Steve Chen & William Salazar. Morehead State University 2009 AAHPERD Convention Tampa, Florida NCAA 101: Institutional Control and Academic Integrity for.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
UCSC History. UCSC: A brief history 60s University Placement Committee A lot of field trips/interaction with employers.
Advertisements

Possible Transition from Division II to Division I The expected impacts to the University Presented jointly by the Presidents Office, Campus Life and Athletics.
NCAA Initial-Eligibility Requirements B ULLDOGGER A THLETIC D EPARTMENT dd 2/2014.
1. NCAA Division III Financial Aid Reporting Program and Self-Assessment 2012.
Introduction to the NCAA Amateurism Clearinghouse.
Limited Resource Institutions APP and Academic Certification Best Practices NCAA Regional Rules Seminar 2014 Eric Brey Quintin Wright Katy Yurk.
Grants & Scholarships Institutional Best Practices 1.
Developing a Gender Equity Action Plan Judith M. Sweet Former Senior Vice President for Championships and Education Services and Senior Woman Administrator.
 2009– LA Delta Initially Accredited by SACS  July 2010 – Tallulah & Lake Providence Consolidated with LA Delta  July 2012 – LA Delta & NELTC Legislatively.
Principle 2 Chancellor/President Oversight. January, 2009 A model Division II member institution’s Chancellor/ President sets forth a vision for the institution’s.
DEBRA G. KLINMAN, PH.D. ELLIE A. FOGARTY, ED.D. VICE PRESIDENTS, MSCHE Tips, Strategies, and Best Practices for Team Chairs.
DIVISION I GOVERNANCE UPDATE Brandy Hataway Kris Richardson 1.
PREPARING FOR SACS Neal E. Armstrong Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs July 13, 2004.
Current Status of the SWA within the NCAA Judith Sweet NCAA Senior Vice President for Championships and Education Services/ Senior Woman Administrator.
Oversight of Intercollegiate Athletics At Western Michigan University.
Orientation to the Accreditation Internal Evaluation (Self-Study) Flex Activity March 1, 2012 Lassen Community College.
APR Improvement Plans April 2014 Lindsey McDonnell Director of Certification Curriculum National Association for Athletics Compliance.
The Division II Model Athletics Department Tool Kit January, 2009.
 The Middle States Commission on Higher Education is a voluntary, non-governmental, membership association that is dedicated to quality assurance and.
Compliance and its Cast of Characters ~ Introductory Compliance Concepts for those with Auxiliary Roles Kimberli E. Bowman NCAA Membership Services.
Auburn University Athletics Compliance Program Susan Bazemore Krissy Ellis Bernard Hill Jamie Funk Diana Martin Rich McGlynn David Mines.
Conference USA Head Coaches Responsibility. What’s On Our Agenda Today? Rationale for rule change NCAA Bylaw Triggers of the Rule Promoting an.
What You Need to Know College Athletics. Tonight’s Agenda:  Provide information about college athletics  Help advise potential athletes and their families.
NCAA Division I Institutional Performance Program 2015 NCAA Regional Rules Seminar Supplement.
Admissions/Registrars & Athletics: How To Make It Work! Anthony Gallina, Coordinator, Undergraduate Admissions – Oakland University Christopher Goeth,
Purpose of this information  Review existing NCAA Initial-Eligibility Requirements at the Division I level  Cover new requirements that will be in implemented.
NCAA Eligibility Basics
NCAA Division III Compliance Concepts NCAA Division III Compliance Concepts2014.
NCAA DIVISION I ATHLETICS CERTIFICATION PROGRAM. The Purpose of Athletics Certification Athletics certification is meant to ensure the NCAA's fundamental.
Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics Report to the University Senate March 6, 2007.
BOSTON COLLEGE ATHLETICS DEPT. COMPLIANCE OFFICE Beginning of the Year Coaches Meeting August, 28, 2007.
Michigan State University Athletic Council Report January 27, 2015.
Principle 9 Academic Success. January, 2009 A model Division II athletics program shall be committed to the academic success of its student-athletes,
Athletics Certification Orientation. Orientation Overview Origin, Purpose and Benefits Committee Philosophy Second Cycle Issues Technology Athletics Certification.
Athletics Certification Orientation Presentation.
Dr. Constance Ray Vice President, Institutional Research, Planning, & Effectiveness.
A model Division II athletics program shall feature an environment where head coaches understand their responsibility in establishing a culture of compliance.
Principle 6 Coach’s Role. January, 2009 A model Division II athletics program shall feature an environment where head coaches understand their responsibility.
NCAA Athletics Certification Orientation. Overview Origin, Purpose and Benefits. Athletics Certification Process. Operating Principles. Measurable Standards.
Understanding New Legislation September A PSA may participate in institutional fundraisers prior to his or her initial collegiate enrollment provided.
Principle 4 FAR Involvement. January, 2009 A model Division II Member institution shall include the active involvement of the faculty athletics representative.
NCAA Working Group on the Collegiate Model – Rules Overview March 2012.
Kellianne Milliner, Assistant Athletics Director for Compliance, Academic and Student Services Terry Beattie, Associate Athletics Director for Facilities.
o Anticipated timeline. o Summary of the feedback thus far. o Examples of a few concepts. o Key points. o Successful Outcomes. page 3.
SACS Leadership Retreat 9/23/ Western Carolina University SACS Reaffirmation of Accreditation Frank Prochaska Executive Director, UNC Teaching.
2012 Middle States Accreditation Report Review Chapter 1: Institutional Excellence Standards 1 and 6.
External Review Team: Roles and Responsibilities A Very Brief Training! conducted by JoLynn Noe Office of Assessment.
Lynn Holzman Director of Academic and Membership Affairs, NCAA.
Accreditation Overview Winter 2016 Mallory Newell, Accreditation Liaison Office.
Accreditation Self-Study Progress Update Presentation to the SCCCD Board of Trustees Madera Center October 5, 2010 Tony Cantu, Fresno City College Marilyn.
The Faculty Athletics Committee Update Friday, December 7, 2012.
Evaluator Training Workshop March 1, 2012 Jeff Jordan Vice President for Student Life Seattle Pacific University.
Katie Willett Steve Clar.  Purpose of the Institutional Performance Program Data Management System.  Components of the IPP Data Management System. 
Overview of SACS-COC Reaffirmation Process Prepared for Reaffirmation Steering Committee April 10, 2006.
Initial Eligibility Presented by: Derek Fox Senior Assistant Director of Admission Rider University.
NCAA Athletics Certification Orientation. Purpose and Benefits.
NCAA Division III Institutional Performance Program Eric Hartung Nicole Hollomon Erin Irick.
EHRA Performance Evaluation
A Study of the Student-Athlete’s Academic Achievements: The Relationship Between Student-Athlete Academic Support Programs and Academic Progress Rate Dr.
SACSCOC Fifth-Year Readiness Audit
Athletics Certification Orientation
Trust, Accountability and Integrity: Board Responsibility for
Athletics Information for Recruited Varsity Student-Athletes
College bound Student-Athletes
Overview of the FEPAC Accreditation Process
Foothill College Accreditation Self-Study Update
2010 Regional Rules Seminar
Principle 4: FAR Involvement
Orientation to the Accreditation Internal Evaluation (Self-Study)
What Presidents Need to Know About Intercollegiate Athletics
Presentation transcript:

Steve Chen & William Salazar. Morehead State University 2009 AAHPERD Convention Tampa, Florida NCAA 101: Institutional Control and Academic Integrity for AN NCAA self-study

 Overview of the intercollegiate athletics  Issues and concerns of today’s intercollegiate sports  The need of the NCAA certification process  The procedures of the NCAA certification process  Sharing the best practices  Hands-on experience

Overview of Intercollegiate Athletics  A large component of the sport industry of North America  More than a 1280 colleges and universities offer intercollegiate sport  Despite some schools dropping programs, consumer attraction continues to grow  Paradoxical appeal—Collegiate athletics are exciting in nature but wrought with problems

 Academic fraud  Recruiting violations  A “Must Win at all cost” philosophy  Commercial and profit-driven  Substance abuse + deviant behaviors  Gender inequity  Diversity issues in coaching and recruiting  Other

Your Thoughts  In your opinion, is the popularity of intercollegiate sports in North America a healthy component for our educational system?

The basic purpose of this association is to maintain intercollegiate athletics as an integral part of the educational program and the athlete as an integral part of the student body and, by doing so, retain a clear line of demarcation between intercollegiate athletics and professional sports. (NCAA Manual) The Need of the NCAA Certification Process (I) Mission of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA):

The Need of the NCAA Certification Process (II) *At least seven sports for men and seven for women (or six for men and eight for women). At least two team sports for each gender. *Contest and participant minimums for each sport & scheduling criteria (both on and off the court) *Minimum and maximum financial aid awards for each sport. (NCAA Manual ) NCAA Division-I Athletic Programs

 Issues of NCAA financial issues  Dilemmas with the issue of amateurism  Conflicts in integrity and philosophy of the programs The Need of the NCAA Certification Process (III)

 Began in 1993 (5 years cycle)  Purpose to hold Division I institutions accountable for athletics operations.  Governance and rules compliance; academic integrity; fiscal integrity; equity, welfare, and sportsmanship  Eliminated fiscal operating principle for 2 nd cycle (1999).

 Self-awareness  Affirmation  Opportunities to improve Benefits

Step No. 2 Institution develops self- study report. Step No. 1 Orientation videoconference and institution begins self-study process (Sept-Nov). Report developed September - April Step No. 3 Self-study report submitted via ACS May 1, Step No. 4 NCAA staff liaison reviews report for preliminary issues. May 1 – June 30 Step No. 5 Full committee (CAC) reviews self-study report and approves issues. July 15 – August 15 Step No. 6 Institution has option to respond to CAC analysis.

Step No. 7 Peer-review team conducts campus visit (Sept 15 – Dec) and writes report on Web- based system September 15 - December Step No. 8 Peer-review team report styled at NCAA office. October - January Step No. 10 CAC deliberates and issues a final decision for all institutions. Step No. 9 PRT report sent to the president or chancellor for response on Web-based system February 2008

 18 members College presidents (N = 4) Athletics administrators (N = 10) Faculty athletics representatives (N = 2) Conference administrators (N = 2) From the NCAA: Committee on Athletics Certification

Assist institutions in identifying mechanisms to ensure intercollegiate athletics programs are operating to their fullest potential.

“Players” in Certification Maximum of four members. Chaired by a president or chancellor whenever possible. Random selection approved by committee. Will not include peer-reviewers with potential conflicts of interest. A Typical Peer-Review Team

Verifying A ccuracy of the self-study. Verifying B road-based participation. Evaluating C onformity with the operating principles. Responsible for:

 Steering Committee  Self-Study Subcommittees  Campus Liaison  Chief Report Writer  NCAA staff  Student-Athlete & Student Government Representatives From the Reviewed Institution: Other Players in Certification

 Certified  Certified with Conditions  Not Certified Three Levels of Responses:

 Clarifies expectations for each operating principle.  Brings more consistency to the process.  Used by institutions, NCAA staff, peer- review teams and the committee.

 Stand-alone and in writing  Broad-based campus participation  Issues/problems  Measurable goals  Steps to achieve the goals  Specific timetable(s)  Individuals/offices responsible for carrying out the specific actions  Institutional approval

 The Steering Committee & Subcommittees: Governance and Rules Compliance  9 members Academic Integrity  9 members Equity and Student Athlete Welfare  8 members

 Foci of AI Subcommittee: 2 Operating Principles: Standards & Support Previous strikes (first cycle) Admission process  Standards  Differences Clarification of eligibility  Initial stage  Continual stage Graduation rates

 Foci of AI: (Continued) Publications of academic standards and policies  Location  Clarity Monitoring athletes’ missed class time Scheduling and practice time Support in tutoring, advising, & skill training  Availability  Consistency

 Based on 2 operating principles Academic Standards:  6 points  Policies, graduation rates & evaluations Academic Support:  7 points  Program availability, communication, special needs, and review

 Inconsistent standards  Deficiency of athletes’ graduation rates  Gender and ethnic inequities  Lack of appropriate records  Insufficient support in academics, tutoring, career finding, etc.  Inconsistency in communication

CategoryAdmission Scores Graduation Rate Ethnicity Male (Overall) Male (Athletes) Female (Overall) Female (Athletes)

Program AreaScholarshipEvaluation Issueslow numbers for women Lack of records Measurable Goals Steps to Achieve Person in Charge Timetable

Athletics Certification  Questions?