NCAA RULE ADJUSTMENT JUSTIFIED FOR SOUTHEAST

News from Southeast Missouri State University's athletic department was described as "the light at the end of the tunnel." The National Collegiate Athletic Association decided to reduce harsh restrictions imposed on Southeast and other schools for elevating themselves to Division I status. The NCAA decision is justified and, to the extent it is the best deal available, fair. We applaud the persistence of school officials for seeing this inequity was tempered.

In moving up from Division II and joining the Ohio Valley Conference, Southeast fell victim to an NCAA regulation that prohibits schools making such a move from being eligible for the league's automatic bid to the national basketball tournament for eight years. This "eight-year rule" was enacted by the NCAA in January 1989, after Southeast had already made a commitment to the reclassification process. The rule posed an enormous obstacle to the university here: since the conference couldn't jeopardize its automatic bid, Southeast would not be invited to the OVC tournament where the automatic bid is the champion's prize. This limits the exposure the school was seeking in making the move. More importantly, the prohibition put Southeast at a huge disadvantage when recruiting against other OVC schools.

What the NCAA did with this recent action is give Southeast credit for the time it spent during the reclassification process but before Division I status kicked in. Effectively, the ban was reduced from eight years to five years, and Southeast will now be eligible for the OVC automatic bid during the 1996-97 season.

It is significant to point out that the NCAA took into account the stature of the athletic programs at Southeast in lessening the severity of the rule. This assessment is right on the money: Southeast is not only working toward being competitive in Division I, it is competitive in Division I. There is a conference championship in volleyball to prove it. There is a gymnastics team that has gone head to head with Division I teams for years. There is a football team that had a respectable inaugural season. Both men's and women's basketball teams are performing admirably.

This is not a one-sport athletic department that the NCAA developed its "eight-year rule" to address. It is a well-rounded program with excellence as its aim. The NCAA has the broad interests of many sports constituencies to protect, so it would be unfair here to criticize the severity of the "eight-year rule" generally. (Not so long ago, the NCAA rule in this instance carried only a three-year prohibition.) The rule might serve a valid purpose, but what it also does is punish schools like Southeast that work hard and are forthright in their efforts to be the best. Southeast demon~strates already that it will be a credit to Division I, so why should the NCAA stifle its progress in that regard?

That aside, the reduction in the ban is welcome news. Richard McDuffie, Southeast athletic director, and others at the university deserve credit for keeping after the NCAA to get the change effected.