A regular column by Athletic Director Bill Husak.
Oct. 2003
The landscape of college athletics is changing rapidly. Institutions are changing the athletics structure within the university, conferences are changing their membership, budgetary concerns are constant and academic reform is a major topic on everyone's mind. I have the privilege of serving on the NCAA's Championships and Competition Committee. This committee consists of approximately 50 people who represent the Division 1 conferences and institutions. At our most recent meeting, NCAA President Myles Brand attended and we had the opportunity to hear and question him about the issues I listed above.
For me, as an athletics director of an institution located in California, there is one pressing topic that is of major concern and that is Senate Bill 193. This was passed by the Senate on July 8 and is currently being reviewed by the Committee on Higher Education. This Bill will be heard again in January of 2004. SB 193 is concerned with a number of issues including providing health insurance for athletes during the summer and during "voluntary" workouts, the academic achievement of athletes especially the African-American football and basketball players, scholarship dollar limitations and one year renewals of scholarships, amateurism and the inability of athletes to get agents and license their athletic name/reputation for endorsement and finally the inability of athletes to transfer without penalty when a coach leaves an institution. The impetus for this Bill comes from the Coalition of College Athletes, a group of former football players predominantly from UCLA who also have the backing of labor unions.
Many people have the perception that college athletics is a money-maker for an institution when in fact there about 40 universities in this country that have an athletic budget that runs in the black independently. At Loyola Marymount University, our athletic budget recoups about 8 percent of its annual athletics investment in revenues through ticket sales, donations and corporate sponsorship. The institution funds the remaining 92% of the budget because, as Fr. Lawton so frequently states, it is an important part of student life on our campus.
The items contained in SB 193 are meritorious and worthy of discussion. Indeed many of them are or will be implemented by the NCAA through its legislative process. However, as we in the State of California have discovered, if revenues are not forthcoming the result of funding programs regardless of merit will be deficits. Many of the items contained in this Bill will lead to an increase in the financial commitment to athletic programs. As an example, increasing the value of the scholarship to include the actual cost of attendance would add approximately $3,500 on average to the cost of a Lions athlete's scholarship. At LMU, we have the equivalent of approximately 130 full scholarships and that cost alone would be nearly $500,000. If those dollars were not forthcoming from somewhere cuts would have to be made by either eliminating programs or reductions in the number of student-athletes receiving athletic scholarship support. It is important to know that at LMU, well over 50% of our budget is spent on athletic grant in aids and nearly 25% of the total budget is spent on traveling expenses (hotel, meals, transportation, etc.) uniforms, equipment and recruiting of student-athletes. These figures, I believe, indicate a real commitment to providing a quality athletics experience for all who participate.
The NCAA is a huge organization consisting of members who voluntarily join the Association and elect to be a member at the Division I, II or III level. There are alternatives for institutions to either join another organization (NAIA), switch Divisional status thereby changing the emphasis and philosophy of the role of athletics in the institution or to elect not to have an athletics program. At LMU we have chosen to be a member of the NCAA at the Division I level. We are not always pleased with the direction the NCAA takes and when that occurs we voice our objection and take appropriate action. When enough of the membership feels similarly, change occurs. The NCAA is not some entity that is foreign to institutions and rules by being oblivious to the wants and needs of its membership. The NCAA IS the membership. The Association and athletics programs are highly visible and consequently large targets. Unfortunately, the vast amount of good work that is done across the country by university athletics programs and the NCAA often gets overshadowed by the press that accompanies the relatively small percentage of bad and embarrassing moments that programs have endured.
In closing, the landscape of college athletics is indeed changing and evolving. I have always said that the one constant in higher education is change and the competitive sporting landscape is certainly indicative of that change. In all of this turmoil, our commitment remains to the student-athlete and we are grateful of the role that alums, fans and businesses play in fulfilling this commitment. Go Lions!
Bill
