Steve Chen & William Salazar.Morehead State University

2009 AAHPERD ConventionTampa, Florida

NCAA 101: Institutional Control and Academic Integrity for AN NCAA self-study

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

A large component of the sport industry of North America

More than a 1280 colleges and universities offer intercollegiate sport

Despite some schools dropping programs, 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

In your opinion, is the popularity of intercollegiate sports in North America a healthy component for our educational system?

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 (I)Mission of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA):

The Need of the NCAA Certification

Process (II)

*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)

NCAA Division-I Athletic Programs

Issues of NCAA financial issues

Dilemmas with the issue of amateurism

Conflicts in integrity and philosophy of the programs

The Need of the NCAA Certification Process

(III)

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).

Self-awareness

Affirmation

Opportunities to improve

Benefits

Step No. 2 Institution develops self-

study report.

Step No. 1 Orientation

videoconference and institution begins self-study

process (Sept-Nov).

Report developedSeptember - April

Step No. 3Self-study report submitted

via ACS May 1, 2007.

Step No. 4 NCAA staff liaison reviews report for preliminary issues.

May 1 – June 30

Step No. 5Full committee (CAC) reviews self-study report and approves

issues.

July 15 – August 15

Step No. 6 Institution has option to respond to CAC analysis.

Step No. 7Peer-review team conducts

campus visit (Sept 15 – Dec) and writes report on Web-

based system

September 15 - December

Step No. 8 Peer-review team report styled at NCAA office.

October - January

Step No. 10 CAC deliberates and issues a final

decision for all institutions.

Step No. 9 PRT report sent to the president

or chancellor for response on Web-based system

February 2008

18 members• College presidents (N = 4)• Athletics administrators (N = 10)• Faculty athletics representatives (N = 2)• Conference administrators (N = 2)

From the NCAA:Committee on Athletics Certification

Assist institutions in identifying mechanisms to ensure intercollegiate athletics programs are operating to their fullest potential.

•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.

A Typical Peer-Review Team

• Verifying Accuracy of the self-study.

• Verifying Broad-based participation.

• Evaluating Conformity with the operating principles.

Responsible for:

Steering Committee Self-Study Subcommittees Campus Liaison Chief Report Writer NCAA staff Student-Athlete & Student

Government Representatives

From the Reviewed Institution:

Other Players in Certification

Certified

Certified with Conditions

Not Certified

Three Levels of Responses:

Clarifies expectations for each operating principle.

Brings more consistency to the process.

Used by 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

Foci of AI Subcommittee: 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 Scores

Graduation Rate

Ethnicity

Male (Overall)

Male (Athletes)

Female (Overall)

Female(Athletes)

Program Area Scholarship Evaluation

Issues low numbers for women

Lack of records

Measurable Goals

Steps to Achieve

Person in Charge

Timetable

Questions?