Pepperdine’s athletic director addresses new NCAA rules that may come under the scrutiny of Congress.
By Joann Groff
Assistant Sports Editor
Bob Timmons is a man of dreams. He has held a vision in his head for almost 40 years, and despite little progress, is as passionate about his convictions now as he was as a young track and field coach at the University of Kentucky.
Timmons is the author of the recently released National Collegiate Athletic Association Student Athletes’ Bill of Rights. He’s been pushing for fairer treatment of student athletes under NCAA ruling, and to increase equality between students and athletes in the university system.
Timmons’ Bill of Rights encompasses 10 rights that he thinks will solidify the student athlete focus of the NCAA. Addressing limited amounts of practice time, work hours and years of eligibility, among other things, Timmons says he wants a change, and he will stop at nothing to get it.
Serving in an assistant coaching position for only one year before being promoted to head coach, Timmons said that his experience helped him to realize the troubles that exist in the current NCAA system.
“Things started happening from the moment I started coaching at KU in 1964,” Timmons said. “I noticed from the very beginning that there are lots of things that take place that somehow restrict participation opportunities and welfare in different ways.”
Athletic Director Dr. John Watson has read the Bill of Rights, and although he sees many good points and acknowledges Timmons’ good intent, states he doesn’t think such a drastic change is necessary.
The athletic department at Pepperdine does not see the need for such an amendment to the rules that the NCAA already possesses.
“I think (Timmons) is sincere about his interests and his experiences, but the NCAA is its member organizations,” Watson said. “It’s not an organization that dictates to everybody else. The members are in charge of the NCAA. Each institution, when they decide they want to be involved, they agree to certain guidelines, and it works.”
Timmons said he thinks the spotlight has been taken off the athlete, and that his bill of rights is an attempt to recreate that focus.
“I think that it would be sad if he was suggesting, and I don’t think he is, but if he was, suggesting that the student athlete doesn’t come first,” Watson said. “Let’s face it, if it’s not about the student athlete, then why do we exist?”
Right No. 2 in the bill describes the current penalty system held by the NCAA, and is the reason Timmons got involved in this effort. He wants the rule to clearly protect all athletes not directly involved in a NCAA violation to be free from suspension in post-season play. Oftentimes an entire team is punished, or a university is sanctioned because of the actions of a few team members.
“Post-season is the highest level of play an athlete can go in the NCAA,” Timmons said. “If that’s taken away, in some cases, that athlete or his or her team may have only qualified that one time. It may have been their only opportunity of their life, and now its down the drain because of what someone else did.”
Watson said he understands that in some cases it may seem unfair, but the NCAA rules that oftentimes sanction an entire institution are set for a reason.
“If you don’t have consequences to a violation of the rules, then who’s going to follow them?” Watson said. “Who are you going to hold responsible, except the institution? I think there has got to be rules, and people need to be held accountable to them.”
Timmons argues back that if one person makes a bad decision, that person and that person only should be punished.
“If a student athlete or a group of them have been caught breaking NCAA regulations, I think they should be punished to the extent of the infraction,” Timmons said. “If the university breaks a rule, it should be a monetary punishment. Punish the guilty and protect the innocent.”
Timmons’ concerns also lie in the fact that athletes are limited to as how much financial aid they can receive.
“There is money being taken away because they are only allowed a certain percentage,” Timmons said. “The rest is taken away by the school — a government grant taken away by the school.”
Watson says he’s got it all wrong. Athletes at Pepperdine on scholarship cannot allow their financial grants to put them over the limit of room and board, tuition expenses and $500 in fees. If they are awarded more than that cap, they are given all of their financial assistance money, none is confiscated, but their scholarship is decreased.
“It’s all in an attempt to stop schools from buying athletes,” Watson said. “It’s so that the scholarship does not exceed what their academic needs are to be at that institution. It meets their living expenses and their educational expenses — and that’s all it’s supposed to do.”
A major debate within the bill of rights is the rule regarding non- and partial-qualifiers. When students perform less than adequately in high school on standardized testing or grades, they may be considered non- or partial-qualifiers. These student athletes are not permitted to participate in sports their freshman year of college, but after proving themselves academically, begin competing their sophomore year. The only way to regain that lost year is to graduate in four years, and take their fourth year of eligibility after they graduate.
“As a partial qualifier, you come in, and you get your feet firmly in foundation and you succeed academically, then you can participate after that first year,” Watson said. “If you stay on track, graduate in four years, you can get that year of eligibility back at the end of that time.”
Timmons said he thinks this puts added stress on an already struggling student, and a monitoring process should take place in which student athletes that are doing well, but may still not graduate in four years, can still participate.
“When they are already struggling, why don’t we increase their load?” he said. “If they pull in the grades the first year, and continue to, give them the year. Isn’t education about opportunity, and building character … or discriminating against them for not being great students?”
Watson does, however, see where there could be a discrepancy in the rule when athletes attend a school where it is impossible to graduate in a four-year period.
“I think that’s a fair question to raise. To have a rule in place that a student can’t achieve is unfair. A coach can kind of side-step the schedule — some don’t graduate them deliberately to keep them academically eligible. I don’t have any sympathy for that. But if the institution doesn’t provide an opportunity for that student to graduate in four years, then that’s different.”
He says that rather than changing the system for instances like that, perhaps establishing an appeals process would be a good option for institutions facing difficulties.
One of Timmons’ other major arguments is the limitations on organized practice time. The NCAA mandates that athletes can only practice with a coach for 20 hours a week in season and eight out of season.
“If you don’t set limitations on practice time, several things could happen,” Watson said. “First of all, you could seriously injure somebody. You are certainly going to have an impact on academics, or at least the potential of having more success academically. You don’t want to make that whole life of that student athlete focused totally on athletics.”
Timmons thinks that there are certain instances in which athletes should be able to show grades and apply for extra practice time with a coach. He uses the example of those that desire to pursue an Olympic career.
Timmons said athletes often say: “If I had more time to practice, I could be in the Olympics.”
There have been instances of athletes dropping out of college to avoid those restrictions.
“As far as Olympians, they make up maybe 1 percent of the student athlete population,” Watson said. “To make a proposal that affects the needs of that 1 percent, seems to me to be potentially harmful to the other 99 percent. It carries it too far.”
Watson points out that there are many ways an athlete can practice on their own without violating NCAA policy. For example, a basketball player could run or lift weights on his own, or even shoot around with teammates as long as no one from the coaching staff is present.
“A coach can suggest a workout schedule for an athlete, and it’s certainly been done,” Watson said. “The reason for the restrictions is less about the academic experience — it’s the social experience, the growth involved in the college experience. College for a student athlete should not be just about athletics and academics.”
Timmons’ Right No. 7 disagrees with the NCAA’s restriction on amount of time athletes are permitted to work. This is currently up for review, and will be addressed this summer. Watson said amending that regulation individually is a good idea, but again, the whole bill of rights is not necessary to amend this rule.
Timmons obviously disagrees, and believes that each right on the list is crucial to the development and existence of collegiate athletics.
“I don’t know what they are going to do to be honest,” Timmons said. “They might pick up a point or two, make several changes, but it’s doubtful they will take it in its entirety. I think it’s such an enormous organization, I don’t think there are many opportunities for a single individual or sports associations, except football or basketball and the Black Coaches Association, those three have been recognized. They’ve had some things they’ve presented and been passed, but my feeling is that a lot of the others are kind of waved off.”
His solution is for the “so-called non-revenue sports,” to combine their efforts and present the bill of rights within a National Coaches Association.
“I think the press would listen and get the ear of the NCAA,” Timmons said.
He plans to present the bill of rights to the National Coaches Association in December so that the wheels can be set in motion.
“Down the road I can see football and basketball for men, six or eight sports for women and the rest becoming club sports,” Timmons said. “If this isn’t seriously considered and passed, it will kill college athletics and have a major negative affect on the Olympic efforts.”
Timmons insists that he isn’t an “NCAA hater,” but sees changes that need to be made, and thinks that the focus should be put back on the students.
Pepperdine has a student advisory committee, as do many schools across the nation, but Timmons pointed out that they don’t have a vote in the NCAA regulations. Even if they did, Timmons backtracked and said “the students in these committees aren’t pushing for what they should be anyways.”
Timmons will try again to pas the bill after almost 40 years of revisions and presentations. If he is met with the same lack of enthusiasm as he has in the past, he claims he’ll take it all the way.
“Let’s say this won’t happen,” he said. “I get the feeling that it’s too long and too complicated for them to go for it. I would hate to do this, but the only answer is to take this to Congress. I don’t think that they should have to be in on this at all. But on the other hand I don’t intend to give up. I’ve spun my wheels since 1966, I think there are some pertinent points here, especially for the retired coach who hasn’t worked in an NCAA team since 1988.”
A smile crept across Watson’s face at the mention of Timmons trying to take this to Congress.
“I don’t disagree with the intent he brings forward, I just don’t think it’s necessary,” Watson said. “I don’t think they’ll think it’s necessary either.”
November 07, 2002