Provocative Proposals Made at NCAA Forum

DALLAS —  California Chancellor Ira Michael Heyman opened the National Collegiate Athletic Assn.’s forum for debate on the proper role of athletics Monday with such astounding suggestions--abolishing athletic scholarships, bowl games and the NCAA basketball tournament--that the first question posed to him as he left the podium was: Are you serious?

Texas A&M; Athletic Director and Football Coach Jackie Sherrill concluded that Heyman’s “rhetoric” must have been satire.

But Heyman said that he was serious--sort of.

“I am serious in that I do think the way I was talking,” Heyman said. “But I’m also realistic. I don’t think the world is going to change that much. Those were very, very big changes.”

Later, he added, “Many of the things I said were meant for shock value and provocation. I view this whole forum as a process and I don’t know what the outcome will be.”

Another primary speaker getting the 18-month forum under way on the first day of the special convention was Richard Warch, president of Lawrence University in Appleton, Wis., a Division III school. Warch offered: “Radical rethinking may move us to imagine solutions that will elude us if we only tinker with the system.”

So, Warch said: “I would propose that the NCAA--after providing payment for a participating institution’s direct costs--should mandate that all television, bowl and postseason play revenues be distributed among all NCAA member institutions on some enrollment-formula basis. Achieving the Final Four or receiving a bowl bid or earning a place in the NCAA playoffs ought to be reward enough. . . . Let us abolish the extrinsic rewards of huge financial bonuses and use the money to support the programs of all institutions that field athletic teams as a part of expression of their educational missions.”

He, too, later confessed that although he saw merit in his proposal he expected the “huzzahs” from Division I representatives. Warch said: “I saw some of the first smiles I saw all afternoon when I made that comment. It had the desired provocative effect.”

But there was some attention being given to realistic suggestions, and not all in the interest of cutbacks or “de-emphasis” to find the right balance for athletics and academics.

Oklahoma President Frank Horton included in his presentation: “It is hypocritical to deny students access to financial assistance programs available to other students because of their participation in athletics. It is ludicrous to expect a student-athlete to step off the playing field or tennis court without enough money to go to a movie or have a winter coat.

“By reinstating the opportunity to participate in other types of aid, colleges and universities could better address the financial dilemma facing many student-athletes. And, in the process, perhaps we could reduce the temptation--and incidence--of student-athletes accepting benefits that are outside NCAA rules.”

In other words, let athletes keep the entire amount of federally financed Pell Grants if they qualify on the basis of need. Currently, there is an NCAA rule limiting how much of that money the athlete can keep.

Michigan football Coach Bo Schembechler, one of the six respondents to the primary speakers, also spoke on behalf of letting needy athletes keep their Pell Grant money. And he had a lot of other things to say, too.

Schembechler defended big-time football programs, saying that the athletic experience is valuable unto itself, that programs such as his at Michigan have very good graduation rates and that there are some good, honest programs among the big-time boys. He said, “Being successful does not mean being corrupt.”

And, he said: “I think it’s time we stop apologizing for athletics being the avenue for (college) admission for disadvantaged students. It’s the best way, because these athletes will receive the best counseling and academic support.”

As for a proposed cut in Division I scholarship from 95 to 90, Schembechler said: “If you do that, that means five more freshmen will be brought up untrained and unready.”

He spoke against cutting assistant coaches because they are needed not only for teaching football but for counseling and supporting the athletes, and he argued that there is no need to be concerned that coaches are overpaid.

“Right now, I am one of the half-a-dozen coaches that are overpaid. But I came to Michigan for $21,000 and there was no TV show, no country club dues being paid. I never was able to save a dime until after I was 50. . . . There are probably a few presidents who are overpaid.”

He concluded: “Sure, we want great athletics, but we don’t want to do it at the expense of academics. . . . I don’t believe many coaches around the country have done that.

“I’m for cost-cutting, if you have to, but I’m not for de-emphasis. Don’t cut back on something that has meant so much to so many.”

Schembechler was the only coach included in the program.

Heyman, in commenting on what he admits were “worst-case scenarios,” said: “We have seen recruiters who bribe high school students, staff who alter transcripts and test scores, admissions officers who admit athletes who are functionally illiterate and coaches who physically and emotionally abuse athletes . . . athletic directors who schedule games around the country to get their teams on prime-time television without thinking about the classes the players will miss, trustees who sanction illegal payments to star players, and presidents who turn a blind eye to all of this.

“Many of us, in a strange way, have become calloused. We are not pleased, but also we are not surprised.

” . . . Most of us believe that for every cheater who exploits athletes and corrupts athletics, there are hundreds who are honest and moral. I believe that.

“But I believe that we have to face up to the very unpleasant fact that we have created a world, the world of big-time athletics, where cheating too often occurs . . . where athletics are too frequently more important than academics.”

Heyman continued: “We can no longer just compete against each other. We have to put on a show for the nation. Being in the entertainment business is expensive. It is expensive in terms of time. . . . Staging these events is also expensive in terms of money. Many of us have to raise large amounts of money to stay competitive and to keep the show going.

” . . . We fall into the trap of having to stay competitive and keep winning to keep the cash flowing, to keep our football stadium and basketball arenas full, and to get television contracts. . . . We get caught in a spiral. We win in order to cover costs. But we have to spend more in order to win. . . . We should not be surprised that many of us begin to act, not as educators, but as producers, promoters, impresarios and entrepreneurs.”

As for some ways of getting athletics back in perspective, Heyman suggested: “We could consider eliminating grants-in-aid based on athletic skill and instead award aid based on need.

” . . . We could consider declaring freshman ineligible . . . especially in football and basketball.

” . . . We could call for the creation of minor league farm systems for professional football and basketball and sever what has been called the ‘unnatural link’ between academics and athletics. . . . We could establish a system which does not provide such great financial incentives to win and distributes revenues more evenly.

“We could consider the unthinkable and abolish bowl games and postseason basketball tournaments.

” . . . I believe that athletics would be strengthened . . . opportunities for women and for underprivileged athletes would increase . . . students would be recruited honestly. . . . People would again begin to value participation in sports and all of athletics would receive more, not less, attention and support.”

Notes

Voting on the 43 items on the agenda will begin this morning. One of the most controversial is No. 19, the proposal offered by the Pacific 10 to reduce scholarships in Division I-A from 95 to 90. The Big Ten is expected to move that Nos. 18, 19 and 21 be brought back at a later time to be considered together. No. 18 would reduce scholarships in several non-revenue sports for men and women and No. 21 (a proposal that could be ruled out of order because it is not consistent with the purpose of this convention) would put men’s and women’s scholarships for basketball back at 15. Pac-10 Commissioner Tom Hansen said that the conference would not object to postponing 18 if the others also were postponed. Hansen said that there was a fairness issue involved, that if other cuts were being made, football should be included. Besides, he said, the limit used to be 90 and it went to 95 with the understanding that someday it would go back to 90. . . . More than 50 universities met early Monday to discuss the possibility of forming a Division I-AAA for football, a division that would fit between Division I-AA and Division II. That proposal will be submitted at the 1988 convention. . . . During the open debate segment of the forum Monday, Cal State Long Beach President Stephen Horn made another provocative suggestion. He wondered aloud why the NCAA could not ask professional leagues to make some kind of contribution to the colleges in view of the fact that the colleges are serving as the development league for teams that made a lot of money. . . . Jackie Sherrill of Texas A&M; made this observation: “The amount of money it cost to put on this convention on cost-cutting could have saved a lot of programs.”