Imagine if we were training to become professional wrestlers, spending day after day to perfect our moves and strategies, while maintaining a balance between academics and sports in life. Then imagine being told that we are not eligible because of a course not being considered part of the “core curriculum”. Dream crushed, life lost, and future gone. Such an injustice occurs each year. Deciding on new standards for high school and college athletes, the Division 1 Board of Directors effectively “shut the door” on many potential, future college athletes. With higher eligibility standards going into effect on the class entering college in 2016, the Board has adopted a policy to encourage more academically prepared athletes for the tough college coursework. The Board also hopes that the new policy will be a step towards a fairer system of allowing non-athletes to compete better against athletes when applying for college. However, there is a need to question the NCAA’s credibility and judgment.
For the last few decades, the NCAA has encroached on the rights of its athlete candidates, expecting a set, strict curriculum that refuses to take into account special situations, while deciding unfairly on the future of students (Larsen). For example, the NCAA prevented Chris Rohe, who ahieved a 3.97 gpa, had high test scores, and was a member of the National Honor Society, from playing football at the Air Force Academy for his freshmen year because the NCAA rejected one-third of a required 10th grade English Class.
Additionally, the NCAA refused to allow Dan Zien, a suburban Milwaukee student who won honors in the Junior Olympics, compiled a B-minus high school gpa, and had solid scores, to participate in track asa freshmen because the NCAA questioned the way some of his Advanced Placement courses had been listed on the transcript. Even more ridiculous, the NCAA denied Chad Ganden, a swimmer, full eligibility for the freshmen year because of a special education course he took early in high school. The NCAA obviously shows a lack of respect for the athletes that they supposedly represent, frequently abusing its rights to determine the eligibility of a student for college varsity sports (Nathan). Furthermore, college administrators, coaches associations, and secondary school administrators have expressed reasonable concern about the implementation schedule (Hosick). Additionally, the NCAA refused to allow Dan Zien, a suburban Milwaukee student who won honors in the Junior Olympics, compiled a B-minus high school gpa, and had solid scores, to participate in track asa freshmen because the NCAA questioned the way some of his Advanced Placement courses had been listed on the transcript. Even more ridiculous, the NCAA denied Chad Ganden, a swimmer, full eligibility for the freshmen year because of a special education course he took early in high school. The NCAA obviously shows a lack of respect for the athletes that they supposedly represent, frequently abusing its rights to determine the eligibility of a student for college varsity sports (Nathan). Furthermore, college administrators, coaches associations, and secondary school administrators have expressed reasonable concern about the implementation schedule (Hosick).
127 our experts are availableright now
The NCAA expects current high school sophomores and freshmen to understand the new policies and requirements. These students have to ensure that they take the minimum course requirements that the NCAA has mandated upon them if they are to play sports their freshmen year (Smith). However, many high School students let alone middle and elementary students are not even aware of the change that the NCAA has decided on. If these students are taken off guard near the end or even the halfway mark of their high school career, they are unfairly disadvantaged in terms of participating in the sports that they want to pursue in college (Hosick). Therefore, the new “strategy” by the D1 Board has raised controversy over the requirements that college athletes must fulfill to compete.
This situation has prompted the questions, “Should the NCAA even dictate the core curriculum of potential college athletes? Is there even a need for NCAA to try to ameliorate the college sports recruitment that has created an unfair advantage for athletes over other students who are trying to go to college?” Surely, there must be a balance between the issues of setting a reasonable course requirement and making a fairer system of recruiting potential athletes. Without doubt, the new requirements must be first understood to comprehend the entire situation.
To play Division 1 sports, athletes must “graduate from high school, complete 16 core courses, including 10 before the seventh semester, earn a minimum 2.300 Grade-Point Average in core courses, earn a combined SAT or ACT score that matches the core-course GPA on the sliding scale” (NCAA). Additionally, “seven of the 10 [core-courses] must be a combination of English, math or natural or physical science”, and one “must earn at least a 2.000 GPA in NCAA core courses” to get a scholarship (NCAA). Unquestionably, these fulfillments are difficult for any athlete to complete. Athletes must train each day for at least three to five hours a day to even hope to compete in college. With the increasing pressure on education (as competition becomes fiercer with the number of spots remaining the same), the athletes are “backed into a corner” as they will struggle to find a balance between academics and sports.
As bad as it is, the NCAA has to approve the courses taken. If the NCAA refuses to recognize a course that the student athlete has taken in high school, there is chance that the athlete will not be allowed to compete during his/her freshmen year. For example, when the NCAA did not recognize a “tech prep” science class as part of its needed curriculum, the NCAA ruled that Rebecca Burt did not fulfill her science course requirements, keeping her from accepting a track scholarship and forcing her to drop out of college (Nathan). Student athletes are at the mercy of the NCAA; if the NCAA rules a certain decision, the student athletes, especially those who are financially disadvantaged, have no choice but to accept their fate.
Furthermore, student athletes are not the only ones suffering at the hands of the NCAA. Teachers are becoming frustrated with the inexperienced decisions made by the NCAA officials in determining what courses are qualified to be part of the core curriculum. In Elk River High School in Minnesota, educators developed “Essential Communications”, in which students interviewed community members and wrote about what they learned. The NCAA declared that this course was inappropriate for college preparation, making several students ineligible for athletic participation in their freshmen year (Larsen). In another case, Bob Rodriguez, a suburban Pittsburgh teacher who was named “1997 Outstanding Secondary Teacher of the Year” by the National Council for the Social Studies, spent frustrating months trying to convince the NCAA that his interdisciplinary courses should be counted in the NCAA’s set curriculum. The NCAA stood firm on its opinion that the course designed by Rodriguez was not essential for college (Nathan).
This case has led many principals to question if the NCAA Academic Requirements even knows anything about the components of a planned course which qualify it as a core course (Hosick). In terms of credibility and knowledge, the NCAA seems to lack both. Although the original implementation date of 2015 was pushed backed to 2016, there is still concern about the adaptability of potential college athletes (Hosick). As best said by Board Chair Judy Genshaft, president at South Florida, “We want to give young people a fair chance to meet the new standards by taking core academic courses early in their high school education” (Hosick). Athletes, just like humans, need time to adapt. The NCAA has an obligation as a sponsor of student athletes to inform middle and high school students (especially current sophomores and freshmen) about the changes in the requirements.
The huge jump in requirements does not ensure “fainess” as believed by the NCAA (Hosick). In fact, it is unfair and unjust that athletes are told to change their lifestyles in order to conform to the new policies. The NCAA had an ultimate goal of raising the stakes higher so that the student athletes may be “prepared” for college. Yet the organization refuses to realize that a further study is needed to analyze the consequences of implementing more difficult requirements; making decisions blindly will only lead to chaos or even worsening the situation. The NCAA does not know the full implications of its choice; the organization is waiting to see how the athletes of Class of 2016 will respond and perform under the new standards. Without doubt, the NCAA continues to argue that the new requirements will allow a fairer competition between athletes and non-athletes in terms of applying for college as both (more under these new standards) must have appropriate course history and good grades in order to ensure access to college (Nathan).
However, history has shown that the will and resolve of college sports programs tend to win out (Smith). Clearly, colleges will still find nefarious ways to somehow “snag” the athletes they want, even the ones who do not meet the NCAA’s future requirements (Hosick). Therefore, the NCAA is assuming that colleges will just go along with its plan – an assumption that may ultimately backfire on the NCAA. If colleges are found to be going behind the NCAA’s back, then it is even more obvious that NCAA’s new standards are ineffective in satisfying the two other groups – the colleges and the student athletes. Furthermore, the logic that the NCAA encompasses with its new policy is that “the real shift is to academic preparation instead of just getting eligible” (O’Neil). The athletes should be prepared for college, if they are to be part of the college community. Although, this logic is hard to argue, it relies on the ideal that student-athletes will arrive on campus actually ready for college. In a country with high college attendance but with low college readiness, the NCAA is asking a lot from its future athletes (O’Neil).
The NCAA may be stepping over its boundaries by trying to transform the way that student-athletes approach their academic preparation. The organization may be thinking the best for athletes, but is still encroaching on the rights of the student-athletes. Athletes are still human who have the freedom to choose what they want to do. They believe that they will succeed in life, not through academics, but through sports. They embody this ideology; they live it every day that they practice in whatever weather that they face. To disturb ideology is to violate the freedom of independence. The student-athletes must be allowed to lead their own lives, instead of being told what to do so that they can live the life that they want. Surely, the NCAA must see the logic of that?
The NCAA is trying to correct an imperfect world; an impossible task that is a dangerous gambit with student-athletes on the line. It is true that it’s “the ultimate special benefit by admitting a student to college who, without his or her athletic talent, wouldn’t get accepted” (O’Neil). The NCAA wants to create its own solution of compelling universities that their athletes must also be students. The athletes have to work their way to a degree while pursuing their sports dreams. But to add “ripples” in the current meta will create more “ripples”; trying to fix the problem of injustice will produce more issues by itself. Colleges will still find ways to fill their rosters. Students will resort to any means, even cheating, to fulfill the necessary requirements.
If the NCAA were to change its policy to be fairer for non-athletes, it must find a balance to benefit athletes as well. Student-athletes are to be accountable for their future, a dangerous responsibility for any adolescent. The NCAA must lead these students to a brighter future, not try to force one upon them. Other than finding ways to violate the rights of the student athletes by controlling their future, the NCAA must find stability with a reasonable core curriculum that ensures a fair competition between athletes and non-athlete students for college. More than that, the student athletes need more time. Time to understand the new policy. Time to conform to the chances. Time to balance their academics and sports. If the NCAA gives the student-athletes to comprehend their new world, they will adapt and conform. It cannot be denied that the NCAA has changed its policies before, and the student athletes, along wi high schools and parents, have altered in response (Smith). However, the more the NCAA encroaches on the rights of the student athletes, the further the NCAA is galvanizing the problem of a required curriculum and parity (Nathan).
