In The New NCAA Division I Constitution, This Must Be Each President’s Top Priority

What holds Division I together? That’s the question Mark Emmert shared with the press at his annual state of the NCAA address on Thursday. Described as an existential crisis for the organization, the events that have pummeled the NCAA and its members in the last three years have knocked the organization, and much of higher education, on its heels.

The Transformation Working Committee, co-chaired by SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey and Ohio University Athletics Director Julie Cromar, must wrestle with Emmert’s question. While the committee, launched in the 2021-22 academic year, continues to meet regularly to sort out what the Division I constitution should say, there are more fundamental questions that can only be answered by one group-college presidents.

Up through the mid 1990s, the Athletic Directors ran the NCAA. Finding all kinds of challenges enforcing the organization’s rules and regulations, the members agreed they needed to involve a higher authority to settle the feuds and put some order to the chaos—college presidents. In 2022, it’s clear the presidents are hamstrung by their own inabilities to get something done.

Now, the organization is looking to Congress. As Emmert said at his press conference, “how do you craft a (compliance) model that is fair and swift, and at the same time… (provides) a single, legal model”?

A legal model, one that allows colleges and universities to maintain their non-profit status. One that prevents labeling athletes as employees and all the Federal regulations that come along with that designation, including worker’s compensation, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and OSHA regulations. And, perhaps most importantly, allows donors to continue to receive substantial tax benefits for donating to their alma mater.

These are no small changes. And add to that: athletes should also have a voice in their experiences and a seat at the table when their “work-life” balance is in play. As America goes through a time dubbed “The Great Resignation” (or as some have called “The Great Reinvention”), college athletes are not immune from wanting to “reclaim my time”.

There is one major point the Division I Constitutional Committee can address by August 1, 2022-the issue of weekly contact hours in team activities. Many Division I programs regularly have practice and competition activities for far more than 20 hours per week, 12 months a year, up to six days a week. That’s in addition to being a full time student.

Over the decades, there has been a slow, but steady creep into the supposed “days off” and “summers off” pattern that once was a staple of college teams. From extending playing and practice seasons to include “in-season” and “out-of-season” activities; to giving wide latitude to strength and conditioning staffs to oversee additional “optional workouts”, for many sports, there is no down time.

This happened over the years for two reasons: one, because coaches associations and groups have effectively lobbied for more control/contact with their players; and two, because institutions have added extra games to make more money.

Presidents who value the educational model need to make a change. Here’s why:

What should concern university leaders is the fact that this encroachment may be creating obstacles for athletes to land a job and starting a career post-graduation. As I wrote a few months ago, research from the National Association of Colleges and Employers demonstrates that employers “are emphasizing the “hard skills”: in addition to a solid academic preparation, they are stressing the importance of internships and cooperative educational experiences before graduation. Those “real world” experiences are increasingly being used by companies to make hiring decisions. Employers are choosing to hire the recent grad who landed a paid internship, versus one who only worked unpaid ones (or none at all)”.

This reality is especially problematic for Black college athletes, who comprise the vast majority of male football and basketball players.

Among the many challenges facing college presidents at this moment in time, prioritizing graduation, career opportunities and success is their highest priority. That’s the difference between college and the pros. As the NCAA has often repeated, “98% of athletes go pro in something other than athletics”.

Isn’t it time to recognize the disconnect that is happening right in front of our eyes?

As Division I seeks to find a common theme amongst all institutions, those programs who can’t (or won’t) agree to regulations reigning in the trend of ‘over practicing’ their athletes year in and out, should simply leave behind any claim to the educational model of college athletics and form a commercial enterprise.

It’s that simple.