By Staff
Coaching Management, 9.2, March 2001, http://www.momentummedia.com/articles/cm/cm0902/bbamateur.htm
Among the 46 proposals before the Division II membership at this year’s NCAA Convention in January, none generated as much attention as Proposal 12, titled “Amateurism: Activities Prior to Initial Enrollment.” After two years of formulation and discussion by Division II’s Amateurism Project Team, Management Council, and Presidents’ Council, the proposal passed by an overwhelming vote of 217-29-2.
The new rules, which go into effect August 1, will allow Division II student-athletes far more flexibility in their pre-collegiate competitive activities. The legislation permits pre-enrolled athletes, during their high school years, to enter a professional draft, be drafted by a professional sports team, receive compensation for athletic competition, participate on a professional team, and/or accept prize money based on finish position—without jeopardizing collegiate eligibility at Division II institutions.
However, there is a penalty for doing any of the above once an athlete completes high school. The rule states that athletes who do not enroll at a collegiate institution during the academic term following their class’s normal graduation date, but instead opt to participate in organized competition (such as on a professional team), will forfeit one season of collegiate eligibility for every year they compete. In addition, athletes will be required to complete one academic year in residence before being eligible to play for their college/university. Some exceptions are provided if athletes compete for certain national teams, military programs, or college preparatory schools.
Division II delegates also approved a separate, but related, proposal regarding receipt of educational expenses before collegiate enrollment. The proposal, which becomes effective immediately, permits prospective student-athletes to accept funding for educational expenses from individuals or entities other than agents, professional sports teams or organizations, or boosters. However, all funds must be disbursed directly to the student-athlete’s prep school or private school.
NCAA Division I schools have also been hotly debating new amateurism rules, and a package of proposals, similar to those passed in D-II, is set to go before the Division I Management Council in April. Last October, the Council initially approved the proposals, sending them into a 90-day comment period.
However, unlike the D-II legislation, the Division I package has garnered much criticism, and its future success is unclear. Many fear that the rules could have detrimental effects on the top level of collegiate play, as well as for high school athletics.
One opponent of the new amateurism rules is National Federation of State High School Associations Executive Director Robert Kanaby. Speaking to delegates at the convention, Kanaby expressed concerns that certain elements of the proposals will seriously jeopardize the viability of high school athletics. In particular, Kanaby criticized the pay for play, prize money, and tuition payment components of both the Division II and pending Division I proposals.
Kanaby outlined similar sentiments in a letter to The NCAA News earlier this year. “The new NCAA pre-enrollment amateurism reform proposal is a wolf in sheep’s clothing,” he wrote. “It looks warm and fuzzy, but it contains elements that threaten the core values of education-based athletics in America.
“Experts tell us that athletics are most valuable educationally when they are in proper relationship with academics, and that pay-for-play would upset the apple cart ... Only five percent of high school athletes will become college athletes, but the majority will become students at your colleges. As you weigh the merits of the reform proposals, you should assess the risks and benefits (the welfare, if you will) not just of a few superstars, but of all your students.”
Many college basketball coaches have also expressed concerns about unintended consequences. Some fear that allowing athletes to enter a professional draft will hamper a coach’s ability to award scholarships and solidify a roster since coaches will have to wait to see if those prospects are drafted. Others have cited the concern that incoming athletes with professional experience will put existing college athletes at a disadvantage.
However, advocates of Division I’s proposed changes argue that such rules will better empower pre-enrolled athletes with more options, which will lead to more committed students. They believe that an athlete who chooses to enroll at a college after going pro, and then completes an academic year in residence, will be all the more dedicated to both the school and academics. They also feel it is important to give athletes who make poor choices about going pro a second opportunity to obtain a college scholarship.
For more information on both the Division I and II amateurism proposal packages, log onto www.ncaa.org/agents_amateurism.