14.01.2013 Views

The NCAA News

The NCAA News

The NCAA News

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

n Comment<br />

Editor-in-&ii<br />

P. David Pickle<br />

Managing &or<br />

Jack 1. Copeland<br />

Assistant adii<br />

Vikki K. Watson<br />

Ediil and<br />

odv&ising as&ant<br />

Ronald D. Man<br />

<strong>The</strong> <strong>NCAA</strong> <strong>News</strong><br />

17 Guest didal<br />

<strong>The</strong> Comment sec-<br />

tion of <strong>The</strong> <strong>NCAA</strong><br />

<strong>News</strong> is offered as a<br />

page of opinion. <strong>The</strong><br />

views do not necessar-<br />

ily represent a con-<br />

sensus of the <strong>NCAA</strong><br />

membership.<br />

Current eligibility rule<br />

serves as a motivator<br />

BychfistopherB.Ms<br />

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, KNK;Hl FOUNDATION<br />

COMMISSION ON IlWERCOLlEGlAlE ATHLETICS<br />

<strong>The</strong> recent commentary by Alonzo Free-<br />

man (<strong>The</strong> <strong>NCAA</strong> <strong>News</strong>, November 14) is a<br />

remarkably eloquent and inspiring account of<br />

one young man’s struggle to overcome a bit-<br />

ter, personal disappointment and replace it<br />

with a dream. His life, it seems, is a patent<br />

rejection of Herbert Spencer’s theory that<br />

“once you fail, you’re down for good.”<br />

Mr. Freeman’s goal of graduation from<br />

Arkansas State University is applaudable and<br />

worthy of our support and encouragement;<br />

however, his proposal for an extta year of eli-<br />

gibility for “partial qualifiers” is not Under<br />

the current system, the fourth year of eligibili-<br />

ty selves as an important means of motivating<br />

prospective student-athletes during their sec-<br />

ondary-school years. Changing this rule<br />

would send a very wrong message.<br />

A fair and viable solution to Mr. Freeman’s<br />

dilemma can be found in the first report of<br />

the Knight Foundation Commission on Inter-<br />

collegiate Athletics, “Keeping Faith with the<br />

Student-Athlete.” Among other recommenda-<br />

tions, Knight Commission members offered<br />

this alternative:<br />

“Athletics scholarships should be offered<br />

for a five-year period. In light of the time<br />

demands of athletics competition, we believe<br />

that athletics scholarship assistance routinely<br />

should cover the time required to complete<br />

the degree, up to a maximum of five years.<br />

Moreover, the initial offer to the student-ath-<br />

lete should be for the length of time required<br />

to earn a degree up to five years, not the sin-<br />

gle year now mandated by <strong>NCAA</strong> rules. <strong>The</strong><br />

only athletics condition under which the five-<br />

year commitment could be broken would be<br />

if the student refused to participate in the<br />

sport for which the grant-in-aid was offered.<br />

Otbexwise, aid should continue as long as the<br />

student-athlete remains in good standing at<br />

the institution.”<br />

This approach retains the “fourth year” as<br />

a motivational tool for precollege preparation<br />

while removing a major hurdle from the path<br />

of the “partial qualifier” who is intent upon<br />

college graduation.<br />

What better way for Arkansas State<br />

University to honor the hard work and deter-<br />

mination of Alonzo Freeman than to draft<br />

legislation based upon this recommendation<br />

and submit it for consideration at the 1996<br />

<strong>NCAA</strong> Convention? What better way for all of<br />

us to “keep faith” with our student-athletes<br />

and our educational principles than to sup<br />

port this legislation next January?<br />

More skill instruction desirable<br />

Current <strong>NCAA</strong> legislation (Bylaw<br />

17.5.5.2) limits a student-athlete’s par-<br />

ticipation in strength and conditioning<br />

activities to a total of eight hours per<br />

week outside the playing and practice<br />

season.<br />

In addition, student-athletes are not<br />

permitted to participate in such activi-<br />

ties for more than two hours per day<br />

and must receive one complete day off.<br />

A proposal by the Atlantic Coast<br />

Conference (No. 20 in the Official<br />

Notice for the 1995 Convention) seeks<br />

to amend the current rule to include<br />

individual skill development sessions.<br />

Specifically, this proposal would allow<br />

coaches to supervise student-athletes in<br />

sport-specific skill training during not<br />

more than two of the eight hours cur-<br />

rently permitted for strength and con-<br />

ditioning activities. (This proposal also<br />

would limit these skill sessions to two<br />

student-athletes at any one time.)<br />

In effect, this would leave six hours<br />

for strength and conditioning activities.<br />

<strong>The</strong> rationale for this proposal is that<br />

student-athletes want to improve their<br />

abilities in their particular sport rather<br />

than spend extra time on strength and<br />

conditioning.<br />

<strong>The</strong>re is no question that perfecting<br />

sports-specific skills will have a greater<br />

impact on a student-athlete’s perfor-<br />

mance than either strength training or<br />

conditioning activities. <strong>The</strong> question<br />

then becomes, “Is six hours per week<br />

enough time to produce improvements<br />

in muscular strength and cardiovascu-<br />

lar conditioning?”<br />

Science has been unable to discover<br />

one strength and conditioning method<br />

that is superior to another. Research has<br />

0 Opinions<br />

cl LetBer<br />

shown only that there are a variety of<br />

methods that can increase muscular<br />

strength and cardiovascular ability. One<br />

of the greatest misconceptions in the<br />

strength and conditioning profession is<br />

that an increase in the volume of the<br />

activity produces better results. <strong>The</strong> truth<br />

is that more isn’t necessarily better when<br />

it comes to strength and conditioning<br />

activities.<br />

<strong>The</strong> most important factor in deter-<br />

mining the response from strength and<br />

conditioning activities is the student-ath-<br />

lete’s level of intensity or effort. An<br />

inverse relationship exists between<br />

intensity and the duration of the activ-<br />

ity: As the time of an activity increases,<br />

the level of intensity decreases. Stated<br />

otherwise, a student-athlete cannot train<br />

at a high level of intensity for long peri-<br />

ods of time.<br />

Essentially, the primary purpose of<br />

strength and conditioning activities is<br />

to reduce a student-athlete’s risk of<br />

injury. Six hours of time each week is<br />

more than enough to prepare a student-<br />

athlete for the rigors of competition. A<br />

number of different possibilities exist<br />

to schedule strength and conditioning<br />

activities during a weekly six-hour time<br />

frame. For example, a productive one-<br />

hour strength training workout can be<br />

performed three times per week on<br />

nonconsecutive days (for example,<br />

Monday, Wednesday and Friday) and a<br />

one-hour conditioning session can be<br />

done on alternate days (for example,<br />

Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday).<br />

Limiting strength-training workouts<br />

and conditioning sessions to one hour<br />

has an important physiological basis.<br />

Carbohydrates are the body’s preferred<br />

fuel source during intense exercise.<br />

Most individuals exhaust their carbo-<br />

hydrate stores after about one hour of<br />

intense exercise. As such, both strength<br />

training and conditioning sessions<br />

should be limited to one hour.<br />

Strength and conditioning activities<br />

should emphasize the quality of the<br />

workout rather than the quantity of the<br />

workout. <strong>The</strong> most efficient program is<br />

one that produces the maximum possi-<br />

ble results in the least amount of time.<br />

Coaches who insist, encourage or<br />

coerce their student-athletes to invest<br />

excessive amounts of time in strength<br />

and conditioning activities beyond that<br />

which is needed to strengthen the mus<br />

culoskeletal system against injury are<br />

providing a tremendous disservice to<br />

them.<br />

A six-hour restriction on strength and<br />

conditioning activities will encourage<br />

strength coaches to finally let go of the<br />

traditional competitive-weightlifting-<br />

inspired programming and seek more<br />

practical and time-efficient methods for<br />

training their student-athletes. Rather<br />

than waste inordinate amounts of time<br />

in the weight room learning absolutely<br />

useless competitive weightlifting skills,<br />

student-athletes will have more time to<br />

practice and perfect sportsspecific skills<br />

that will be used in their competition.<br />

Matt Brzycki<br />

Coordinator of Health Fitness,<br />

Strength and Conditioning Programs<br />

Princeton Univexsity<br />

Suit brought more exposures, less money<br />

James Frank, commissioner<br />

Southwestern Athletic Conference<br />

Former <strong>NCAA</strong> president<br />

New Orleans limes-Picayune<br />

“(W)hen Oklahoma and Georgia sued the <strong>NCAA</strong> on prop<br />

etty rights and accused the <strong>NCAA</strong> of being a monopoly, (that)<br />

ultimately did away with the <strong>NCAA</strong> television plan as we knew<br />

it When it got to the Supreme Court, they ultimately ruled in<br />

favor of the people who sued the <strong>NCAA</strong>, and that changed<br />

the television situation forever. I will go to my grave believ-<br />

ing it was greed - the Oklahomas and Ceorgias of this world<br />

felt that if they were not governed by the <strong>NCAA</strong> in terms of<br />

television, they’d be on television every week, and they’d get<br />

all those rights fees. <strong>The</strong>y got on television a little bit more,<br />

but the rights fees dropped, and they’re still not getting what<br />

they were getting 10 years ago.”<br />

Coackiyl<br />

George Raveling, former men’s basketball coach<br />

Universi d Souhm California<br />

10s Ange 7 es limes<br />

“<strong>The</strong> most fun in coaching I ever had was when I was at<br />

Washington State, because there was a different set of cir-<br />

cumstances. <strong>The</strong> rules were different, the kids were different<br />

and the expectations were different. It was just fun to coach<br />

then. You really were a coach then. Today, it is coach, slash-<br />

slash-slash-slash. Coaching is the easiest part Now, you have<br />

to deal with so many other things, from <strong>NCAA</strong> rules changes<br />

to public relations....<br />

“If my son (Mark) came up to me and asked me whether<br />

he should get into coaching or not, I would tell him, ‘Don’t<br />

do it’ <strong>The</strong> reason is that everything is so much different today.<br />

People only care if you win, and unfortunately, the real vic-<br />

tories come off the court Seeing a kid grow like (the University<br />

of Southern California’s) Mark Boyd, who had never slept in<br />

his own bed until he got here. To see him grow from a boy<br />

to a man, those are the real victories.”<br />

kmy Switzer, coach<br />

Dollas cowboys<br />

<strong>The</strong> B&more Sun<br />

On the differences between colbge and professional coaching:<br />

“It’d take two hours to talk about that. I’d first start with<br />

(dealing with) the <strong>NCAA</strong>. I can start with 120 players vs. 50.<br />

I can start with every crisis and personal problem an athlete<br />

has (in college), he comes to see me. He doesn’t waIk through<br />

my door to say, ‘Coach, I made an A on my test’, or ‘how’s<br />

your day going.’ He comes in there with a problem I’ve got<br />

to deal with.<br />

“<strong>The</strong>re’s tremendous pressure day to day, academics, I can<br />

go on and on and on. I don’t even want to talk about it. But,<br />

hey, I don’t have those problems here. I’m only dealing with<br />

50 (players), they’re professionals and it’s ajob for them.”<br />

Mike Lopresti, columnist<br />

Gannet/ <strong>News</strong> Service<br />

“It remains...a harsh land out there for the men in the head-<br />

phones. <strong>The</strong> popular outcry of anguish these days is over the<br />

lack of a playoff, as if this besmirches the game. But much<br />

more embarrassing for major college football is what has<br />

happened to the job of coaching it<br />

“Fed by inane call-in shows, fueled by ridiculous expecta-<br />

tion, flamed by media, this fire is out of control. We talk of<br />

honesty and integrity, but reward only victory.”<br />

Anson Dorrance, women’s soccer coach<br />

University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill<br />

Chicago Tribune<br />

“In athletics you want to win forever, you want constant<br />

renewal. Flowers remind you of the ephemeral quality of suc-<br />

cess. You must remember what it took to get you there.<br />

Flowers die shortly and it’s the same in athletics. You must<br />

recommit yourself.”

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!