Casino Not On GamstopSiti Non AamsOnline Casino Nederland Zonder IdinNon Gamstop CasinosTop Casino Online 2025
About Us Contact Us Privacy Policy Terms of Use
Best Quotes
Guest Commentary
Who Am I?
Monthly Archives
Search


February 15, 2004

End Of Student-Athlete Welfare �As We Know It?�

FROM THE DICTIONARY OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS COMES one of the most pervasive�and ambiguous�terms in NCAA circles: "student-athlete welfare." The term is used liberally by parties on both sides of a discussion. It�s like invoking the qualifier �for the good of the kids� to underscore a point at a school board meeting�no one can argue about a purpose so exalted and lofty.

The term "student-athlete welfare" was born about 15 years ago in an NCAA manual. It has become a regular part of the college athletics lexicon ever since. However, like so many other catchy catch-all phrases, �student-athlete welfare� has no precise meaning, and it is interpreted in different ways at different times by different people.

Ask ten college athletics administrators and student-athletes to define the term and you�ll get ten different answers.

Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany: �It's somewhat in the eye of the beholder.�

Jeff Orleans, of the Ivy Group: �The term 'student-athlete welfare' allows whoever wants to command the high ground in any dispute to turn the matter into a moral question.�

Dylan Malagrino, former Div. I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee Chair: �Almost everything anyone does ultimately can be argued as being for the student-athletes' benefit.�

University of Minnesota Duluth President Kathryn Martin: �Student-athletes are here to get an education and they don't want their education compromised by their involvement in athletics. That's what student-athlete welfare means."

In the area of playing and practice seasons and student-athlete time demands the various constituencies involved have contrasting opinions of how to best serve student-athlete welfare. College presidents think that student-athlete welfare is promoted by limiting practice and games. Meanwhile, student-athletes and coaches think that their welfare�and the school�s welfare (by winning that is)�is best served without limits.

At issue in the area of initial eligibility: are student-athletes best served by being allowed access with lower requirements, or by making sure that incoming student-athletes are prepared to handle the rigors of college education? College presidents think incoming student-athletes should be better equipped: in Division I, the core courses requirement is being increased from 13 to 16 by 2008. However, opposing groups play the �student-athlete welfare card� by claiming that tougher initial-eligibility standards disadvantage prospective student-athletes.

�Student-athlete welfare� has evolved into barbed phraseology that immediately and effectively disarms the opposition. The term has become a PC statement par excellence. When confronted by the term in a discussion, one is well-advised to tip toe carefully around it; while they can oppose the other person�s idea itself, they had better do so without sounding like they are opposed to �student-athlete welfare.� After all, how can anybody be opposed to such a noble cause?

The arbiters of what constitutes student-athlete�s �best interests� are ultimately the school administration. The degree to which they foster open communication and mutual respect dictates the buy-in for the policies that get enacted. The extent to which school administration is comfortable in allowing coaches and student-athletes to participate in the decision process will shape how far apart the parties will be in defining �student-athlete welfare.�

There is so much baggage attached to the word �welfare� that many think a new terminology is warranted. Kansas Chancellor Robert Hemenway�s suggestion is �student-athlete success.� NCAA President Myles Brand weighs in with �student-athlete well-being.�

Other possibilities? Here are some unofficial, unsolicited College Athletics Clips ideas: student-athlete care, student-athlete self-actualization, student-athlete achievement, student-athlete accomplishment, student-athlete entitlement, etc.

Hmm. Maybe Mssrs. Hemenway and Brand have the right ideas after all.


(This 577 word excerpt was extracted from a 3,429 word article��In their best interests?��from the NCAA News of 2-2-04. Supplemental commentary by College Athletics Clips has been included.)