is more meaningful than attempting to influence behavior through required parent supervision.

2. Reduce the number of official visits from the current number of five and

reduce the length of the current 48-hour time period for conducting the

visit. [For 1, against 15, abstain 2.] The group noted that reducing the number

of official visits and the time period for conducting the visit simply affects the

time when excessive or inappropriate behavior can take place and the focus

should more appropriately be on establishing standards of behavior through institutional policies.

3. Establish an early signing date in those sports in which early signing

dates currently do not exist. [No action taken.] The group noted that such

a recommendation encourages a prospect to forgo announcing commitments or

signing until he or she takes the maximum number of visits and noted that further discussion of this issue should take place in the context of the development

of a new recruiting calendar for which earlier access by coaches also is considered.

4. Require prospects to attend class or some form of academic orientation

session during an official visit. [No action taken.] The group opined that

academic activities are in fact occurring on most campuses and agreed that

functions related to student activities, student life, career counseling and other

academic related issues should be included as part of a ‘‘best practice’’ recommendation or topics addressed by the institution’s campus visit policies.

SUMMARY

As noted earlier in this report, the recommendations of the task force are intended to provide a prospect and the institution a meaningful opportunity to make

an informed decision about attendance at the institution and participation in the

athletics program, while at the same time are intended to eliminate unjustified special arrangements associated with campus visits.

24

In addition, requiring institutions to certify that campus visit policies and practices are in place acknowledges the responsibility of institutions to set standards for

a healthy visit that take into account the uniqueness of each institution, but also

provides the NCAA an accountability mechanism if failures are detected. While

many institutions already have campus visit policies in place, it was suggested that

the task force also develop an outline to assist institutions in addressing the full

range of issues related to the campus visit experience. A set of recommendations

and suggestions regarding sound practices will be considered by the task force and

circulated to the membership in advance of the adoption of legislation this summer.

It is to be hoped that the task force recommendations will be embraced by NCAA

Division I institutions and coaches and that limiting excesses and adopting clear accountability for conduct associated with official campus visits will serve the academic and athletic missions of NCAA institutions while also assuring public confidence in the integrity of systems.

Task Force Members. David Berst, NCAA Vice-President for Division I, chair; Tim

Curly, Director of Athletics, Pennsylvania State University; Jeremy Foley, Director

of Athletics, University of Florida; Katie Groke, Student-athlete, University of Wyoming; Reggie Minton, Associate Executive Director, National Association of Basketball Coaches; Jim Murphy, Director of Athletics, Davidson College Greg Naples, Professor of Accounting/Faculty Athletics Representative, Marquette University; Greg

Naples, Professor of Accounting/Faculty Athletics Representative, Marquette University; Kevin Nesfield, Student-athlete, Purdue University; Chris Plonsky, Director

of Women’s Athletics, University of Texas, Austin; Sonia Price, Interim Director of

Athletics/Women’s Volleyball Coach, Alabama State University; Shannon Reynolds,

Senior Director of Events/External Affairs, Women’s Basketball Coaches Association; Virginia Shepherd, Professor of Pathology/Director of Science Outreach, Vanderbilt Medical Center; Gene Smith, Director of Athletics, Arizona State University;

Grant Teaff, Executive Director, American Football Coaches Association; Patty

Viverito, Commissioner, Gateway Football Conference; Stan Wilcox, Associate Commissioner, Big East Conference; Jill Willson, Director of Athletics, Texas A&M University, Kingsville; and Debbie Yow, Director of Athletics, University of Maryland,

College Park.

The task force has been assisted by a group of eleven NCAA staff members who

have been working in concert with the task force: Elsa Cole—General Counsel; Beth

DeBauche—Director of Division I; David Didion—Director of Enforcement; Keith

Gill—Director of Membership Services; Jeff Howard—Managing Director of Public

Relations; Damani Leech—Associate Director for Baseball and Football; Kevin

Lennon—Vice-President for Membership Services; Steve Mallonee—Membership

Services Managing Director/Division I Governance Liaison; Delise O’Meally—Director of Membership Services; David Price—Vice-President for Enforcement Services;

and Rosie Stallman—Director of Education Outreach.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Renfro, thank you, and I will start with the

questions.

Certainly it is welcoming rhetoric, opening statement to hear

your comments, and it sounds good, and I appreciate your presenting that information.

I guess the question is what we saw happen at the University

of Colorado and we see that Dr. Hoffman came up with a whole

new regimentation that she is enforcing, and she has agreed to actually sign the policy, the written policy on record in her college regarding the recruiting policy.

Does your recommendation require the signature of the president

of the university to sign and shouldn’t the president be held accountable for these policies that the recruiting people are involved

with?

I mean, it is like what we did with FASB when we dealt with

Telecom bubble and we saw Enron and all of these people. So the

Oxley-Sarbanes Act said, okay, the CEO is going to now have to

sign the P&L statement. I mean, your task force does not include

that the president signs anything of any accountability responsibility, does it?

25

Mr. RENFRO. An overriding principle in the NCAA is the concept

of institutional responsibility and that the president, the chief executive officer, signs off on all of those.

Mr. STEARNS. So your recommendation is this afternoon that the

president of the university should sign this policy statement.

Mr. RENFRO. It is a fundamental part of the way that the association handles these issues.

Mr. STEARNS. Okay. When you developed your task force, you

had athletic directors, you had athletes and faculty representatives.

Did you ever have any presence of universities on the task force

with recommendations?

Mr. RENFRO. Mr. Chairman, I have the listing of the task force

members attached to the document that was presented to the committee.

Mr. STEARNS. Okay.

Mr. RENFRO. Let me look quickly through here.

I do not see a president.

Mr. STEARNS. We did not see any, and my suggestion would be

to you before you put this into concrete form, that you get the

presidents of the university, some of them, involved to give some

suggestion to what you are doing.

Mr. RENFRO. Well, let me be sure that I point out that ultimately

the people that are going to sign off on these recommendations is

the board of directors, which is made up entirely of university

presidents. As a matter of fact, they commented and are continuing

to comment on these recommendations after its presentation to

them 2 weeks ago.

But that board will be the body that signs off on the recommendations.

Mr. STEARNS. Dr. Friday, the Knight Commission first met, I

think, in 1989. I think you and I talked about it, and you talked

about some of the problems back in 1989. Do you see a lot of

change since 1989, I mean, honestly?

Mr. FRIDAY. We have seen the change in the structure of the

NCAA, which was our first proposal, that the presidents be put in

charge.

The second point of emphasis was academic reform. You have

commented on what has happened recently.

The third point of emphasis was financial accountability. We will

be in a position to say something about this definitively in the fall.

It is the problem of commercialization that is in excess now. Networks telling institutions when to pay , the amount of money that

is involved flowing for salaries.

Mr. STEARNS. We get involved in this subcommittee because of

commerce being in our title. I am going to give you a chance here,

and this is really going to be a tough question for you. In a way

I do not see a lot of difference between professional sports and collegiate sports in terms of the commercialization that is created.

The athletic departments almost operate as a business. You know,

they build this $90 million facility you talked about, $3.5 million

for the locker room. I mean, they all benefit from the tax code.

And yet they are taking in millions of dollars through the commercialization of selling this sport. I mean, do you think their status as a not for profit organization should be affected?

26

I mean, if we went to a not for profit status, that would change

us dramatically if they did not come up with a policy here. I mean,

this is a big statement here, and I want you to give me some help

on this because there are a lot of alumni who will not be too appreciative.

Mr. FRIDAY. Well, I think you have to look at it in the context

of the series of decisions of the Supreme Court with reference to

antitrust status. The universities, if you read Justice White’s dissent in the Oklahoma case, you will see that what he has predicted

will come true, and the institution is not able to do what you would

have it do in the sense of setting certain standards. You don’t pay

any more than this level or have or have a conference do it. That

cannot be done under these opinions.

Maybe an exemption to antitrust states what we’re really talking

about.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. McMillen, some leaders in the collegiate basketball profession, including Terry Holland and Dean Smith, advocate for freshmen ineligibility. Do you think this would help in the

adjustment of a freshmen and his academics if he was told he was

ineligible as a freshman for professional sports?

Mr. MCMILLEN. I am somewhat ambivalent on that issue. If you

would indulge me for a minute, I think it is a minor issue when

there are many major issues to deal with. I would like to follow up

on Bill Friday’s comment.

Mr. STEARNS. Sure, okay.

Mr. MCMILLEN. You know, this is kind of like the movie

‘‘Groundhog Day.’’ You keep getting up and the same story is over

and over again. Nothing changes.

Well, that is really the plight of really intercollegiate athletics,

and I comment the NCAA, and they have made a lot of good

progress, but there are some structural problems, and I would like

for the record to submit to you legislation that I introduced in 1991

that referred to this committee and others, as well as an op.ed.

[The material appears at the end of the hearing.]

Mr. STEARNS. By unanimous consent so ordered.

Mr. MCMILLEN. And basically it deals with what Wizzer White

said in 1984 when you had a fragmentation of television rights in

the Oklahoma NCAA case. He said that you are going to see an

arms race in college sports. It is going to have, you know, one

school against the other, and you are going to have a terrible mess

on your hand.

In his dissent report in that court case, he went against the majority report, was truly prophetic. The legislation I introduced in

1991 was to try to take all of the money in college sports, put it

back into one pot, have the presidents control that pot, have it distributed to colleges and universities not based on winning and losing, but on gender equity, breadth of programs, less money for, you

know, high paid coaches.

Mr. STEARNS. Including graduation rates maybe.

Mr. MCMILLEN. And graduation rates, and if schools wanted to

opt out of that system, let them be taxed like taxable businesses.

That was the essence of the legislation.

27

You know, I said at the time it is going to take 20 years before

anyone would take it seriously, and it would be a gambling crisis

or some scandal in college sports before people would look at it.

I am proud to say that the Knight Commission now is beginning

to look at these issues seriously. I do not think college sports is

ready for this. It is not going to happen tomorrow, but when you

talk about vision, which is what you said in your opening statement, we have to look ahead and figure out how to put this commercial monster back in its place. Kids will play just as hard where the coach makes $2 million a year or $1 million or $100,000, $200,000. They will play just as

hard on the court. Adn the point you said, it look s a lot like professional sports is true, except if you want it to look like professional

sports, then the players ought to be able to walk in with a lawyer

and negotiate a contract just like the coach could do.

But I am not advocating that. I am saying that if you want a professional sports league, give the players rights and run it like a

business and tax it like a business, but if you want a college system, then the whole thing has to be restructured. And that was

really the point.

And if you restructure it, you will take care of recruiting abuses.

You will take care of the freshmen issues. One thing you ought to

understand about college sports right now is that schools do not

even put their schedules out anymore because they have to wait

until the networks tell them when their football games are going

to be in the fall.

The presidents of universities are no longer in control of their

campus schedules because they networks tell them that the games

will be Sunday night at nine o’clock or Sunday night at seven

o’clock or Saturday afternoon. They are the ones in control.

And I think that this committee, if it is looking at the long view

of college sports, notwithstanding all of the things that the NCAA

has done in the right direction, I think you have to look at the bit

picture and see where all of this is going to go over the next 5 to

6 years.

Mr. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman. My time has expired.

The gentlelady, Ms. Schakowsky.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you.

At the last hearing, President Betsy Hoffman from University of

Colorado was testifying, and I was very concerned and continue to

be about the statements that Gary Barnett said about a girl who

said she was raped and what sounded like this really unacceptable

excuse that, well, she is a girl, is what he said and she was not

very good anyway.

And you talked, Dr. Friday. Here is an individual that is on paid leave. He makes over $1 million a year, and there is some sort of

investigation going on.

But if we are talking about culture, changing a culture here,

then I am still absolutely mystified that someone who made such

a blatant kind of sexist and inappropriate statement about what is

potentially a serious crime against this girl is left in this position.

I cannot understand what a rationale could be, and I cannot understand what kind of signal it sends to young men who are playing

this sport.

28

And I wanted some comments about that, and if in any way the

new NCAA guidelines address this kind of behavior on the part of

a coach and speak to this kind of unacceptable statement.

Mr. FRIDAY. Well, it was an inappropriate and wholly unnecessary and improper statement. No question about that.

The report of the investigation at the University of Colorado will

be in your hands either tonight or tomorrow. It is coming out, adn

there are findings in there. I do not know what happened in disposition of people, but I would guess that there would be some very

severe language in there. I have seen some advance sheets on it.

But we are dealing here with a question of integrity and character of an institution, and when you represent an institution,

whatever you position is, you should act that way. There is no

other option you have.

And I think when the basketball coaches called themselves into

executive session not too many weeks ago, this is one of the matters they were talking about: conduct, behavior. They had two or

three cases like in Baylor and some other peoples that had come

up.

So I am sure they are working on it. We just do not know about

it, but I would agree with you. It needs to be done.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I just think he should be gone, gone, gone,

gone once those words came out of his mouth, and the fact that he

is not is a very loud message.

Mr. Renfro, did you want to comment on that?

Mr. RENFRO. President Hoffman has indicated that she is going

to make a decision about his future at the University of Colorado.

I think by the end of the month. She wanted to wait until this report came out, and that is a process that she chose to address the

issue.

I think it is very difficult for anybody who heard those statements to think of a context in which they are appropriate, and I

think that everyone has been upset, disturbed, outraged by those

statements. I will not try to predict what President Hoffman will

do, but it would appear that she has indicated that she is going to

make a decision by the end of the month.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And let me just say for the record I think by

letting it go this far even, she has said something about it, that it

was not serious enough.

But, Mr. Renfro, the NCAA President, Myles Brand, said in early

April, he said, ‘‘I think it is the proper role of the NCAA in this

case to legislate behavior, and let me tell you why. In the past we

have allowed common sense and moral decency to be the guiding

factors in recruiting.’’

Well, it does not work, understanding that we are going to have

to take steps to regulate behavior. He also said, ‘‘There are certain

behavior standards that are not permissible. You want to legislate

behavior so that it does not put the student athlete, the potential

student athlete or anyone else in the position to undertake illegal

activity.’’

Well, given that this is the public position of Mr. Brand, why did

the task force choose to act actually, it seems to me, in the opposite

manner and instead leave the question of behavioral standards up

to individual colleges or universities?

29

Mr. RENFRO. You know, I do not believe that the task force is

going to finish its report without firmly saying that behaviors that

include the use of alcohol, drugs, or sex as inducements will not be

tolerated. I don’t believe that that report will end up absent that

kind of statement.

It is the kind of statement that, in retrospect, you may wonder

why it wasn’t there all along. And I think that is exactly what

President Brand was trying to get at. I think there was a sort of

acceptance, an understanding, that that is a level of common decency and common sense that you would think would prevail. But

it will be there going forward.

Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Towns.

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Renfro, you know, if these reforms are put in place, will the

NCAA have the resources to actually investigate or to make certain

that they are kept are lived up to?

Mr. RENFRO. In the last few months, President Brand has increased the size of the enforcement staff by about 50 percent,

added six new investigators. I think that is going to make a big difference, and I will tell you that he is committed to making sure

that the enforcement of the bylaws is as strong and as powerful

and as determined as he is with changing the culture, understanding that what we are here for are the student athletes.

Obviously, we will never have enough representatives, enforcement representatives to put one on every campus to be sort of continuously investigated. We have to change the culture in a way

that puts the institutions in a position where they act responsibly,

and when they don’t they are held accountable.

Mr. TOWNS. You know, I guess the reason I raised this issue is

that when you hear coaches say—and I have heard this—you know,

I have been involved in this stuff now for a long time. And coaches

would say to me, ‘‘I am leaving that university, because they are

too rigid, and I am going to another university.’’

So what I am saying is that a coach will come in, not follow the

rules, not follow the regulations, and then all of a sudden the

school is in a mess, he goes on to another university, gets a job

making four times the amount that the President is going to make

at the university. I mean, how do you control something like that?

This thing seems to me just—this bus is loose. There is no driver.

Mr. RENFRO. It is almost impossible to control that, because institutions have the ability to hire. The NCAA does not hire coaches.

That is the responsibility of individual institutions. We try to expose the history of those coaches who commit those kinds of grievances and who violate, sort of at will, NCAA bylaws.

We even have regulations in place that says to that hiring institution, ‘‘You are going to have to come before us and explain to us

what you have done, how you—what you have put in place, show

cause for why this individual should be hired by your institution

as a coach,’’ because this is the pattern in the past. We want to see

what you have done to guarantee that those kinds of behaviors

aren’t going to continue in the future.

Mr. TOWNS. You know, the other thing that—you know, that

really I am troubled by is that these are educational institutions,

and that you have a President making $300,000, or $250,000, and

30

then you have a coach making $2.6 million. I mean, what kind of

message does this send? I mean, there is something wrong with

this.

Mr. RENFRO. I think that all of us would take a look at how the

marketplace affects salaries, maybe in various professions, and

wonder how salaries got to where they are, and yet we know that

it is the marketplace that is ultimately going to determine that.

We were in a—you know, we had legislation at one point that

tried to control the salary of one particular classification of coaches,

and suit was brought against us, we lost, and it cost the association

$54 million for the experiment. As a matter of fact, we are not able

to control the salary of coaches.

One point I will make—remember that not all of that money is

coming from the university. Very often the bulk of it is coming

from other sources. Those coaches have to disclose the source of

those other funds, but it is not under the control of the university.

And so they may be from consulting, from television contracts, from

endorsement type arrangements. There may be various other

sources for those funds.

There are a number of other individuals on a campus who may

be in that same category. There are professors who are paid a

handsome, but nominal, fee for what it is that they do, and they

also have outside income that are, frankly, equal to what some of

the coaches are making.

Mr. TOWNS. Let me just be right candid with you. You know, we

spend a lot of time with the student athletes’ rights. You know, my

good friend Tom McMillen was involved in those issues here. And,

of course, they found a way to get around that. You know, in that

we had the letter of intent, you had to indicate your graduation

rate. Now they don’t send letters; they make a phone call to the

kid. I mean, it seems to me that you need to do something to be

able to say that a letter of intent must go out.

I mean, I don’t know what to do. I am just frustrated, because

I think that our young people are just being used and abused. And

I think it is wrong, and I think that what they are saying on the

phone, as one kid told me, he says, ‘‘Well, you know, if there is any

question about our graduation rate, you need to understand it is

because we send our players to the pros.’’

Mr. RENFRO. Congressman, here is what we have done. We have

been publishing those graduation rates since the Act was put in

place. We have been in discussion with the Department of Education about some of those rates, because there are rules that suppress the rates in some instances, and in some cases that has kept

us from shining the light on some of the worst examples.

Beginning this summer we are going to collect the data ourselves, and we are going to publish it. So as a matter of fact, we

are going to take it one step further than has been the practice the

last couple of years. We are going to collect the data, and we are

going to publish it. We are not going to suppress those kinds of

numbers in the future.

Mr. TOWNS. I am happy to hear that. Let me just—Dr. Friday,

I would like to hear your comments, because I have followed your

career and I have been so impressed with you, you know, down

through the years. I would sure like to hear you on this.

31

Mr. FRIDAY. What you have brought to fore here is one of the

fundamental problems in college sport. That coach’s salary—let us

take a big-time coach. It is $500,000 in the shoe contract, $300,000

or $400,000 in doing radio and television, some of them have annuities that have amounts involved, $300,000, $400,000, $500,000.

The pay that they get from the institution is by far the smallest

piece of the package. This is the way it has evolved.

Now, going back to the chairman’s earlier question, maybe, as

you are suggesting here, these contracts should bear the President’s signature, and that he should have to authorize these as appropriate uses of the university itself. You see what happens is

when you as a coach sign that contract, you guarantee that your

players are going to wear that uniform, and you don’t have any option about it.

So you are merchandising the university yourself, and that is

what the President’s job is. And this is what I am sure tonight the

Commission will have something to say about.

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you. I know my time has expired.

Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. Rush.

Mr. RUSH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

As I sit here, and as I listen to some of the comments—and, you

know, I have followed this issue for a number of years, and it

seems as though we are on a merry-go-round as we try to change

the practices and change some of the outcomes on these particular

issues, especially as it relates to how the enormous input of—influx

of dollars, how it has corrupted the college athletic programs across

this country.

And, really, right now it is like a quagmire that exists as far as

I am concerned. It is like a—it is a quicksand of just—I don’t know

exactly how we are going to try to pull college athletics out of this

quagmire that exists.

I guess, you know, Mr. Chairman, I want to just ask the committee, because I am particularly—I mean, as the panelists—I am

particularly concerned about the graduation rates and the recruitment levels and the commitment to these young people who are—

who are looking for a better life for themselves and for their family,

and who put a lot of their future and a lot of their—just they invest

a lot.

I mean, an athlete invests a lot of their time and efforts trying

to get—come up out of some very, very difficult circumstances. And

they go off into these schools sometimes, and then they are just

treated like—you know, like shadow property for the most part.

And I just—you know, I know Tom indicated some 13 years ago

that he passed legislation which was very important, and I think

that the—I am at a point where I am so frustrated that I think

that we need to really look at, how do we get—how do we fight

these institutions where their pocketbooks—fight them in the pocketbooks? And use the RES or other kinds of legal systems to force

these schools to deal with the ramification of what their practices

are.

And so my question to the panel—because as a Member of Congress, I mean, I am frustrated. I am very frustrated. You know, I

know that the NCAA is doing what it feels as though it should be

32

doing, and I know that the Knight Foundation is doing what it

should be doing. And Tom and others are trying to do what they

feel should be done.

And, you know, there are always ways that these universities

are—and these coaches and these other commercial interests in our

country—there are always ways for them to try to figure out how

to get beyond where we are all trying to head to.

So my question is: is there a role that other Federal agencies

could play in terms of bringing these appointed practices of these

universities to a screeching halt? Can we use the court systems

better? Can we use the tax codes better? Should we put at risk

those institutions’ tax exempt status if, in fact, they continue to

discriminate against their own athletes, their own students, by

forcing—I mean, by having these severe disparities in terms of the

graduation rates? I mean, is that an appropriate way to proceed?

Mr. FRIDAY. I would hope that the universities themselves, now

that they are in real arm lock trying to change this situation,

would be allowed to really work with the system.

Let me illustrate. The Commission recommended that you

wouldn’t be allowed to play in a bowl game if you didn’t graduate

50 percent of your athletes. That gets to the money. And when you

cutoff the money flow, you get attention. And the work that they

are doing now with the academic reforms, you remember, ties into

this very point, because you have to achieve or you don’t participate.

Now, we haven’t done these kinds of things before. But money

is generating half the problems we have got, so we have got to attack it that way, and directly I think. Now, it would have worked

a real hardship in the last NCAA championship. But when you tell

these institutions that this is the standard, and you say this to

most young people, they achieve.

We had a 98 percent graduation rate in basketball, but that was

because Coach Smith really took an interest in every single player.

They spend $500,000 a year in counseling services for these young

men and women, and that is the reason they have been so successful.

You will find this going on in almost all of the big programs. The

question is—now there is so much pressure to leave early, and I

am very pleased that the NCAA is working on a way to be more

fair in computing graduation rates, because right now if you transfer out, you get penalized in the wrong way by the formula the government has prescribed.

So please give them—give us time, through the NCAA’s efforts,

the Commission’s efforts, the faculty groups, the governing boards.

There are so many people now really listening that I think some

things will happen that will make a real difference.

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I know—could I just follow up with

this question, and anybody can answer this. Tom, if you have got

some points. Okay. That is the universities. Now, here you have

the broadcasters who are under jurisdiction of this committee.

What do you suggest that we do? How would you suggest that we

deal with the broadcasters? Because they are partners in this—in

these efforts.

33

Mr. MCMILLEN. I would like to answer that by using an analogy.

Back in the 1970’s when the Olympic Committee was reconstituted,

there were many fifedoms of amateurs in America, and the Amateur Sports Act put all of that together and make the United States

Olympic Committee all powerful. And it has worked pretty well

over the years, with a few problems recently.

I am in favor of an all-powerful NCAA. I don’t like the conferences doing their thing. I don’t like these—the playoffs. I don’t

like any of that. I like to have an all-powerful NCAA. I like them

to control it based on academic values, not commercial values.

There will be just as much money. They can tell the broadcasters

when they can broadcast, not the other way around. And if schools

don’t want to play in that game, tax them like businesses. That

was the genesis and the foundation of the legislation.

And I think Wizzer White back in 1984 when that—you know,

when the NCAA lost that case and television monies were fragmented, this has all resulted from that—that any school—Notre

Dame, any school can go out and do its own TV deal. And you have

created an arms race, and the only way to control this is to get the

money under control.

Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Did you want to answer, Mr. Renfro, to Mr. Rush’s——

Mr. RENFRO. I did want to make just a couple of brief points.

One is that we have made progress over the last two decades in

graduation rates.

When we started with Prop. 48 in the mid 1980’s, graduation

rates in Division I of student athletes lagged behind the rest of the

student body. On average, today they exceed the graduation rates

of the rest of the student body by 3 percentage points. We have

made that kind of progress.

In the last year, the graduation rates for African-American basketball players at the Division I-A level, the most elite level, went

up 10 percentage points. That sounds like an enormous success

story. But it went from 28 percent to 38 percent. That still is completely unacceptable. It is higher than the average graduation rates

of other African-American males in the general student body, but

it simply isn’t high enough.

We have made progress. We are making—we believe we have the

best system in place right now to make additional progress. And

the thing that we are doing now that we have never done before

is hold the institutions accountable in terms of scholarships, access

to championships.

Mr. STEARNS. We are going to do a quick second round. There

are some members who would like to do this. I don’t have too

much.

Mr. Renfro, what do you think of Mr. McMillen’s legislation of

some time ago? I mean, would you think that is worthwhile, too,

maybe for this committee to actually reenter—reintroduce under

my subcommittee and have a hearing on it and consider it formally?

Mr. RENFRO. I think it is a very interesting concept. It is one

that has been debated within intercollegiate athletics and the

NCAA off and on as long as I have been with the association. I

34

think that part of the problem has been whether we—how we were

going to be able to justify that kind of legislation.

In other words, can we get it passed? Is it possible to do it? And

if we do, what will be its limitations? Will it be narrow, or will it

be broad? And if it is narrow, what does that do and say about

other areas where we have obligations to create regulations?

I think it is worth debating. I think it is something that we

should certainly discuss. But I think that it is something that you

have got to look at all of the possible consequences of doing it and

how you are going to actually frame——

Mr. STEARNS. How you are going to implement it.

Mr. RENFRO. [continuing] how you are going to implement it, yes.

Mr. STEARNS. I see your problem as—Mr. Towns touched upon

it, I think. You just don’t have enough people in enforcement—as

I understand it, approximately one for every 100 members of the

NCAA. The NCAA’s enforcement of its own rules was somewhat

challenged, I guess is what we are thinking.

Mr. TOWNS. You mean one—an investigator for every 1,000.

Mr. STEARNS. We have 100. You have 1,000? It is 1,000. We have

1,000. Okay. Thank you. I thank my colleague.

Mr. RENFRO. Right. We have about 18 investigators.

Mr. STEARNS. Okay. So you can’t possibly enforce this. You can’t

possibly get a handle on it. And here we all agree it is an arms

race. Can you get more money from your membership to increase

your resources?

We are asking that colleges and universities be self-policing. But

I think there has got to be some hammer somewhere, and you are

it.

Mr. RENFRO. If you were to depend entirely on those 18 investigators, it would be the most daunting task that I can possibly

think of. You have to remember that intercollegiate athletics is

very competitive, highly competitive. If you and I are in the same

conference, I am going to keep my eye on you. I am going to make

sure that you are operating according to the rules, and when you

don’t I am going to try to do something about it.

That is part of the self-policing process, and it has been helpful.

Those 18 investigators, in fact, are supplemented quite a bit by the

very competitive nature of intercollegiate athletics. Can we do better and do more if we have more resources to throw at the problem? Sure. I am positive that we can.

Where is the logical limit to where that—you know, what is the

magical number that we get to that solves the problem that essentially, you know, cuts out the cheating heart? And I don’t know

whether we are going to get there or not.

Mr. STEARNS. Dr. Friday, do you have any suggestion here? Do

you think that they ever—are they ever going to have enough resources? Or do you think his idea—that the colleges and universities self-police themselves because they are in competition with

each other?

Mr. FRIDAY. Well, you would like to believe the latter.

Mr. STEARNS. Yes.

Mr. FRIDAY. The evidence before you doesn’t show that.

Mr. STEARNS. Right, it doesn’t show that. Yes.

35

Mr. FRIDAY. I think it would be good to proceed with this. For

example, the BCS situation in this country, a wholly independent,

self-determining group, dealing with hundreds of millions of dollars, NCAA has nothing to do with that.

Now I know that Mr. Brand and his colleagues would look with

you on the stars maybe because it is a huge burden. But when you

are dealing with that kind of fund distribution and that flow of

money, you have got to have a central command somewhere that

looks at this and says, ‘‘Wait a minute.’’ They do it in basketball

and do it well.

Mr. STEARNS. My time is—I will finish. Mr. Towns?

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Renfro, you know, I really am impressed with the reforms.

I think that is—they are great and long overdue. But I do have a

problem, though, in terms of with the reforms. You know, a coach

creates a problem. You eliminate X amount of scholarships at that

particular school. The coach goes on.

Why can’t you attach this to the coach or the fact that if he creates a mess, and has to lose X amount of scholarships, wherever

he goes he should lose scholarships. He should become attached to

that in some way, because, if not, I am not sure he is going to really get the message.

Mr. RENFRO. I think that is a very interesting idea, and it is not

the first time it has been proposed, or at least discussed. And it

may very well be the next place that we go. I hope that you are

as impressed with the reforms 3, 4, 5 years from now as you are

today. I believe that this is the best set of reforms that we have

ever put forward, and I hope that they make a big difference.

What you are describing may very well be the place where we

need to go that—so that we up the ante to the level that the behavior changes.

Mr. TOWNS. Yes.

Mr. MCMILLEN. Just a quick comment on that. You are absolutely right. The coach should pay a price. You know, if a team’s

graduation rates fall below, good kids who are good students are

penalized, the coach can walk and not be penalized. But that shows

you that the problem with the NCAA is they can’t control that, because it is fragmented, and they can’t control the salaries. And the

system right now is so fragmented that no one really is in control,

and that is really the problem.

Mr. TOWNS. And that is unfortunate, because a lot of good kids

are being hurt, and it should not, you know—you know, I don’t

know in terms of how to put this I guess. In order to clean this up,

it seems to me that you need to put forth a great deal of effort on

the front end here with a lot more investigators.

Based on what I am hearing, some schools are doing so bad, and

some of the other things, you probably could use your 18 investigators in one school, you know. But I think that you have to find a

way to clean this up and then move forward.

You know, we were hoping that the student athlete’s right to

know would do some of this. We felt that if we implemented it, that

it would create tutorial programs and all the kinds of things that—

you know, to help youngsters. But it has not worked, you know,

quite as well, so——

36

Mr. RENFRO. Well, we hope to give it a boost in this next year.

Mr. TOWNS. Right. Let me ask one other question, Mr. Chairman, and then I am going to close. Why can’t we take some of this

money from these bowl games and put it into helping in terms of

to enhance the kids’ performance? I mean, why can’t we—for more

tutorial services, more support kind of—why can’t we take some of

that money and put it into those areas?

Mr. RENFRO. You know, remember that the NCAA has no jurisdiction over the monies from those bowl games. As President Friday pointed out, that really is the purview of the BCS conferences.

Mr. TOWNS. Right.

Mr. RENFRO. Now a larger number of conferences. However, we

do have purview over the money from the CBS contract. The distribution to the membership, to Division I, half of that is based on

their participation in the Final Four——

Mr. TOWNS. Right.

Mr. RENFRO. [continuing] the basketball tournament.

Mr. TOWNS. Correct.

Mr. RENFRO. The other half is based on what is called broadbased half of the distribution—based on the number of programs

they have, the number of student athletes they have. And included

in that are funds that go to every institution—$50,000 each year

that go to each institution for academic enhancement, to help

those—to help the institutions with doing exactly the type of thing

that you are talking about. That is $15 million that goes to Division I for that purpose.

We also have, through the Student Athlete Opportunity Fund,

another $17 million this year that will increase by 13 percent per

year over the life of the CBS contract, some of that which may be

used to help supplement the academic performance of student athletes.

Mr. TOWNS. Dr. Friday?

Mr. FRIDAY. The television networks—this thought just came to

mind. They might be encouraged to contribute to such a fund, since

they profit so much from the television exposure. I don’t know how

you would do it, but you could——

Mr. TOWNS. Maybe we could talk to the FCC.

Mr. MCMILLEN. You know who is in control of college sports

today?

Mr. TOWNS. Who?

Mr. MCMILLEN. It is this. This is what is controlling college

sports, because, you know, with all due respect for the good work

that they have done—and I really do commend the NCAA—it is

sadly the case that that—this is what is in control of college sports.

And it is going to take some serious, serious changes to really do

something about that, and I say that with all due respect for the

good work the NCAA has done.

Mr. TOWNS. Right. Thank you very much. My time has expired.

And I also would like to say that I really feel that you are putting

forth an effort, you know, and that is I think important. I have not

always felt that way; I want you to know that.

Mr. MCMILLEN. I understand, Congressman.

Mr. TOWNS. So I need to share that. But we still have a lot of

work to do. Thank you very much.

37

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Rush.

Mr. RUSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Friday, the word ‘‘fragmentation’’ has been bounced about for

most of this hearing. And it seems to be a part or at least be one

of the key components of the problem and also the solution—how

do we deal with the fragmentation? And how do you suggest that

we try to go about dealing with the fragmentation and creating

some kind of governing body that is powerful, that can make decisions and control college athletics, regardless of the interest of the

commercial concerns? How do we—I mean, how do you think we

can move from where we are right now to a more centralized and

controllable——

Mr. FRIDAY. Well, I think you are speaking directly to the presidents of the institutions in this country, because they have—they

are—as Mr. Renfro said, they are in the position of controlling the

NCAA now. They can do these things if they make up their minds

to do them. They can control some of these abuses, and they are

working toward that now.

The academic reform work will go to Stage 2, and we will see

some sanctions applied. That can cost money. If you don’t achieve

here, you don’t go. You don’t do this. Well, that is a negative way

of doing it. I would rather be positive. But if we have come to that,

then we will do it.

But I really think we ought to let that run its course for a bit.

If it doesn’t work, then you come back into session.

Mr. RUSH. Tom, how do you—what would you say?

Mr. MCMILLEN. I wouldn’t disagree with Dr. Friday. I think

that—I am not an advocate of Federal solution, but I think that is

going to be the solution in the long run. And I think that, you

know, the President should be in charge.

But because of this fragmentation, and that Supreme Court decision, you now have the conferences, and you have all of these different structures, autonomous structures, that are doing their own

thing, and the coaches are negotiating bigger and bigger contracts,

and really it is very difficult to put that genie back in the bottle.

And so going back to what Congressman Towns said, you know,

Congress spends billions of dollars on higher education. This is

threatening the integrity of higher education in America. If it cannot be policed by the presidents, then we need a Federal solution.

I think that is a fair answer.

Mr. RENFRO. With all due respect, Tom, I hope that you are

wrong, that the only solution is something from this institution. I

think there is in that, however, a clear message that the universities and university presidents must regain control of their athletics programs. They must integrate those programs back into the

institution.

They are getting a lot from intercollegiate athletics. They are

benefiting a lot. They should pay for that. The athletic programs

shouldn’t be expected to go out and raise all of those dollars themselves. There is a connection that is logical. And when you push

intercollegiate athletics away, you can expect that it is going to behave in ways that don’t match the mission of the university.

Mr. FRIDAY. Mr. Chairman, in 1989, Louis Harris conducted a

survey of public opinion in this country about college sport. The

38

last of the findings was that 6 out of 10 Americans felt that the

day might come when the presidents wouldn’t do it, and you would

have to do it. But let us hope that day doesn’t come, that we can

trust the process and the institutions which we hold so accountable

for the moral fiber of the country. And this is where the presidents

have a job to do.

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. STEARNS. Yes.

Mr. RUSH. Before you conclude—I think you are headed toward

a conclusion—I would just like to go on the record just to say that

I look forward to the day when we can have a hearing like this and

have university presidents to come in, so we can really just kind

of—you know, from different—that would be representative of the

university presidents. I would really——

Mr. STEARNS. What you are saying is maybe we could have a follow up after the NCAA has their report implemented, and maybe

bring university presidents in to say how it is being done and——

Mr. RUSH. Right.

Mr. STEARNS. [continuing] see what the graduation rates are,

and things—what new things have been——

Mr. RUSH. I would like to be a part of that.

Mr. STEARNS. Okay.

Mr. RUSH. I look forward to that.

Mr. STEARNS. All right. Let me thank all of you by saying that

the hearing is completed, but we want to have unanimous consent

to allow other members who aren’t here to submit their opening

statements. By unanimous consent, so ordered.

I want to thank all of you for your patience in this late hearing.

The subcommittee is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 5:30 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

[April 1, 2002, Monday, USA TODAY, FINAL EDITION]

MARCH MADNESS REALLY ABOUT FRENZY FOR MONEY

By Tom McMillen

Whether Maryland or Indiana is crowned champion of college basketball when the

NCAA’s wildly popular annual tournament ends tonight, once again the real winner

will be the almighty dollar.

The NCAA scored big: a $6-billion television contract, which finances the NCAA

and participating athletic programs. In addition, universities ponied up another $4

billion for new facilities during the past few years, even though the majority of athletic programs lost money. And 40-plus coaches hit the jackpot with $1-million-plus

annual salaries.

Big-time college sports are eroding the integrity of our institutions of higher

learning. Rule breaking is now the norm. More than 50% of our larger universities

have been sanctioned by the NCAA for athletic-rule violations during the past decade. A student-athlete is an oxymoron at most institutions. Graduation is now the

exception rather than the rule for the majority of football and basketball players.The influence of money on college sports is every bit as pernicious as the money

grab in politics, but it doesn’t have to be so. A Rhodes scholar and former runnerup for the Heisman Trophy, Justice Byron White, provided the pathway to reform

17 years ago.

In 1984, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the landmark decision NCAA vs. Oklahoma,

stripped the NCAA of its monopoly power over broadcasting rights to college athletic

events. Justice White, in his dissent against the decision, supported the NCAA’s

right to monopoly power. White argued that the NCAA monopoly ‘‘fosters the goal

of amateurism by spreading revenues among various schools and reducing the financial incentives toward professionalism.’’

39

Justice White wisely understood that the NCAA’s loss of monopoly broadcast

power would lead to an escalating competition for money among schools. White

feared that ‘‘no single institution could confidently enforce its own standards, since

it could not trust its competitors to do the same.’’

The result: Coaches and athletic administrators are constantly pressured to spend

more; to recruit successfully so they can win; to win so they can fill stadiums and

go on television and to the playoffs; to make more money so that new, state-of-theart arenas can be built, salaries can be raised and so on.

Despite years of reform efforts, it is clear that the NCAA cannot adequately reform itself. In fact, it is losing power to the conferences that are chasing their own

mega-television contracts.

Using as a model the 1978 Amateur Sports Act, which consolidated the governance of amateur sports under the direction of the U.S. Olympic Committee, the

White House and Congress should consider passing legislation that overturns the

1984 Supreme Court decision and grants additional antitrust protection to the

NCAA. Such legislation should include the following caveats, which would ensure

that the NCAA would be more academic and less commercial in orientation:

• College and university presidents would be firmly in control of the NCAA, including the scheduling, recruiting and all aspects of the administration of sports.

• Monies would be distributed by the NCAA based upon academic values—such as

gender equity, academic counseling, academic performance, diversity of sports

programs—not on commercial values such as winning or losing. Under a radically revised revenue-distribution program, a single NCAA men’s basketball

tournament game victory would no longer generate $780,000 for the winning

team.

• Coaches’ salaries would be aligned with university standards, and coaches should

receive job security.

• Student-athletes who sign a contractual grant-in-aid should be prohibited from

entering the pros until they are 20 years old.

• Student-athletes should be allowed to receive basic financial stipends and earn

additional reasonable outside income.

• The NBA and NFL should strongly support developmental leagues for athletes

who do not meet academic college standards.

Right now, donations to athletic departments are tax deductible. So the U.S. Tax

Code is subsidizing the professionalism of sports on college campuses. Under this

proposal, the situation would change. If schools wanted to leave the NCAA, they

would lose their tax-exempt status.

Sports are an important part of our university life, serving as a unifying force for

alumni and community; but we should not exaggerate their importance. Little suggests that athletic success increases donations to the overall university. By restoring

the balance between academics and sports, we can preserve the noblest ideals of

both.

Failure to reform now will result in the continued escalation of the money madness in big-time college athletics, with further damage to higher education. Already

our high schools are not immune from similar exploitation. We are the only nation

in the world that mixes our schools with our sports, and as a result, we are compromising our institutions of learning.

What major crisis will compel reform and halt the juggernaut? A gambling scandal or corruption trial?

These proposed reforms will not end big-time college sports. Competition will still

be keen. Athletes will play just as hard to win, no matter where the money goes.

When the incentives are changed, schools will think twice about sending their athletes on long road trips, having them miss weeks of class. Maybe finally the athletic

tail will no longer wag the academic dog. When we cheer the national champion of

the future, wouldn’t it be nice to cheer the team’s outstanding graduation rates as

well as their athletic prowess?

Tom McMillen is a former co-chairman of the President’s Council on Physical Fitness and Sports, U.S. Congressman, member of the Knight Commission and NBA

player.

Copyright 2002 Gannett Company, Inc.

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

Æ