NCAA Rule 16.5.2(b) Fruits, Nuts and Bagels
An institution may provide fruits, nuts and bagels to a student athlete at any time.
(adopted 4/30/09).
CSSA: This is an example of the control and containment practiced and enabled by the NCAA. Although the NCAA voted to allow unlimited snacks in April, 2014, this rule is a microcosm of the control employed on student athletes.
BALANCE OF POWER AND CONTROL
The Center for the Support of Student Athletes will lobby and seek changes related to these and other National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) rules to pursue a balance of power and control that protects the academic and athletic interests of student athletes and their families:
NCAA Rule 13.1.1.3.2 Student Athlete Withdrawn From Four-Year College
A Member institution may contact a student athlete who has withdrawn officially from a four-year collegiate institution without obtaining permission from the first institution, ONLY IF AT LEAST ONE ACADEMIC YEAR HAS ELAPSED SINCE THE WITHDRAWAL.
CSSA: Why should the NCAA have control over a student athlete who has left a school or even a student athlete of a school that he wants to leave?
CONTROL – Do you have to ask your boss for permission to look for another job?
NCAA Rule 14.5.5.2.10 One Time Transfer Exception
The student transfers to the certifying institution from another four-year college institution, when all of the following conditions are met:
(a) The student is a participant in a sport other than men's ice hockey, bowl subdivision football, basketball or baseball at the institution to which the student is transferring.
CSSA: Why are hockey, baseball, football and basketball student athletes not given the one time-transfer exception?
MONEY – There is much more power vested in the coaches in addition to rule 14.5.5.2.10. Coaches can further dictate the schools a student athlete may transfer to. Coaches, as everyone knows, have an incredible amount of power over athletes. The coaches can change jobs with no restrictions: however, they can restrict a student athlete's transfer.
There is a case of an Oklahoma State player whose coach listed forty schools that he could not transfer to.
There was a university of Miami player who wanted to transfer due to his back-up status and a need to be near his family since his father had cancer. His coach would not allow him to choose a school to be near his family.
There is a case of a Saint Joseph's basketball player who attempted to transfer for his fifth year of eligibility to seek a graduate degree in a major that his school did not offer. This was a player who had limited playing time and production in his senior year. His coach would not go along with this request. The NCAA specifically allows players who earn their degrees but have eligibility remaining to transfer freely. They also grant coaches restrictive power over these players. His coach blocked his eligibility to play at the school offering the graduate degree program of his choice. The student athlete transferred but was not allowed to play his sport.
THE PERFECT STORM
The names of the schools are protected until when and if they comply with CSSA'S initiatives.
A prominent Hockey East School made an early verbal commitment to a New England Prep School hockey player. The verbal agreement took place prior to his junior year. Near the conclusion of his senior year the coach visited and dictated that a year of Junior Hockey would be required. Of course, the student athlete complied regardless of what the initial agreement was. After a year of Junior Hockey, the notable coach told the player a second year would be required for him to play at this prestigious Hockey East school. The player complied, and after the second year of Junior Hockey, the coach told the player "you will never play hockey for us but we will honor a non-athletic scholarship. You do want to play hockey, correct? Then you should look for other opportunities." Nine times out of ten the student athlete genuinely wants to pursue his passion of playing his sport in college. The player sought out another Hockey East School and played a season with that school. After that year the school changed coaches. The new staff told this player there would not be any playing opportunities for him and a transfer would be in his best interests. This student athlete was required under rule14.5.5.2.10 to sit out one year of competition upon transfer, which he did.
The control and the double standard enabled by the NCAA legislation is intolerable. The balance of power needs to swing in the favor of the student athletes and their families - and, thus, serve both their athletic and academic interests.
TRAPPED
The present situation of men’s college hockey – certainly in Division I and increasingly in Division III – can be summed up with one word, “TRAPPED.”
The most severely TRAPPED are the players. Every good instinct competitors have – to be loyal to their team, to respect their coach, to do what is expected of them leads them into a TRAPPED situation, a situation with no escape. When a college coach tells a candidate that he must do a year of Juniors before joining his team, or with a growing number of coaches, a year of Juniors even to be considered, and even when the coach then requests a second year of Junior A, the player - loyal to his principles - feels obligated to accept these extensions. On occasions, college players, assured of admission after one year in Juniors and then after two, have then been told they do not measure up. Recently, a graduate of a fine New England prep school, President of his Class, a three-sport captain and an Advanced Placement student was told to do one year of Juniors, which he did with great success – and then he was told to do a second year. He rejected this and became a regular on the college team involved. He did not have to do that first year to meet the competition for admission or to play.
To carry on the TRAPPED theme, if a player at college finds himself not in his coach’s favor, an attempt to transfer to another college requires both serving one year of ineligibility and approval from the coach he is leaving. The coach and his institution have all the leverage – at times, players are informed that, although the college will honor the commitment of a scholarship, no more playing time will be available in the future. The player usually surrenders his scholarship and his place at an institution to search for options which will provide ice time. Trust, loyalty, dedication – all the qualities nurtured by fine educators – simply serve to enhance the TRAP surrounding young competitors.
Coaches, even with so much power to control, are TRAPPED. Creditable coaches are educators at their core. Certainly, most know that a year of Juniors or spending two years in Junior competition, does not serve the academic growth of a student athlete, but coaches must win to preserve their jobs. Having older players with greater experience can be a major factor towards creating a winning record. So, even a college coach who is a true educator, teaching the skills of hockey but knowingly teaching life skills, must surrender to a system which might serve the less than 1% of college hockey players who move on to the NHL but actually erodes the academic progress towards a degree which will serve the overwhelming majority of college hockey players in life. The system forces coaches into an avenue which violates the normal academic sequence serving the preparation of young men for successful careers once the skates are hung up, usually after graduation from college.
College Presidents: are they TRAPPED? Must their institutions continue to serve hockey programs devoted to winning at the expense of education? Do they accept the delay of a college education for the one purpose of having winning hockey teams? Is it possible for colleges to come together to create an escape for players and coaches from this TRAP? Are these leaders aware of the increasing penetration of Junior Hockey requirements into their admission processes – through Division I and now creeping through Division III programs?
Can an escape be forged from this TRAP?