Kent State's power broker
02/09/04
In her 14th year as president of Kent State University, Carol Cartwright has become an influential voice in college athletics.
As chair of the NCAA Executive Committee, Cartwright has helped shape policy on academic, ethical and financial issues that will affect student-athletes across the country. She also has assisted in creating a moral compass for college sports as a member of the Knight Commission, a well-respected group made up of mostly past and current university presidents. The commission has been a strong advocate and catalyst for NCAA reform since 1991.
Plain Dealer reporters Elton Alexander and Susan Vinella recently sat down with Cartwright to discuss her roles and the state of college athletics today. (Note: This interview has been edited for clarity and space.)
Q: How would you define the role and mission of the Knight Commission, a group you joined in 2000? Some describe it as a "thematic" or "visionary" group because, unlike the NCAA, it has no power to take action.
A: I would use the word lead ership and I would follow that closely with the word responsibility. . . . I think there was a very strong sense [by the Knight Commission] that you could take a leadership role on behalf of the mission of higher education and the quality of the student-athlete's experience by being a credible group outside of the NCAA that could be a catalyst, an advocate, an overseer.
Q: Do you think the Knight Commission has made an impact on college sports? Can you give an example or two of what it has done?
A: I think you can go back to the first Knight Commission [formed in 1989] where there was a clarion call for presidential leadership and presidential involvement in governance.
Now, [more than] 10 years out, with a new governance structure in place in the NCAA that is led by presidents in all divisions, you can say the Knight Commission made a very significant difference. Now, is it direct cause and effect? I don't know. But did they have a very significant role as a catalyst in restructuring the NCAA? Absolutely.
Q: Academic reform has been a major focus of the Knight Commission, particularly graduation rates of student athletes. What solutions have been discussed?
A: We have to look at the graduation rate metric, which doesn't match the way people go to school today. It's a federal reporting requirement that is out of alignment with patterns of participation with higher education in today's world.
When I went to college in the late '50s, early '60s, most people did go to one institution, stay four years and graduate. . . . In today's world . . . it's much more common to take a longer time to [get a] degree. It's also much more common to use multiple institutions to get the degree.
Q: How does that work against a school's graduation rate for student athletes?
A: Under [current NCAA grad uation rate] requirements, they only count full-time, first- time freshmen who stay at an institution all the way to a degree. Look at the academic success of our men's [basketball] team that went to the Elite Eight (in 2002). All four of those seniors graduated but we couldn't count [Demetric] Shaw because he started at Tulane. And Tulane couldn't count him either, even though he left in good academic standing. . . .
So what the NCAA is trying to do is create a different metric in terms of patterns of attending college and give credit for students who leave in good academic standing but give penalties for students who leave in poor academic standing.
Q: What about players who leave early for the pros? Schools complain that the early exit of those players counts against their graduation rates and shouldn't.
A: If they're in good academic standing, [a school] will get credit. But somebody who comes in only to showcase themselves briefly to go pro, is not going to stay continuously eligible.
Q: What do you think of Mau rice Clarett's lawsuit against the NFL to gain early entry into its draft? Do you think freshmen and sophomores should be allowed to leave college for the NFL?
A: We have to be realistic that there are professional sports out there, but we also have to look at the main mission of higher education . . . and how does the intercollegiate experience enhance the educational experience. I don't know what the right answer is to the specific question [about Clarett]. But I know we're going to have to weigh issues within that larger principle.
Q: Even with a new way to measure student-athlete graduation rates, do you expect low graduation rates to continue to remain a problem and a concern?
A: Absolutely. The goal is im proving graduation rates. But I'm cautioning against using the current federal metric as the only way to look at it.
Q: Student athlete welfare is also a big issue: Paying student athletes, long seasons, too many demands on a student athlete's time. What's happening on these issues?
A: The sense of the Division I [NCAA executive] board is to take seriously concerns about time commitments, about playing and practice schedules, the length of season, but not to be supportive of pay for play.
Q: Why not pay players a sti pend or wage?
A: Because then you're not en gaged in collegiate athletics. You're engaged in professional athletics.
Q: What about some Olympi ans who are paid but are considered amateurs?
A: I think this is one of those judgment calls that the Division I boards are likely to make.
Q: What do you think about the proposed legislation in California in which the state wants to pay college athletes the full cost of attendance, which would include money for books, emergency travel and some off- season medical expenses? Other states, such as Nebraska, have discussed paying for additional expenses, too.
A: I think there's some middle ground there. . . . Part of the concern is the gap between the grant-in-aid [athletic scholarships] and the full cost of attendance. The concept of the full cost of attendance is a financial aid concept that factors in living expenses, books, travel, as contrasted with [grant-in-aid], which factors in tuition, fees, room and board.
Q: So what you're saying is don't pay the players with stipends or wages but bridge the gap between scholarships and the full cost of going to school, with additional financial aid?
A: Yes, [pay for] what is al ready considered the legitimate cost of attendance. That's worked out on a formula to align with federal financial aid policies and requirements. So every institution calculates the full cost of attendance.
Q: And that money would come out of the athletic budget?
A: It would have to.
Q: How do you feel about that as president of Kent State?
A: I think we would look very carefully at supporting the concept and accommodating the cost. But it would have to be considered within the realities of budget resources. . . . We may not, within our budget resources, be able to meet the full cost, but if we have permission to go there, we might be able to move toward there.
Q: The NCAA would be giving permission, not mandating that, right?
A: Yes.
Q: Would you be at a competi tive disadvantage if you did not increase a student athlete's financial aid?
A: Yes, perhaps, but you have to then ask what really should be driving your decisions? Should it be student-athlete welfare or competitive disadvantage? . . . Even some very large institutions that are thought to have unlimited resources are very concerned about the realities of budget and would likely not move all the way.
Q: Do you ever feel conflicted as president of Kent State and a member of the Knight Commission on issues? For example, the Mid-American Conference, of which Kent is a member, was delighted when ESPN agreed to a national television package to broadcast MAC football games during the week. However, the Knight Commission is concerned that weekday football games can distract from the academic environment on college campuses, and it advocates curtailing them.
A: Anybody who goes on a commission like the Knight Commission, makes a commitment to represent more than their own institution. But in practical terms, you come at problems from the vantage point that you know best. While you acknowledge that the Pac-10 or the Big Ten might think differently . . . perhaps there is an education role for somebody who comes from the MAC to suggest that there are different models of intercollegiate athletics.
We spend about one-tenth of what Big Ten schools spend in athletic budgets, so we can demonstrate competitiveness with fewer resources and in that context maybe we are not, quote, "out of control," if we do a Thursday night [football] game on television.
Q: But the Knight Commis sion's argument is that weekday games take away from the academic focus, so wouldn't that be the same for everybody, no matter how big or small their athletic budget is?
A: That is part of the argu ment, whether or not you are distracting from a class schedule for the student athletes and for the fans. I think we would argue, with the type of student body that we have . . . and the geographic proximity in our conference, we're not creating a significant problem by having a Thursday night [football] game.
Q: What do you think of the NCAA rule that requires minimum attendance of 15,000 at football games for a school to retain its Division I-A status?
A: I don't think there was a full appreciation of the unintended consequences of some of the membership criteria. For example, there are really two different kinds of criteria. There is a set of things an institution can control and then there are items that an institution cannot control.
Q: Can you give examples of each?
A: The number of grants in aid, you have control over that. You either get there or you don't, and you ought to be in or out based on meeting those requirements. But fans in seats at games is a variable that you cannot directly control.
I don't believe the NCAA can weather the chaos of "ins and outs" over fans in seats. When you live in a crowded market and you deal with tough weather, you can be having a great season [in attendance] and you can end up your last two games with two Big Ten games in your neighborhood and you're plowing snow off the field, and guess what? Your [attendance] numbers crash.
So what do you do? An institution is in [Division I-A] one year, out the next, in the next year, out the next just because of that one variable? That doesn't make a lot of sense, especially with all of the other scheduling interconnections. They need all of us in order to play a full schedule.
Q: Do you think we'll see a football playoff in the near future?
A: My instinct - and this is no data at all - is that we'll get there over a course of a decade or so.
Q: Do you think football play offs would be good or bad?
A: Personally, I feel as if it could be quite exciting for college football.
To reach these Plain Dealer reporters:
svinella@plaind.com, 216-999-5010 and ealexander@plaind.com, 216-999-4253
|
/
C Cartwright interview re NCAA athletics
