February 15, 1995, Volume 32, Number 7 Football Coaches Get Tough on Bunting
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Official Publication of the National Collegiate Athletic Association February 15, 1995, Volume 32, Number 7 Football coaches get tough on bunting By Ronald D. Mott Itlr TI)lc IllOclC-IS Ihill OUT pl;Iycrs tlrrrlortslr;~lc I0 yc,urrg pco- THE NCAA NEWS STAFF W Football Rules Committee actions: Page 6. plc tllrollg~lo~lf ttlis rlation. WV as c oat tics f&l a great r.t.slrolr- sil,ility for this~ DALIAS ~ The inrrc;lsing ~~nrnbcr of‘acts ot‘ur~sports- “The irnl-‘lcrrrcrrt;ilioll ofthc fighting rule last year curtailed manlike conduct in football apparently is giving many roach like contluct that coaches would like for officials to crlforc c’ clisclrr;rlific;rtioirs by hdf. I tlrink WC improved the irrtcFity of cs in the sport much cause lor concern, judging lrom the toy more uniformly and firr- players 10 smp altogether (see page the game witlr tlic fighting rrulc last year.” ir’s prornincnrr in discussions a~ ~hc four-111annual N(:M 6). But I)cHcny and othclm cwchcs say the pr~oblcm is cx;ic C~ollcgc Football Forum February I I - 13. Fisher DeBerry, head coach at the LJ.S.Air Porcc Ate ;ItlrrrIy crbatcd by profcssiorial foolball playrrs dclllollstl iitiorls of On-field baiting and taunting of opponents and cxccssivc and a rnemher 01 the Football Kules <;ommittee, csaid the rrrr~l”‘~srrlirrrlikc (.orrtlrr<.t cvcv Srrrrdiry (1111irlg IIIC fall OII displays of self-~ongl-arularion are pr-ompting roaches 10 fighting rulr atlop~ed helore the I!)!)4 season has hard ;I posm t&vision. Many of those smnc acts find tllcir way to collcgc explore various avcnucs of controlling urispor~tsrri;irilikc itivr rtfcct. Hr added, howrver, rhat coaches remain coin- @irons the following Saturday. behavior. Perhaps the most notable potential measure is a ccmcd about and furl rrsponsihlc tier- thr game’s con-field “‘l‘hc sportsmanship and ctliic;il~condrtct issue is big on vidcotapc that the NCAA Football RIIICS <:omrrrit~rr wishrs im age our minds in terms of trying to rcdouhlc our efforts as coach~ to produce. The video ~ pending NCAA Exccutivc Con- “Wc arc very roriccrncd about thr inliigr of Ihe game mittcc approval ~ Would depic t CXilrll[>llTS of urq~orlsman- today,” Dellerry said. “We certainly arc very conccmcd akm SeeFootball, page 22 b narrowly miss record MEN OVERALL 300 Combined men’s/women’s total ends up 290 just short, despite all-time mark by females 260 270 A total of 295, I74 student-athlt-tcs !):I. 260 participated in NCZAA sports irr In I!)%-94, women accountrcl for I!)!%!+4, the second-largest number 35.7 percent 01 all student-athletes. 250 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 981 92 93 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 in Association history. In 1992-93, t hr f+rr was 34.8 per- Thr numbrr- of participants in c enI. 1!)!)3-94 fell just short of the record The n~mrbt~r of rnc-II’S parlic i- WOMEN L The number of student-athletes 01~29.5I.382 Lset in 198%6. pt111s ah inc rc,tsetl, although A record was set with the nun- soinr of the gain wds an aberrarion I . participating in NCAA sports in 130 I her of female participams, which related 10 rhe application 01 an 1993-94 was 295,174, just 120 broke thr 100,OOOmark for thr first N<%4 rule regarding multidivision F3 short of an all-time record. A time. A total of 105,190 women took classific.a~ion. I‘hr I !)!)Y-!I4 acadr- 110 l@ part in NCAA cornprtition in 1993- mic yrar was the first in whit tl a 100 record number of women - 94 ~ a gain of almost six prrcciit Divisiotr I mrrnl)cr was required 10 90 iO5,532 - also participated. over 1992-93. It was the tounh con- rn;iilit;iiii all of its sports al the 80 I Charts show Men’s participation was secutive gain for women, and it was Division 1 Irvrl. A number of 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 911 92 93 number times a faster rate of growth than the 3.5 1000. I 89,642. percent increase recorded in 19% See Numbers, page 13 b L III restructuring task force Proportionality meets interest looks at governance issues Title IX debate focusing on two key compliance elements Thr Divisiorr III Task Force io structural models. The Divisions I Kcvirw thr N(:AA Mcmbrrship and II task forces both have By Ronald D. Moti On one level, they are viewed letics during the coming year. Srruc turc ronlinurd 10 focus on made specilic structural propos- THE NCAA NEWS STAFF simply as two components of the At the heart of the debate over govrrnanc-r ma11ers when it met als. three-part Title IX compliance February 6-7 in Dallas. There generally arc two buzz- test administered by the U.S. Title IX complianrr is whether The task force rrvicwcd thr words that are tossed about in dis- Department of Education’s Office institutions arr fully and effec- 11 was rhr task forcr’s third Divisions I and II proposals and cussions of Title IX compliance for Civil Kights (OCR). But on tively ac.c.ornrnodaring the intrr- rriccting, iirld in rarh (asp, ir has also disrusscd the commt’n1s that ests and abilities of the under- in intercollegiate athletics pro- another level, those components pl;icrtl the most CWlphilSis on ii wcrc madr about restructuring grams ~ proportionality and may be on a collision course that gcncral view of how the during the Division 111 business interest. could shake intercollegiate ath See Interest, page 13 b Association will bc governed rather than proposing specific See Restructuring, page 22 b n In the News w On deck News Digest Page 2 l A special NCAA committee is considering a pro February 16 Communications Committee, Kansas City, Missouri Briefly 3 posal to regard apparel manufacturers that have con- tractual relationships with member institutions as rep- February 20-21 Committee on Athletics Certification, Committee notices 3 resentatives of those institutions’ athletics interests: Dallas Comment 4 Page 3. February 2 1 Division II Task Force to Review the NCAA Basketball statistics 9 n Gymnastics coach Jim Stephenson produces works Membership Structure, Dallas NCAA Record 23 of art not only on the mat, but with paintings, sculp- February 21-23 D‘ivision I-AA Football Committee, Administrative tures and illustrations: Page 5. Orlando, Florida Committee minutes 24 H The 55 rolltall votes recorded at the 1995 NCAA February 21-24 Division I Women’s Volleyball Committee, The Market 24 Convention are published: Page 14. Amherst, Massachusetts Steph1son Page 2 The NCAA News February 15, 1995 TheNCAANew s A weekly summary of major activities within the Association (:ommittcc on Financial Aid and Ama- tcurisrn will be asked IO provide fee-dt)ack rt’- garding ttir issur of apparel manufacturer-s Division III group and their relationship with athletics pro- keeps governance focus Schedule of key dates for grams at NGAA colleges and universities. February and March 1995 III detcrrrlinilig lhr involvcmc-iit of ap- .l‘he Division I11 ‘l’ask l~orcr to Kcvicw the parrl marlufac-turrrs irl c.ollrgr athletic s, Ihr NCAA Mcmbcrship Structurr continued to special committee became increasingly con- focus on governance matters when it met cerned that the potential existed for manu- Yrbrualy 6-7 in Dallas. February March facturers to steer prospective student&athletes Thy task lor-cc revirwcd the Divisions 1 toward univcrsitics where those manufac~ illld II rest1 uc.turillg [“.opOs;ils afld aIS0 dis- turcrs have written contracts to provide ap- cussed ~~ommt~ts ma& about rrstructuririg parcl and/or cquipmcnt ~ cithcr with the during the Division III businrss session a1 school or one of its coarhcs. In addition, the the NCAA CZonvcntion in.Januq. It also IV- corrnruttt-c wits collccrilcd with rrl;iriuf’,ictur~ virwrd 1licx results of a smvey on restructur= crs’ iiivolvcrnciit with professional agents. ing th;tt was c-ontlur~rtl at the (:onvention. For more information, see page 3. F:vcntu;~lly, the c.orrirnittt-r t.xprcsscd c on- Staff contact: Shanc Lyons. tinurd support for the c oiiqt of‘grratrr f&I- cr;itioli, hut not complctc fcclcration, in gov- FEBRUARY MARCH crnance of the Association; rcinforcctl RECRUlllNG RECRUITING c ommitnicnt to rhe concept of one institu- Men’s Division l basketball Men’s Division I basketball l-28: Quiet period, except for 20 days between l-l 5. Quiet period, except for 20 days between Committee plans special tion/ont. vote r&ted to Division III legisla- October 2 1, 1994, ond March 15, 1995, the October 2 1, 1994, and March 15, 1995, cho lioll; c ontinut-tl to t-xprrss its concern that sen ot the discretion of the institution as an evaC sen at the discretion of the institution OS an evaC sportsmanship meeting the c0tltilluc.d growth ofthr membership in uation period; institutional staff members shall not uation period; institutional staff members shall not visit o prospect’s educational institution on more Divisions II ant1 III has Association-wide visit a prospect’s educational institution on more The NUA Football Rules Cornrnittcc has than one calendar da during this eriod. thon one calendar do during this rarllitic ;itions ;iild should be addressed as (Effective in 1994-95 on ry, OS a result o P a Sept- (Effective in 1994-95 on ry, as a result o period.a Sept- agreed to hold a special mreting latr this ember 6 action by the NCAA Administrative rc-srrriclurirlg plan; and ar- ember 6 action by the NCAA Administrative spring to address sportsmanship issues and part of any Committee.) Committee.) knowlcdged the importance of diversity as Women’s Division I basketball* help coaches, players and officials rearh a l&22 _______._.__________...............Contact period.