Write an Article for the CRA!

Want to share some of your research, successful programs, or thoughts on the world of  Recreation and Athletics?   We always welcome article submissions.  Contact Paul Artale via email at artalepa@msu.edu for more information!

Greetings From Your CRA CHAIR!

Hello ACPA Colleagues. I'd like to welcome you the first edition of the Commission for Recreation and Athletics newsletter for the 2013-14 academic year. I like to think of the CRA as sophmores as far as ACPA entity groups are concerned. As we enter our 4th year as an ACPA entity we are not quite the new kids on campus. We have gradually navigated our way through the association . We published a white paper, held a pre-convention institute, and have grown our membership. We are not quite as established as other commissions but we are on our way!

In our early years, the focus was on establishing ourselves within the association. Now that the objective has been achieved due to the great leadership of our first two commission chairs, Scott Hirko and Mike Fulford, the next logical step for our commission is to focus our efforts on the membership. My goal during my term as chair is to develop programs and services for you! I would like our commission to be viewed as an invaluable resource for members who work in campus recreation, intercollegiate athletics, and/or with athletic populations or are producing scholarship in those areas. We will be unveiling a host of professional development opportunities this fall and other tools and resources designed to help our members network with each other. 

It was great to see many new faces at the convention who attended CRA sessions for the first time. I was invited to join the CRA directorate at my first ACPA convention in 2010. Three years later I serve as chair. It is important to know that serving on the directorate only requires good ideas and a desire to serve. We have several vacancies so both emerging and seasoned leaders are welcome to be a part of the next chapter of the Commission for Recreation and Athletics. Please send me an email at acpacra@gmail.com if you are interested in discussing leadership opportunities. We will have elections in Novermber to fill five vacancies on our directorate. 

We are excited to also welcome over 400 members of NIRSA joined ACPA as a part of the "Getting to Know You" campaign. We hope they will find a home with the Commission for Recreation and Athletics and look forward to the perspective they bring to the field.

I hope this school year is filled with excitement and accomplishments. Stay tuned for more information on how the ACPA Commission for Recreation and Athletics plans to support you in your achievements! 

Markesha M. Henderson, Ed.D.

Chair, ACPA Commission for Recreation and Athletics

Assistant Professor of Sport Management

University of West Georgia

acpacra@gmail.com

Reminder to Select CRA

Reminder to Select CRA

To be an official member of the Commission for Recreation and Athletics, you must add us to your involvement list on your membership profile. To do that follow these easy steps:

1) Log on to your Account

2) Click "My Profile" in the upper right corner

3) Click "My Involvement" and verify that Commission for Recreation and Athletics is listed.

4) If not listed, click "Get More Involved" and select Commission for Recreation and Athletics.

5) Click "Join Commission"

Invitation to Participate in Study on NCAA campus impact on Non-Athletic College Campus Community

Invitation to Participate in Study on NCAA campus impact on Non-Athletic  College Campus Community

You are invited to participate in a study to better understand the impact of NCAA legislation on areas of higher education external to athletics, including future potential students.  This study, The Impact of NCAA Legislation on the Non-Athletic College Campus Community, involves several questions relating to NCAA proposal 2009-100, and subsequent proposals, which prohibit NCAA Division I member institutions from hosting boys' or girls' basketball, or boys' football sports camps that are not directly sponsored by the athletics program.  This is original research spearheaded by members of the ACPA Commission for Recreation and Athletics.

The survey is available by accessing this link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/T8Q6K5X

Program Proposals Wanted

Program Proposals Wanted

The 2014 Convention is a tremendous opportunity to present your scholarly work or best practices. The deadline to submit a program proposal is September 5th. The Commission for Recreation and Athletics will sponsor 5 programs during the 2014 Convention in Indianapolis. If your program is not selected as a sponsored program, it can also be considered for a general program. To submit a program, visit http://cdms.myacpa.org.

Call for Program Reviewers

Call for Program Reviewers

 We need volunteers to serve as blind reviewers for program submissions. If you are interested in serving as a reviewer please follow these two steps: 1) Sign up to review programs on the ACPA website at . You will sign up as a general program reviewer. 2) Send an email to acpacra@gmail.com and let me know that you have signed up to be a CRA reviewer. If you do not email the commission to let us know you want to review for CRA, you will not receive submissions related to recreation and athletics and be placed in the general reviewer's pool. Please complete both steps by Friday, August 16th.

 

Making sense out of NCAA policy: How Student Affairs Professionals Can Serve in a Time of Change

Scott Hirko, 

Central Michigan University

 Today, there is a deafening buzz about change and hypocrisy in major college sports.  I’ve recently had discussions with some who work in college athletics, others who study college sports, several leaders in higher education, as well as other stakeholders.  Most are disenchanted about the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and how it represents colleges and college sports.

            The NCAA’s Executive Committee and its Board of Directors met in early August - the meetings resulted in much hand-wringing about money, but likely little focus on the 95 percent of the 400,000-plus NCAA athletes that are NOT involved with raising 95 percent of the money.  The lack of focus on athlete’s well-being is decades in the making, including allowing freshman to participate in game day action instead of focusing on transition to college life, allowing for a redshirt fifth year to enhance expertise in a particular sport, and even coining the term “student-athlete” in order to avoid worker’s compensation claims (Branch, 2012). These NCAA policies were all created to earn more money for the athletics system.

            Some recent NCAA policies were created in response to issues relating to a few but impacting the majority of athletes. ACPA Commission for Recreation Athletics (CRA) created a thought paper about the campus-wide impact of NCAA legislation limiting schools’ ability to rent out campus facilities for basketball and football camps (Hirko et al, 2010).  The current research project by CRA is aimed at measuring this impact on individuals and divisons of campus from a student development perspective.

            Another example of the unforseen consequences of NCAA policies is embedded in the Academic Progress Rates (APR) at the NCAA’s most competitive level, Division 1.  Recent scholarship has noted concerns about the impact of APR on the learning of athletes (McLaughlin, 2012), even with respect to the size (Butterworth & Rich, 2013) or type (Kirkpatrick, 2013)  of the institution.  To be fair, the benefit of APR is requiring Division 1 athletes to remain on track to graduate – a primary mission of colleges and universities. And, student affairs professionals work daily to help athletes navigate their complicated schedules and continue toward graduation. Schools have incentives to help teams meet APR benchmarks because failure can result in penalties for an athletic team including a loss of scholarships or a loss of participating in post-season tournaments. 

            However, Division 1 APR is not a panacea to academic needs of athletes as students. Because of the demands by coaches for athletes to practice at certain times, and because many athletes (particularly at-risk football and basketball players) rely on their athletic scholarship to attain an education, athletes are often forced into a choice: either, (1) choose a major that impacts practice time (and risk of losing a scholarship), or (2) choose a generalized major with coursework that does not impact practice time (and reduce the risk of losing a scholarship) (Gurney and Southall, 2012; Hirko, 2011).  And, there are both successes and concerns about the impact of APR affecting athletes who have a learning disaibility, or when there is a coaching change (Johnson et al, 2013).  Student affairs professionals who advise athletes and who work with athletes’ academic advisors are often handcuffed.  At the Division 1 level, advice is typically based on school policy and athletic need, rather that what is in the student’s best interest.  In other words, one may consider the current NCAA policy as leading institutions toward: “Let’s make sure the athlete is passing a class (or is in an easy major) to remain academically eligible to play, and keep their scholarship to at least earn a degree.”  But, it may be better for the NCAA and its member institutions to lead with policy better in line with institutional mission, such as: “What does the student want to learn or be exposed to learn and how can we work with coaches to make that learning occur and succeed?”

            Student affairs professionals can become involved in leading and directing the above complex policies to benefit the well-being of athletes at their institution.  For instance, several Division 1 institutions have their football (and other sport) practices in the morning in order to allow athletes the opportunity to access course labs and other educational activities that would not be possible with afternoon athletic practices.  Other schools have faculty appointed as academic liaisons to athletic teams ro improve direct communication between instructors and players. The collaboration inherent in creating these policies is student-centered and reflects educational needs as an institutional priority (Hirko, 2011; Zimmerman &  Wickersham, 2013).

            Furthermore, the recent memorandum from the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics (in full disclosure, I serve as a consultant to the Knight Commission) to the NCAA shares a thought reflecting the fact that not all athletes are the same, even though they may be treated the same. The Commission asked NCAA leaders to investigate a “differentiated model” with different rules for different sports.  In otherwords, football and men’s basketball players are the primary revenue generators, and are significant contributors to an institution’s image at all levels, including Divisions 1, 2 and 3; yet, the expectations of football and basketball players are different than athletes in field hockey, soccer, or all other varsity sports.  Social norms, institutional climate, and community environment create significant expectations on, and perceived by, football and basketball players in comparison to the expectations of players of most other sports.  Student affairs professionals are in the position to share their knowledge and experience of student identity development when considering rules for a new type of “differentiated” system. Rules for athletes that impact their academic and social engagement should take current realities into consideration, and should ensure  athletes’ well-being is adequately protected.

            Current litigation by former athletes against the NCAA, particularly the EddieO’Bannon and SamKeller cases and their potential impact on the definition of “amateurism” may force NCAA membership to change its policies as they relate to the compensation of certain college athletes.  Yet, student affairs professionals will be around before and after this and other similar cases.  To meet the needs of athletes in this and future environments, ACPA and its membership are well placed to use their knowledge and understanding of student development to serve the education and goals of college athletes.

References

Branch, T. (2012, October). The shame of college sports. The Atlantic.

Butterworth, J., & Rich, J. (2013). Examing academic-athletic support and academic success of student athletes. Unpublished Undergraduate Student Research, University of New Hampshire.

Gurney, G. S., & Southall, R. M. (2012, August 9). College sports' bait and switch. ESPN.com.

Hirko, S. (2011). Using sanctioned athletics programs to understand stakeholders' perceived influence in decisions at major research universities. Unpublished dissertation. Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Hirko, S., Clark, K., Fulford, M., Byrne, D., Harmon, N., & Hill, K. (2010). A campus student affairs perspective on NCAA Proposal 2009-100: American College Personnel Association.

Johnson, J., Blom, L., Judge, L., Lee, D., Pierce, D., & Ridley, M. (2013). The impact of Football Bowl Subdivision head coaching changes on NCAA Academic Progress Rate. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 6, 131-154.

Kirkpatrick, W. (2012). The impact of the academic progress rate (APR) on low resource or non-bcs institutions as it relates to football and/or men’s basketball programs. University of Georgia, Athens, GA.

McLaughlin, J. (2012). An examination of the influence of institutional context on Academic Progress Rates at Division I institutions: A multilevel approach. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.

Zimmerman, W., & Wickersham, L. (2013). Examining the support of modern athletic reform proposals developed by the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics in response to higher education athletic reform: A case study. Current Issues in Education, 16(1).