aceinthehole
June 1st, 2014, 01:45 PM
The AD: Paul Schlickmann, Central Connecticut State - Searching For The Middle Ground
It is my hope that we have the wherewithal and the good sense to maintain all the wonderful aspects of a culture that provides lifetime experiences for student-athletes.
May 31, 2014|By PAUL C. SCHLICKMAN
Special To The Courant, The Hartford Courant
Schlickmann has been Director of Athletics at Central Connecticut State University since 2010. Before that, he was Executive Associate AD at Stony Brook University for seven years and spent 10 years in senior administrative roles at Yale University, rising to Associate AD for sports administration and football operations. He got his start in college athletics as an assistant basketball coach at Worcester State College, where he spent two years before accepting a graduate assistant coaching position at Springfield College. Schlickmann is a graduate of Trinity College where he was a student-athlete on the men's basketball team.
-----
Courant reporter Mike Anthony approached me about participating in a series of articles about the notion of paying college student-athletes. He asked me to respond to the question: Should Division I college athletes be paid? I accepted this offer and challenge humbly and enthusiastically.
This is overtly a simple question that can be answered with one word. Taken literally, the easy philosophical answer for me is no. If the concept of paying student-athletes means they become an employee of the institution and receive a salary/wage/stipend (choose the operative word) in exchange for their work/services/tasks, I believe that model has no place in college sports, and I believe it is antithetical to the inherent value and mission of intercollegiate athletics participation.
I was raised on the philosophy of mens sana in corpore sano. The notion of a sound mind in a sound body was instilled in me by my father. The value of athletics participation and competition has been inextricably linked to my formal and informal educational experiences from grammar school to graduate school. I experienced the life and dream of being a student-athlete at Trinity College, right here in Hartford, and it set the course for my professional pursuits. It is at the core of not only who I am as a director of athletics, but why I chose this career path. I am passionate about intercollegiate athletics and believe in the inherent value it has for the institution and how it contributes to the positive personal development of young men and women. I believe the meaningful lessons learned and relationships forged on the field of play last a lifetime. Therefore, the concept of being paid to participate in college athletics is antithetical to me personally and professionally.
The vast majority of student-athletes participate in athletics because it is part of who they are. They love their sport, they love to compete, and they want to play at the highest level. They believe in the inherent good that exists in sport, play for the love of the game and a dream to play college sports and represent their chosen institution. For 99% of student-athletes, the highest level is college sports, not professional sports.
As the director of athletics at CCSU, I believe wholeheartedly that our athletics program provides those opportunities and is very much a part of the educational enterprise of the university. We endeavor to lead a department that competes and succeeds at the highest level while adhering to a philosophy that college athletics is an integral component of the campus culture, complementing the university's mission and strategic plan. I believe our objective is to provide young men and women with a positive educational experience through the vehicle of athletics, espousing core values of academic excellence, competitive success and community engagement. We strive to develop student-athletes into champions; in the classroom, in competition, in the community and ultimately in life. If you noticed, the concept of "paying" student-athletes is not part of the philosophy or equation. That notion is largely foreign to our level of Division I (the FCS level), our brethren in the Northeast Conference and peer conferences. All that being said, this is a multi-faceted, complex topic that has incited debate and discussion among college athletics leaders, the media and yes, student-athletes, based on the current climate in Division I college athletics. As leaders in the profession and as members of that subdivision, we are obligated to engage in discussion and contribute to the long term benefit of Division I athletics.
Juxtapose those realities with the notion that Division I student-athletes are not being treated in a manner commensurate with those riches (real or perceived) and you have the tempest that is currently brewing in Division I college athletics. These perceived inequities are highlighted by such high profile cases as The O'Bannon Case and the effort at Northwestern University to unionize players on the football team. These highly visible topics have given momentum to a movement by the Power 5 FBS conferences to gain greater autonomy in the NCAA legislative process that will allow them to allocate resources in a less restrictive manner. One aspect of the movement is the debate about whether Division I student-athletes should be paid or "get their share of the perceived pie" for representing their schools. The truth is we are wading in unchartered waters. College athletics administrators at all levels of Division I are sorting through a proposed, revamped NCAA governance structure that will be voted on by the NCAA Board in August. The results of that vote and the structure put in place will have a dramatic impact.
The consensus among athletics administrators seems to be that while the "pay for play" or "student-athlete as employee" model is not one that is philosophically or practically preferred, there is a pragmatic need to address some type of additional monetary award for student-athletes on full scholarships. If passed, this legislation would likely be permissive in nature, allowing institutions and/or conferences the autonomy to implement.
In NCAA legislative parlance, this has been called the Miscellaneous Expense Allowance, an additional value added to a full scholarship purportedly to cover (and not exceed) the cost of attendance. The move to the MEA would be a change in the NCAA rules to permit student-athletes to receive the same level of funding that all other students are entitled to obtain via federal regulations. During the past year and a half, the MEA has been proposed, voted in, voted out via override and is now making its way back to the top of the legislative agenda with a very real chance of being implemented for Division I in some form. The reality for our program at Central and I believe the majority of Division I member institutions (those in the non-Power 5 FBS, FCS and IAAA) is that the implementation of this model is at best significantly cost challenging and more than likely cost prohibitive to implement across the board.
So, where do we go from here? Drawing upon my core beliefs, I believe there is exceptional value (both monetary and inherent, tangible and intangible) to the benefits a student-athlete gets by receiving an athletics scholarship. The model of college athletics that exists today enables 460,000 student-athletes across 1,100 schools to compete while getting a college degree. About 15 percent of all Division I student-athletes are first generation college students and more than eight out of 10 Division I student-athletes earn degrees. Many of these student-athletes would not be able to attend college if not for the athletics scholarship (Information from the NCAA office of communications).
In the bigger picture, if NCAA Division I members continue to profess our objective is to provide student-athletes with a positive, healthy educational experience, then we are obligated to engage in the process and the debate, most importantly to assess what it is we can do better for them, our most important constituents. The majority of NCAA Division I schools are non-FBS institutions (the total of FCS and IAAA institutions comprise a majority of Division I). As such, it is incumbent upon us to articulate and negotiate an effective middle ground that protects our philosophical approach and acknowledges our financial limitations, yet maintains our ability to exist and thrive in a mutually beneficial NCAA Division I structure.
There is no denying the world of Division I college athletics is approaching a watershed moment. I love college athletics and the inherent good that exists in its fabric. Regardless of the outcome of the new governance structure, to the legislative process and whether it is determined that student-athletes should receive an additional monetary award, it is my hope that we have the wherewithal and the sense to maintain all the wonderful aspects of a culture that provides lifetime experiences for student-athletes and electric, prideful atmospheres for campuses that are unmatched.
http://articles.courant.com/2014-05-31/sports/hc-college-pay-ad-voice-0601-20140531_1_college-sports-student-athletes-college-athletics
It is my hope that we have the wherewithal and the good sense to maintain all the wonderful aspects of a culture that provides lifetime experiences for student-athletes.
May 31, 2014|By PAUL C. SCHLICKMAN
Special To The Courant, The Hartford Courant
Schlickmann has been Director of Athletics at Central Connecticut State University since 2010. Before that, he was Executive Associate AD at Stony Brook University for seven years and spent 10 years in senior administrative roles at Yale University, rising to Associate AD for sports administration and football operations. He got his start in college athletics as an assistant basketball coach at Worcester State College, where he spent two years before accepting a graduate assistant coaching position at Springfield College. Schlickmann is a graduate of Trinity College where he was a student-athlete on the men's basketball team.
-----
Courant reporter Mike Anthony approached me about participating in a series of articles about the notion of paying college student-athletes. He asked me to respond to the question: Should Division I college athletes be paid? I accepted this offer and challenge humbly and enthusiastically.
This is overtly a simple question that can be answered with one word. Taken literally, the easy philosophical answer for me is no. If the concept of paying student-athletes means they become an employee of the institution and receive a salary/wage/stipend (choose the operative word) in exchange for their work/services/tasks, I believe that model has no place in college sports, and I believe it is antithetical to the inherent value and mission of intercollegiate athletics participation.
I was raised on the philosophy of mens sana in corpore sano. The notion of a sound mind in a sound body was instilled in me by my father. The value of athletics participation and competition has been inextricably linked to my formal and informal educational experiences from grammar school to graduate school. I experienced the life and dream of being a student-athlete at Trinity College, right here in Hartford, and it set the course for my professional pursuits. It is at the core of not only who I am as a director of athletics, but why I chose this career path. I am passionate about intercollegiate athletics and believe in the inherent value it has for the institution and how it contributes to the positive personal development of young men and women. I believe the meaningful lessons learned and relationships forged on the field of play last a lifetime. Therefore, the concept of being paid to participate in college athletics is antithetical to me personally and professionally.
The vast majority of student-athletes participate in athletics because it is part of who they are. They love their sport, they love to compete, and they want to play at the highest level. They believe in the inherent good that exists in sport, play for the love of the game and a dream to play college sports and represent their chosen institution. For 99% of student-athletes, the highest level is college sports, not professional sports.
As the director of athletics at CCSU, I believe wholeheartedly that our athletics program provides those opportunities and is very much a part of the educational enterprise of the university. We endeavor to lead a department that competes and succeeds at the highest level while adhering to a philosophy that college athletics is an integral component of the campus culture, complementing the university's mission and strategic plan. I believe our objective is to provide young men and women with a positive educational experience through the vehicle of athletics, espousing core values of academic excellence, competitive success and community engagement. We strive to develop student-athletes into champions; in the classroom, in competition, in the community and ultimately in life. If you noticed, the concept of "paying" student-athletes is not part of the philosophy or equation. That notion is largely foreign to our level of Division I (the FCS level), our brethren in the Northeast Conference and peer conferences. All that being said, this is a multi-faceted, complex topic that has incited debate and discussion among college athletics leaders, the media and yes, student-athletes, based on the current climate in Division I college athletics. As leaders in the profession and as members of that subdivision, we are obligated to engage in discussion and contribute to the long term benefit of Division I athletics.
Juxtapose those realities with the notion that Division I student-athletes are not being treated in a manner commensurate with those riches (real or perceived) and you have the tempest that is currently brewing in Division I college athletics. These perceived inequities are highlighted by such high profile cases as The O'Bannon Case and the effort at Northwestern University to unionize players on the football team. These highly visible topics have given momentum to a movement by the Power 5 FBS conferences to gain greater autonomy in the NCAA legislative process that will allow them to allocate resources in a less restrictive manner. One aspect of the movement is the debate about whether Division I student-athletes should be paid or "get their share of the perceived pie" for representing their schools. The truth is we are wading in unchartered waters. College athletics administrators at all levels of Division I are sorting through a proposed, revamped NCAA governance structure that will be voted on by the NCAA Board in August. The results of that vote and the structure put in place will have a dramatic impact.
The consensus among athletics administrators seems to be that while the "pay for play" or "student-athlete as employee" model is not one that is philosophically or practically preferred, there is a pragmatic need to address some type of additional monetary award for student-athletes on full scholarships. If passed, this legislation would likely be permissive in nature, allowing institutions and/or conferences the autonomy to implement.
In NCAA legislative parlance, this has been called the Miscellaneous Expense Allowance, an additional value added to a full scholarship purportedly to cover (and not exceed) the cost of attendance. The move to the MEA would be a change in the NCAA rules to permit student-athletes to receive the same level of funding that all other students are entitled to obtain via federal regulations. During the past year and a half, the MEA has been proposed, voted in, voted out via override and is now making its way back to the top of the legislative agenda with a very real chance of being implemented for Division I in some form. The reality for our program at Central and I believe the majority of Division I member institutions (those in the non-Power 5 FBS, FCS and IAAA) is that the implementation of this model is at best significantly cost challenging and more than likely cost prohibitive to implement across the board.
So, where do we go from here? Drawing upon my core beliefs, I believe there is exceptional value (both monetary and inherent, tangible and intangible) to the benefits a student-athlete gets by receiving an athletics scholarship. The model of college athletics that exists today enables 460,000 student-athletes across 1,100 schools to compete while getting a college degree. About 15 percent of all Division I student-athletes are first generation college students and more than eight out of 10 Division I student-athletes earn degrees. Many of these student-athletes would not be able to attend college if not for the athletics scholarship (Information from the NCAA office of communications).
In the bigger picture, if NCAA Division I members continue to profess our objective is to provide student-athletes with a positive, healthy educational experience, then we are obligated to engage in the process and the debate, most importantly to assess what it is we can do better for them, our most important constituents. The majority of NCAA Division I schools are non-FBS institutions (the total of FCS and IAAA institutions comprise a majority of Division I). As such, it is incumbent upon us to articulate and negotiate an effective middle ground that protects our philosophical approach and acknowledges our financial limitations, yet maintains our ability to exist and thrive in a mutually beneficial NCAA Division I structure.
There is no denying the world of Division I college athletics is approaching a watershed moment. I love college athletics and the inherent good that exists in its fabric. Regardless of the outcome of the new governance structure, to the legislative process and whether it is determined that student-athletes should receive an additional monetary award, it is my hope that we have the wherewithal and the sense to maintain all the wonderful aspects of a culture that provides lifetime experiences for student-athletes and electric, prideful atmospheres for campuses that are unmatched.
http://articles.courant.com/2014-05-31/sports/hc-college-pay-ad-voice-0601-20140531_1_college-sports-student-athletes-college-athletics