VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 28 POSTED ON: 6/12/2013
NCAA 101: Institutional Control and Academic Integrity for AN NCAA self-study Steve Chen & William Salazar. Morehead State University 2009 AAHPERD Convention Tampa, Florida Overview of the intercollegiate athletics Issues and concerns of today’s intercollegiate sports The need of the NCAA certification process The procedures of the NCAA certification process Sharing the best practices Hands-on experience Alarge component of the sport industry of North America More than a 1280 colleges and universities offer intercollegiate sport some schools dropping programs, Despite consumer attraction continues to grow Paradoxical appeal—Collegiate athletics are exciting in nature but wrought with problems Academic fraud Recruiting violations A “Must Win at all cost” philosophy Commercial and profit-driven Substance abuse + deviant behaviors Gender inequity Diversity issues in coaching and recruiting Other Inyour opinion, is the popularity of intercollegiate sports in North America a healthy component for our educational system? The Need of the NCAA Certification Process (I) Mission of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA): The basic purpose of this association is to maintain intercollegiate athletics as an integral part of the educational program and the athlete as an integral part of the student body and, by doing so, retain a clear line of demarcation between intercollegiate athletics and professional sports. (NCAA Manual) The Need of the NCAA Certification Process (II) NCAA Division-I Athletic Programs *At least seven sports for men and seven for women (or six for men and eight for women). At least two team sports for each gender. *Contest and participant minimums for each sport & scheduling criteria (both on and off the court) *Minimum and maximum financial aid awards for each sport. (NCAA Manual 2004-05) The Need of the NCAA Certification Process (III) Issues of NCAA financial issues Dilemmas with the issue of amateurism in integrity and philosophy of the Conflicts programs Began in 1993 (5 years cycle) Purpose to hold Division I institutions accountable for athletics operations. Governance and rules compliance; academic integrity; fiscal integrity; equity, welfare, and sportsmanship Eliminated fiscal operating principle for 2nd cycle (1999). Benefits Self-awareness Affirmation Opportunities to improve Step No. 1 Orientation Step No. 2 Step No. 3 videoconference and Institution develops self- Self-study report submitted institution begins self-study study report. via ACS May 1, 2007. process (Sept-Nov). Report developed September - April Step No. 5 Step No. 4 Step No. 6 Full committee (CAC) reviews Institution has option to NCAA staff liaison reviews self-study report and approves report for preliminary issues. respond to CAC analysis. issues. July 15 – May 1 – August 15 June 30 Step No. 7 Peer-review team conducts Step No. 8 campus visit (Sept 15 – Dec) Peer-review team report and writes report on Web- styled at NCAA office. based system September 15 - October - January December Step No. 9 Step No. 10 PRT report sent to the president CAC deliberates and issues a final or chancellor for response on decision for all institutions. Web-based system February 2008 From the NCAA: Committee on Athletics Certification 18 members • College presidents (N = 4) • Athletics administrators (N = 10) • Faculty athletics representatives (N = 2) • Conference administrators (N = 2) Assist institutions in identifying mechanisms to ensure intercollegiate athletics programs are operating to their fullest potential. A Typical Peer-Review Team •Maximum of four members. •Chaired by a president or chancellor whenever possible. •Random selection approved by committee. •Will not include peer-reviewers with potential conflicts of interest. Responsible for: • Verifying Accuracy of the self-study. • Verifying Broad-based participation. • Evaluating Conformity with the operating principles. Other Players in Certification From the Reviewed Institution: Steering Committee Self-Study Subcommittees Campus Liaison Chief Report Writer NCAA staff Student-Athlete & Student Government Representatives Three Levels of Responses: Certified Certified with Conditions Not Certified expectations for each operating Clarifies principle. Brings more consistency to the process. Usedby institutions, NCAA staff, peer- review teams and the committee. Stand-alone and in writing Broad-based campus participation Issues/problems Measurable goals Steps to achieve the goals Specific timetable(s) Individuals/offices responsible for carrying out the specific actions Institutional approval The Steering Committee & Subcommittees: • Governance and Rules Compliance 9 members • Academic Integrity 9 members • Equity and Student Athlete Welfare 8 members of AI Subcommittee: Foci 2 Operating Principles: Standards & Support • Previous strikes (first cycle) • Admission process Standards Differences • Clarification of eligibility Initial stage Continual stage • Graduation rates Foci of AI: (Continued) • Publications of academic standards and policies Location Clarity • Monitoring athletes’ missed class time • Scheduling and practice time • Support in tutoring, advising, & skill training Availability Consistency Based on 2 operating principles • Academic Standards: 6 points Policies, graduation rates & evaluations • Academic Support: 7 points Program availability, communication, special needs, and review Inconsistent standards Deficiency of athletes’ graduation rates Gender and ethnic inequities Lack of appropriate records Insufficient support in academics, tutoring, career finding, etc. Inconsistency in communication Category Admission Graduation Ethnicity Scores Rate Male (Overall) Male (Athletes) Female (Overall) Female (Athletes) Program Area Scholarship Evaluation Issues low numbers Lack of for women records Measurable Goals Steps to Achieve Person in Charge Timetable Questions?
Pages to are hidden for
"The NCAA"Please download to view full document