Search News


Browse Archives

News

NCAA Freezes Division I Membership

August 10, 2007

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

The National Collegiate Athletic Association announced late Thursday that its Division I Board of Directors had approved a four-year moratorium on new colleges joining the group's burgeoning top competitive level while association members study possible changes in Division I membership criteria. But nearly two dozen colleges that have already initiated the process of joining Division I -- which now has 331 colleges and universities in it -- will be exempted from the moratorium, association officials said.

The NCAA announced a series of other decisions made this week at meetings of the boards of college presidents that govern its three competitive divisions. Among the other changes:

  • The Division I Board of Directors declined to reconsider its decision in April to ban college coaches from sending text messages to athletes they are trying to recruit. The policy, which limits electronic communication with prospective players to e-mail and faxes, sides with athletes who have complained that text messaging is overly intrusive. The board's decision not to reconsider its earlier vote proposal means that the matter will go to a full vote of the NCAA's Division I members at the association's annual convention in January.
  • The Division I board also issued a statement reiterating its commitment to the set of policies that impose penalties on Division I teams where athletes consistently underperform academically. The board's statement came as the association's policies prepare to expand this year. with significantly more institutions likely to be affected and opposition almost certain to mount.
  • The Division III Presidents Council agreed to sponsor legislation at the January convention that would severely restrict the use of male practice players by women's teams. The Division III council also plans to sponsor its own legislation barring text messaging, and it agreed to let its own moratorium on new members lapse as of January.

Division I is the holy grail for many colleges and universities that play sports, with its promise (often unmet) of high visibility and big dollars. The size of the NCAA's top competitive level has expanded significantly in recent years, and while the association has acted to toughen the criteria for membership in Division I-A -- the highest competitive level for football -- it has not done anything similar for Division I over all. It plans to do so now, said S. David Berst, a longtime NCAA staff member who is closely involved in Division I issues. He said the association would review the process for joining Division I and consider additional or tougher criteria.

"It's time to stop and at least assess that process and the impact of that growth on the membership and championship opportunities" for current members of the division," Berst said.

The Division I board's statement on academic reform is remarkable not for what it says, but that the board felt obliged to issue it. This is the year when some aspects of the academic changes that have limited their impact -- such as exemptions for sports with relatively few players, like basketball -- will end, and the result is likely to be that many more colleges lose scholarships or worse if their Academic Progress Rates dip too low.

If that happens, the screams from coaches and boosters are likely to grow louder, and James Barker, president of Clemson University and head of the Division I board, suggested that the board was trying to steel itself, and presidents of other Division I colleges, for the potential furor.

"We recognize that we're reaching a critical stage" of the academic reform effort, and it's "timely that as the concerns were being expressed about the impact on schools, we strongly and unanimously communicate" that the board stands behind the policies, Barker said.

The board's statement reads: “The Division I Board of Directors strongly and unanimously reaffirms its commitment to improving the academic success of all student-athletes in every sport. That was the charge of the Board four years ago when the current iteration of academic reform was begun and it accurately reflects the Board’s resolve today. Through its unanimous expression of support, the Board makes clear that it will stay the course in its initiative to improve graduation success."

“Academic reform in Division I is beginning its fourth year of implementation, and the Division I Board of Directors recognizes that the initiative is entering a significant period of time when specific sport concerns may be expressed. As a result, the Board anticipates that pressure will increase to diminish the effects of or abandon academic reform. It is appropriate to fine-tune reform implementation and to mitigate unintended consequences. The Division I Board of Directors will remain open to the advice and counsel of the intercollegiate athletics community so that appropriate implementation is realized, but we are unbending in our determination to support the mission of higher education -- educate students.”

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on NCAA Freezes Division I Membership

  • More lipstick on a pig
  • Posted by Cranky Old Prof on August 10, 2007 at 8:50am EDT
  • I've said it before, and I'll say it again. There are no (or at least few) "student athletes" anymore. What we have now are athletes -- people who mostly would not have made it into college on their academic merits alone -- who are essentially hired (under the name of "scholarships") by schools to play under their banner.

    Let's lose the pretense, and simply allow schools to hire professional athletes, of whom we make no academic demands (any more than we do of other non-academic college staff). We'll pay them like staff, and we can cheer them as school employees.

    You find that distasteful? That's exactly what we're dong now, except that we lie to ourselves about it with nonsense regulations, bogus "degree" programs, special athlete "learning centers," and the like.

  • Excellent ideas
  • Posted by B. David Ridpath , Asst. Prof at Ohio University on August 10, 2007 at 11:10am EDT
  • Cranky I like your idea--let them go to school if they want to on their own time--if not let them be employees playing for the school. Other than letting kids go pro early and/or having a legit minor league farm system in hoops and football ala baseball--this is a great idea as it gives kids an opportunity to be educated if they want to--if not play, go pro if you can, and come to college to learn later if it does not pan out.

  • D3
  • Posted by anonymous at a SLAC on August 10, 2007 at 11:30am EDT
  • Student-athletes do still exist. It's called NCAA Division III. It is competition in its purest form and for its own sake. At least at our school, the only special treatment athletes get is access to a professional trainer for injury prevention and rehab.

  • Professional Athletes
  • Posted by Old Prof on August 10, 2007 at 1:05pm EDT
  • I agree for the most part with Cranky. The players who are the starters seem to fair better in the classroom (motivated) as a whole than the red shirts or others. The washouts typically represent a lot of waisted recruiting and scholarship money. It is amazing how quickly the coaching staff abandon the players who get hurt or don't make the squad. When that happens, they often become problematic to the dorm people and often venture into criminal behavior of all kinds. From the start, they were not there to get an education and they just hang around until they are sent home or go to jail. The same thing year after year...

  • Posted by drew on August 10, 2007 at 1:05pm EDT
  • Cranky old prof has is wrong. Most of the 331 Division 1 schools have athletes that are truly "student athletes". Contrary to what was said, most athletes DO desire a degree and receive it on time. While most athletes do choose their school for athletic purposes, its laughable to think that they are there ONLY to play sports. It's evident to me that cranky old prof is a purist. I get that however by taking a broad brush at the athletes at our nations universities is a huge disservice to them and a slap in the face.

    Maybe I should start spewing nastiness about our nations professors and how they are continually out of touch with reality.

  • Posted by DK on August 10, 2007 at 2:30pm EDT
  • Ridpath...I can't believe you would support Cranky's views. You are a professor at a great institution of higher learning (where I earned a degree years ago!).

    You all are forgetting that the rules are made for the masses (all student athletes) and the so-called professionalism of college sports focuses solely on the fringes and the 1% of student athletes who have a chance to play professionally. I agree, on average, these one percenters do not earn a degree. But, also on average, the remaining 99% of the football and basketballers DO earn a degree.

    When you look at all student athletes (all sports), most DO earn a degree, and in doing so, often carry grade point averages exceeding the non-athlete student population.

    My opinion is to hold all students to the same level of academic accountability. If you can make it, enjoy the priviledge of playing your sport and earning a degree. If you can't make it, go pro in your sport, attend a junior college or get a job that doesn't require a college degree.

    Ridpath, next time I'm in Athens for Symposium, I'll take you out for a beer and talk through our differences in opinion.

  • Old Prof's comment
  • Posted by Brentz Thompson , Med School lawyer at WVSOM on August 10, 2007 at 2:30pm EDT
  • The Old Prof wrote to agree with Cranky Old Prof; however, his mis-spellings make one wonder what subject he ever taught. Hope it wasn't English.

  • Posted by Jerry W. Miller on August 10, 2007 at 2:30pm EDT
  • Cranky old prof has it almost right. Attempts to tightening the academic screws by Division 1 presidents is long past being practical. The financial structure of big time athletics depends on winning teams to fill huge basketball and football arenas. And that requires keeping key athletes eligible. To think that rules won't be bent or broken to do so is naive indeed. Proposals by the Division 1 presidents, if implemented, will only put more pressure on academic integrity and produce more scandals.

    The answer is to give athletes four years of eligibility, but don't pay them beyond present "scholarship" support. They may be regular college level students if they want, or they could be placed, if appropriate, in remedial courses if they so elect, or they could chose not to enroll in any courses. Athletes who are serious students could still earn their degrees and not have them tainted as many are now by the perception that they graduated because they were athletes. If the NCAA requires a certain level of graduation by athletes, they will indeed graduate at big time athletic schools.

    But this will never happen--its too honest and too workable. Institutions will continue to be hypocritical regarding the student athlete concept, and the majority of alumni and other boosters only concern about cheating will continue to be "don't get caught." Winning is the only thing that matters.

    Higher Ed Diogenes

  • Are They or Aren't They Student Athletes?
  • Posted by CJ on August 10, 2007 at 4:15pm EDT
  • Is there anyone out there who can provide scientifically based evidence to answer this question? Maybe, Cranky Old Prof and Old Prof can undertake a study for the benefit of us all. Clearly, they should know better than to drawn definitive conclusion from anecdotal evidence.

  • NCAA statistics
  • Posted by Dr. F. Gump on August 10, 2007 at 7:20pm EDT
  • CJ, DK, & drew,

    You're in an opinion forum. The NCAA relatively objective statistics are down two stacks in the section on meaningless studies.

    NCAA studies don't generally comment on the academic tutors, mandatory study halls, etc. that help some student athletes squeak through a (generally) meaningless college degree.

    The NCAA studies do show, that academic programs (Nebraska for example) who put too much emphasis on "Academic All Americans" just don't win enough national championships to please alumni, fans, and state politicians. Other big time sports programs have much lower graduation rates and must often give back those shiny trophies after being caught "cutting corners."

    I am surprised that athletic programs are now able to afford trolls, to dredge through forums like these and stir up sediment.

  • Here we go again
  • Posted by Kim Reece , Director of Student Athlete Support Services at The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga on August 13, 2007 at 9:55am EDT
  • I find it very amusing that professor's are still complaining about student-athletes and poor academic performance. For the very small minority of marginal students that come to YOUR college only to play a sport, I suggest you do your best to embrace those students, mentor them, guide them toward an appreciation for intellectual pursuits, etc. etc. etc...

    I work DAILY with these students at a Division I institution and would not trade my job for anything in the world. I've spent 20 years as a profession, have a doctorate and could certainly be sitting somewhere "complaining" about college athletics, but I choose to take that student who comes to college as a gifted athlete and a less than motivated student and WORK with them to help them be successful in class and YES... IN LIFE. What would you rather that student do? Sell drugs, get shot at in Iraq, sit at home and mooch off his girlfriend??? Why not work with those special support programs to implement ideas that will help enrich the college experience of athletes from an intellectual side of things???

    And by-the-way... let's keep in mind that we all don't start out as Rhodes Scholars or the desire to become an expert on Micronysian Artifacts of the 21st Century. Some of us just want to become better educated so doors will open to us that would not have been open before. We'll leave the treatise on Human Desire for Higher Being to the loftier souls among us.

    Please stop stereotyping and embrace all students, not just the one's who suck up to your own intellectual self-importance.