ELItorial: After all, it isn't the U of NCAA

At the time, critics of Prop 48 (now known as Prop 16) warned that the SAT was inherently discriminatory toward black athletes and that, furthermore, the statute would simply eliminate the oppotunity for many youngsters to get an education. For years, the NCAA ignored scientific studies and empirical evidence that suggested that the SAT is, in fact, inherently biased. Federal Judge Ronald Buckwalter ruled Prop 16 unconstitutional on Mon., Mar. 8, based largely on the findings of NCAA educational consultants, who, after extensive research, concluded that the set of rules is indeed unfair to African-Americans.

A few years ago, the NCAA did revise Prop 16 by replacing the minimum SAT score requirement with a sliding scale GPA and SAT requirement. But the NCAA should have gone further and removed the SAT from its requirements entirely. Educators have long advised against relying on the SAT as an accurate predictor of academic prowess or future success, regardless of its discriminatory effects. Indeed, most colleges recognize the SAT's deficiencies, both racially and academically, and consider many other factors, including athletic or artistic ability and personal character.

Another problem is that the mandates of Prop 16 have become, in essence, entrance requirements. Why should a Division I school waste a spot on someone who can't even play for a year? The problem, of course, is that the NCAA has absolutely no business deciding which students a school can or cannot admit. That is the job of individual colleges; each school must decide for itself whom it will accept. Schools should also be able to decide whether a given athlete is academically qualified to compete.

The difficulty is that the NCAA still operates under the belief that college ../sports, with their high revenues and popularity, can accommodate the "student-athlete." Yet the head honchos at the NCAA cannot possibly expect that a multi-billion-dollar industry will not only corrupt the stated academic goals of Division I schools but also the athletes' devotion to classwork.

As we watched Duke and
Connecticut play for the championship on CBS, we only had to wait for a commercial to recall that the ads we saw cost close to a million dollars and to remember that college ../sports at the highest level are nothing more than a money-making machine for schools. You know the NCAA's minimum standard requirements are being abused when tourna-
ment team Minnesota's own staff is doing homework and writing papers for players; the scandal only highlighted the need for a change in the NCAA's system.

Three days after his historic ruling, Buckwalter denied the NCAA a stay of ruling, meaning that the thousands of athletes who were allowed to sign letters of intent starting on Wed., Apr. 7, had no idea what kind of new standards the NCAA will eventually use (it hopes to come up with a new plan by October). Will athletes be vulnerable retroactively when the NCAA establishes these new rules? At the same time, coaches and schools do not know how to treat applicants who may or may not meet the eventual requirements.

The NCAA wasn't wrong in trying to solve the very real problem of low athlete graduation rates. It simply needs to develop another way to do it. Perhaps a similar set of rules as Prop 16 would be best, using different standards based on other factors that schools commonly employ in admis-
sions decisions.

Another possibility would be to eliminate freshman eligibility, ensuring that first-year athletes concentrate on classwork in order to play. Schools could also be required to provide tutors to improve academic skills, much like the system coach John Chaney has instituted at Temple. Any of these solutions would be better than one that has proven time and time again to be woefully ineffective and racially discriminatory.

Back to Sports...