NCAA Special Convention : Balance Between Athletics, Academics at Issue

This week’s special convention of the National Collegiate Athletic Assn. was called by the Presidents’ Commission to consider questions of balance between athletics and academics and to establish a national forum to debate balance, the role of athletics within the universities and the possible cutbacks that might be needed to achieve balance.

To that end, NCAA President Wilford Bailey has said: “It is important that we approach it in a positive way . . . as a forum for reason rather than an arena for conflict.”

All that remains to be seen, though, as the convention, which has drawn a record number of pre-registered delegates (1,171), gets under way with the first speakers of the forum scheduled to begin an 18-month debate this afternoon.

Actual voting on the 43 proposals on the agenda will not begin until Tuesday.

Whether there are any fireworks depends largely on which prevails--reasonable debate on long-term philosophies and points to be studied or head-to-head conflict if there are votes on some controversial legislation. There are proposals that would cut total Division I-A football scholarships from 95 to 90, proposals that would limit scholarships and seasons in sports crucial to the Olympic effort, and cuts in scholarships that have the women’s lobby ready for a legal battle.

There are also proposals for cutbacks in spring football and in football coaching staffs.

University of California chancellor Ira Michael Heyman and Oklahoma President Frank Horton are the primary speakers at the forum. Each will have 30 minutes to set the tone for this open-ended conversation.

Among the six respondents, who will have five minutes each, are Michigan football Coach Bo Schembechler and Texas women’s athletic director Donna Lopiano.

In a policy paper outlining the plan for the forum, a paper entitled “Intercollegiate athletics--agenda for reform,” the presidents explained: “We must ensure that a full set of regulations is put in place on each of the issues of recruiting, compensation of coaches, playing and practice seasons, coaching staffs and financial aid. . . . We will also raise the (question): What is the proper role of intercollegiate athletics in American higher eduction?

“We know that this question raises broad questions about the scale and intensity of athletic programs. It also raises specific questions about such issues as freshman eligibility, need-based financial aid, the structure of the NCAA and revenue-sharing. We know that these are difficult questions and that people who care about intercollegiate athletics have sharply differing answers. . . .

“We will address these disagreements--not by proposing specific legislative measures, but by initiating a national dialogue. We know that these disagreements are presently too vast to be bridged by legislative proposals, no matter how finely crafted. They can only be resolved by examining and debating first principles and basic premises. . . .

“We know that we can only resolve these disagreements by discussing them face-to-face, taking public positions and subjecting them to the scrutiny of our institutional communities.”

The Presidents’ Commission also is sponsoring a series of studies “to be sure that the forums are based on sound information.”

In light of some ongoing studies and a forum scheduled to continue until the annual January convention in 1989, it is possible that action on many of the proposals might be postponed.

It is also possible that, for the first time, legislation proposed by the Presidents’ Commission will be voted down. In the first two special conventions called by the Presidents’ Commission, there was much accord as the “death penalties” and specific academic requirements were voted in.

But Bailey said that being voted down on a point or two would not indicate that the Presidents’ Commission was losing ground.

“Remember that this is the first time the Presidents’ Commission has put forth this much specific legislation,” Bailey said. “It is an experiment in that respect.”

Of the 43 amendments proposed, 16 are sponsored by the Presidents’ Commission. Twenty-three have been designated for roll-call votes, which is one way that the chief executives can maintain control. If the chief executive of an institution is not here and voting in person, he can be sure that his representative is voting as instructed when the computerized results will be published.