Division I sports faced multiple existential threats, stresses, and internal-soul searching in 2020.
Athletics Veritas is a weekly series aimed at helping higher education executives, faculty, and other stakeholders stay tuned in on trending national issues impacting college athletics, especially NCAA Division I. Athletics Veritas is created by senior DI athletic administrators around the nation.
Seven Key Questions for College Sports in 2021
Division I sports faced multiple existential threats, stresses, and internal-soul searching in 2020.
The AV team spots seven key questions for the Division I athletics enterprise in 2021.
Happy New Year!
1. Will all NCAA Division I championships happen this spring?
In the college athletics space, NCAA President Mark Emmert’s and the Board of Governors’ decision last March to cancel the men’s and women’s basketball tournaments and all spring sport championships due to the pandemic was both unprecedented and heart-wrenching, especially for seniors who were wrapping up their collegiate careers.
One of the first major pandemic-era policy decisions by the Division I Council was allowing spring sport student-athletes to exempt the use of their season of competition and extend their eligibility clock. The Council would also allow Division I institutions to consider allowing spring sport student-athletes who would have exhausted eligibility at the conclusion of the 2019-20 academic year to return to the same institution and to exempt athletically related financial aid up to the equivalent to the aid counted toward team financial aid limits during 2019-20 from the 2020-21 financial aid limitations, provided that student-athlete received a season-of-competition waiver and/or extension of eligibility based on COVID-19 (criteria outlined above).
Similar blanket season-of-competition, eligibility clock, and financial aid exemption waivers were granted for fall and winter sport student-athletes which allows Division I institutions to exempt aid awarded to any fall sport student-athlete who would have exhausted eligibility during 2020-21 but returns to the same institution during 2021-22 due to the aforementioned COVID-19 relief (season-of-competition waivers or extensions of eligibility).
The viability of March Madness is also top of mind across Division I. It was stated by Dan Gavitt, NCAA Vice President for Men’s Basketball, that “the NCAA's explicit mission is to hold the NCAA Tournament in 2021.” As CBS Sports reported, the NCAA decided to hold the men’s basketball tournament in a single, central location -- the state of Indiana. Meanwhile, the Division I Women’s Basketball Committee is taking a similar approach and is finalizing plans to host the entirety of the women’s bracket in San Antonio.
The missed championships from last year, the blanket waiver decisions in recent months, and the contingency planning continuing to unfold are elevating the urgency for the NCAA to find a way to complete in a safe manner NCAA championships this spring. And spring sports and the basketballs are not the only championships for which DI institutions hope to compete. Fall sports whose NCAA championships were pushed back were migrated to this spring.
If the pandemic dictates that championships do not happen in the coming months, there’s a growing concern around coaches offices and athletic departments about the volume of student-athletes looking to return when coaches planned on seniors moving on. This leads to our second key question to watch.
2. How are Division I schools managing their rosters long-term in light of friendly blanket waivers extending student-athlete eligibility?
The Division I Council was a very active group within the Division I governance structure in 2020, fielding a variety of novel scenarios with canceled seasons and NCAA championships and, in turn, rendered blanket waiver decisions with student-athlete well-being and flexibility in mind. These blanket waivers included enabling a landscape where far more senior student-athletes return to extend their college athletics experience and even underclassmen were able to compete in 2020-21 without technically using one of their four seasons of competition---which means student-athletes in all classes could be sticking around longer than usual.
Meanwhile, although not in-person due to the universal dead period, recruiting by Division I coaches continued at a virtual level in 2020 with prospects making virtual campus visits and ultimately being signed to scholarships. Those season-of-competition eligibility accommodations for current student-athletes to return combined with another class of newly signed prospects arriving to enroll will eventually bring to bear a true test of institutional bandwidth. How many student-athletes can Division I institutions afford to have on their softball, men’s soccer, women’s basketball, or men’s track and field teams before the athletics department budget and support system moorings begin to wobble or collapse? Are student-athletes and their coaches on the same page about how long the student-athletes may want to compete and be a part of the program?
Scholarship costs that could escalate are an initial concern to the operational costs due to the potential swelling of rosters. Regardless of scholarship status though, the anticipated uptick in numbers for all rosters will likely generate an increase in costs for student-athlete medical treatment including COVID-19 testing, incidental meals and snacks, equipment and apparel, insurance, team travel, and so on.
3. Will Division I sports’ sponsorship & the health of the Olympic sports movement continue down a rickety path?
One of the enduring subplots in college athletics during the pandemic era has been the discontinuation of sports, especially non-revenue, Olympic sports like gymnastics, tennis, swimming, skiing, squash, and track and field, among others.
According to almanac.mattalk.com, almost 30 different Division I universities dropped at least one sport in 2020. The schools range from the low to mid-major Division I institutions to multiple Power 5 institutions including Clemson of the ACC, Stanford of the Pac-12, and multiple Big Ten institutions (Iowa, Michigan State, and Minnesota) all shrinking their portfolio of sports.
In addition to the impacted student-athletes and coaches and sport program alums, the slew of dropped sports has groups around the United States Olympic movement also nervous as college sports serve as a vital training ground to develop Olympic-caliber athletes.
If the pandemic continues, it will be interesting to see if more Division I institutions drop Olympic sports and, moreover, if Division I revisits altogether the minimum sport sponsorship requirements for being a member institution in the NCAA’s highest division.
The pandemic had already impacted the XXXII Olympic Games in Tokyo which were originally set for Summer 2020, but were rescheduled for Summer 2021.
4. How are Division I student-athletes managing their virtual learning as well as housing and food security?
According to an NCAA survey of over 37,000 student-athletes conducted in April and May of 2020, as a result of the pandemic, 99% of respondents said their coursework had shifted online. Over 70% of participants indicated feeling positive about their ability to pass their spring courses, with a quarter feeling somewhat positive or somewhat negative and less than 5% feeling negative.
However, fewer student-athlete respondents indicated feeling positive about their ability to keep up with classes (51%).
In the open-ended comment section, some student-athletes indicated they were struggling with the online format, some shared that faculty had increased their assignment load as a result of moving online, and others reported struggling to connect with faculty, learning specialists or tutors when they had questions about course material.
About 80% of student-athletes surveyed said they were living away from campus and with parents, family or a significant other. Nine percent were living with teammates or other friends, 4% were living alone and 3% remained in campus housing.
Nine of 10 student-athletes reported being in a stable housing situation and having access to enough food to meet their daily needs. While 80% reported knowing how to access a medical provider for physical health needs, 60% of men and 55% of women said they know how to access mental health support in their area.
Racial disparities were reported in the areas of housing, food stability and access to medical care, with white student-athletes indicating higher levels of agreement on all items as compared with participants of color.
Of note, 75% of black male student-athletes surveyed, compared with 92% of white males in the sample, said they have access to enough food, and 61% reported that healthy food options are readily available to them, as compared with 81% of white male participants.
Division I athletics departments and campus resources such as student emergency funds have been vital resources in 2020 to subsidize a broader spectrum of student-athlete well-being needs such as student-athletes’ rent and utility payments when student-athlete (and/or their family members) have lost income due to unemployment or furloughs.
5. Will the NCAA membership and student-athletes be ready for permissive NIL policies by August 1, 2021?
In a non-pandemic era, the anticipated transformation of name-image-likeness (NIL) policies into a student-athlete friendly, permissive regulatory environment that also opens the door for broader agent involvement would be the clear headliner in college sports news. Of late, NIL has been trading headlines with pandemic-impacted realities, including delayed playing seasons, postponed contests, canceled and complex decision-making around safety protocols, student-athlete eligibility and the timing of championships, among others.
The Division I Council and Division I Board of Directors will be considering the slate of NIL legislative proposals next week. In the long and winding road leading up to the governance meetings this month, there’s a growing hunch among the Division I membership that the vote on the Division I proposals may be punted to April to allow more time to sort through the nuanced and debated issues on the proposals’ collective scope, conflicts of interest, the role of third-party administrators, acceptable booster involvement, and recruiting implications, among others. August 1, 2021 is the proposed effective date of these proposals, should they be adopted.
The NCAA governance structure is not the only legislator at the proverbial NIL table, either. Multiple states have passed individual NIL bills waiting to go into effect later this year and beyond. Congress has also taken a keen interest in the scope of NIL policies by proposing federal bills -- in some cases, ones that reach well beyond NIL such as Senators Blumenthal’s (D-CT) and Booker’s (D-NJ) bill which intends to not only secure NIL deregulation for student-athletes, but also delve into profit sharing among the revenue-generating sports, create a long-term medical care fund and foster increased mobility (translate: transfer deregulation) and fewer entanglements from scholarship terms and conditions.
The full picture of NIL won’t be painted in 2021. NIL may take a few years to mature into a more definable policy as the landscape adjusts. However, 2021 could be the year, through NIL policy not only being adopted but taking effect, that forever pivots college sports in a new commercialized direction, which some describe as a new Wild West.
6. What will Division I “free agency” look like once transfer deregulation goes through?
Five years ago, Division I student-athletes in all sports considering a transfer needed written permission from their current Division I institution to even communicate with another school’s coaches about potentially transferring without compromising their ability to compete or receive athletics aid at the second institution.
That long-standing recruiting communications rule tied to transferring was overturned with the adoption of the student-athlete driven transfer-declaration process which spawned the creation of the NCAA transfer portal. In essence, student-athletes may now self-declare their interest in transferring, enter their name in the portal with assistance from their current institution’s athletics compliance department, and begin communicating with other NCAA member schools without any encumbrance from their current institution.
The last major NCAA Division I transfer rule that remains standing is the one that continues to restrict student-athletes in men’s basketball, women’s basketball, football, baseball, and men’s ice hockey from utilizing the one-time transfer exception, which would permit a student-athlete that has not transferred from a four-year school before to transfer and compete right away at the second four-year institution assuming the student-athlete is academically eligible, has no significant misconduct history, and is admitted to the second school. That option is accessible to student-athletes in all other sports aside from these five major sports.
The rule hindering these high-profile sports’ student-athletes could dissolve later this month when the Division I Council takes up a vote on Division I Proposal 2020-11. It was borderline unthinkable 10 or 15 years ago to see a basketball or football student-athlete without significant extenuating circumstances affirmed through an NCAA waiver to become immediately eligible to compete at a second Division I school. If Proposal 2020-11 is adopted, transfers in high profile sports could become quite unfettered.
Now Division I coaches, administrators, and academicians alike are interested to see if this anticipated transfer mobility will create a free agency environment with landmines. For example, will more student-athletes in these high profile sports who are not getting the playing time they believe they deserve at their current school make a quick decision and enter the NCAA tranfer portal and assume a scholarship and playing time await them as some other Division I school? Keep in mind, current Division I student-athletes are vying with high school prospects and two-year college prospects for the same finite number of scholarships. Concurrently, will the increased transfer mobility lead to a potential uptick of transferring in these high profile sports and adversely impact graduation rates? Enabling informed decision-making has been one point of emphasis to this new transfer environment.
7. Will Division I institutions amplify their mental health services to support their student-athletes during the prolonged stress of the pandemic?
The novel burden and life-changing impacts the pandemic has brought to bear on society is unquestionably impacting college students including student-athletes’ mental health. According to an NCAA survey conducted in April and May of 2020, the mental health of student-athletes during the pandemic has been collectively exacerbated. Over a third of respondents reported experiencing sleep difficulties, while more than a quarter reported feeling sadness and a sense of loss, and 1 in 10 reported feeling so depressed it has been difficult to function “constantly” or “most every day.”
Mental health concerns were highest among respondents of color, those whose families are facing economic hardship and those living alone. Additionally, college seniors reported a sense of loss at 1.5 times the rate of underclassmen. In most instances, the rates of mental health concerns were 150% to 250% higher than that historically reported by NCAA student-athletes in the American College Health Association’s National College Health Assessment.
Communication during the pandemic has been key to supporting student-athletes’ mental and physical well-being. In open-ended questions, student-athletes were asked to share what coaches and athletics departments were doing well to provide support. Responses included maintaining team connections through coach-hosted online meetings, providing training workouts on a regular basis, sending out motivational messages via social media, hosting town halls for all student-athletes, and providing one-on-one check-ins regarding academics and mental well-being.
Coaches’ ability to understand and initially assess whether their athletes may have mental health challenges has also been subject to published study. In a National Institutes of Health study from 2018 and prior to the pandemic, all NCAA Division I cross-country and track and field coaches were invited to participate in an online survey. The sample consisted of 253 participants, of whom 56 (25%) identified themselves as female and 170 (75%) as male with 14 (±10.4) years of coaching experience. The findings of this study indicated the participating coaches have a good knowledge of depression for individuals without formal education on the topic but may lack depression awareness. This hypothesis is supported by the finding that coaches in the sample found out an athlete was suffering from depression most often by the athlete self-reporting. The survey revealed the prevalence of depression reported by coaches was below that expected based on previous research; therefore, coaches may need assistance in recognizing the signs and symptoms of depression in their athletes. Supporting this conclusion, a strong, unmet interest in receiving continuing education in topics such as mental health was uncovered through the study. The significant underestimation of athlete depression given by coaches highlights a need for more collaboration and communication between coaches and athletic department medical staff and between coaches and athletes—and perhaps a culture change—in order to best keep athletes healthy and safe.
In a more recent National Institutes of Health study conducted in 2020 during the pandemic, physical distancing remains a critical step toward combating the COVID-19 pandemic, but social scientists have an urgent responsibility to identify strategies that ameliorate the mental health consequences of COVID-19–related physical distancing. In the present study of college student-athletes, the NIH found evidence that teammate social interactions (i.e., social support and connectedness) may have protective effects on indices of mental health and well-being, although stronger causal models would be needed to clarify this association.
The study identified positive associations between teammate social interactions and identity maintenance and subsequently, that identity maintenance was positively associated with psychological and social well-being and was negatively associated with symptoms of depression. That is, student-athletes who experienced less identity dissolution following the abrupt cancelation of college sports reported greater indices of mental health and well-being. These findings have direct and timely implications that are highly relevant to stakeholders of collegiate athletics. For instance, with opportunities to quickly disseminate findings through trusted intercollegiate athlete-focused outlets and partners (e.g., the NCAA's Sports Science Institute, Division III's 360 Proof), the importance and value of having student-athletes initiate or maintain social support among teammates and promote connectedness can likely impact student-athlete well-being.
Athletics Veritas is presented for information purposes only and should not be considered advice or counsel on NCAA compliance matters. For guidance on NCAA rules and processes, always consult your university’s athletics compliance office, conference office, and/or the NCAA.
