John Brumbaugh wrote an excellent summation last week describing new
academic/scholarship rules established by the NCAA to govern University athletics.
It reminded me of how the NCAA continues to create rules that serve purposes
different than their stated intentions. And we are left to wonder why they don't
seem to understand the needs of the athletes, coaches and universities.
From the perspective of the NCAA hierarchy, most of whom are representatives of
academic faculty and administrators rather than athletic departments, this new
legislation is well thought out, clever in concept, and likely to create the
results they most want. Then why is it that so many coaches, players and fans feel
that NCAA representatives continue to misunderstand the needs of athletes and
athletic departments? To answer this seeming dichotomy, it is first necessary to
study recent NCAA decisions for their consistencies and weaknesses. It is then
required that we try to understand the real agenda of the rule makers.
Some people are thrilled with the elimination of the 5/8 rule in basketball. After
all, no longer are coaches restricted to recruiting a maximum of five athletes any
one year and eight for any two years. Since so many basketball coaches have ended
up short of sufficient depth to compete at the highest levels due to unforseen
circumstances, eliminating this rule can give them a chance to catch up in the next
recruiting class. On the surface, this seems to be a good thing.
However, I believe it is simply a carrot thrown out to deceive people into believing
the NCAA cares about them. I suspect it is being replaced by a set of rules that
will, in the long run, be even more restrictive and punative.
On the surface, it appears admirable to want to reward schools that succeed in
graduating their athletes with more scholarships than their less successful
counterparts. However, since the maximum scholarship limit remains 13 for
basketball and 85 for football, it is not a reward for anyone. Rather, it becomes a
punishment for any school that, regardless of the reason, cannot graduate sufficient
numbers of players. Probably, it is this punishment concept that is at the heart of
the legislation. More on that later.
Another aspect of these new rules requires a student athlete to stay within one
department of his university throughout his career. I can't speak for everyone, but
I changed my mind about majors and professional career choices many times over the
course of my life. And I think a large number of students change majors at least
once during their college years. Granted, some schools keep players eligible by
having them switch majors several times, and the NCAA desires to tighten this
loophole. But going to the other extreme is not fair either.
What the NCAA is saying is that all athletes must choose a life path as freshmen and
then stay on that one path throughout their years of eligibility. So, if an athlete
begins in the College of Engineering and can't compete there, he or she may be
forced to lose eligibility rather than switch to a more appropriate career path.
And if a student cannot persevere for four or five years in a curriculum he might
learn to detest before obtaining a degree he no longer wishes to use, then the
university also loses a scholarship for future use. With a reduction in total
scholarships, fewer athletes will have the opportunity to receive scholarship
assistance to obtain a college education.
In a recent interview with Bob Asmussen of the "News-Gazette", Ron Turner said he
might not have recruited Rocky Harvey if the proposed graduation/scholarship
legislation were in place at the time. Rocky was just barely able to qualify for
scholarship aid as a freshman and was thus an academic risk. Turner went on to
remind us that Rocky was a hard worker who earned his degree in four years and
proved more than worthy of the scholarship. But this is exactly the type of athlete
who will suffer with the new legislation because honest schools will be afraid to
take a chance on them. I believe that is what the NCAA really wants.
I know some of these rules might be modified or changed before they take effect.
And I know I haven't read all the fine print and may somehow be misrepresenting
parts of the new rules. But there is no doubt in my mind that these new rules will
be punitive to athletes, coaches and teams. And there is no doubt there will be
great confusion as to what the NCAA could possibly be thinking and frustration with
the practical application of the new rules.
In its infinite wisdom, the NCAA has been far more consistent than many realize.
Let's examine their previous rulings with an eye toward a common theme.
Proposition 48 and similar concepts enacted both before and since have been
dramatized as aids to student athletes. Supposedly, athletes were encouraged to get
better grades in high school and do better on their ACT or SAT college entrance
exams so they could have a better chance to succeed academically at the college
level. To some degree, that has been true. But still many have asked why the NCAA
couldn't be a little more considerate to the needs of the athlete.
For instance, a non-qualifier, one who does not meet NCAA minimum academic
requirements for high school grade point average or college entrance exams, can
still enter a university if that university agrees to admit him. But the athlete is
required to pay his own way for the first year, not participate in his chosen sport,
not share anything with his recruited peers, and also lose one year of future
eligibility. The NCAA is saying, "You can attend college, but we will punish you if
you do." Is this a mistake or part of a plan?
A "partial qualifier" can enter a university because either his high school core
curriculum grade point average or his entrance exam scores are sufficient, but not
both. He is able to receive scholarship aid and practice with his team. However,
he is still required to lose one year of eligibility unless he graduates after four
years.
This four year maximum requirement seems confusing to some because most universities
now admit that it may take the average student five years to earn a degree rather
than four. But the "nonqualifier" or "partial qualifier", stigmatized by the
classification from the start, must actually do better academically than his fully
qualified peers to receive maximum eligibility. Is this a mistake or part of a
plan?
Junior College athletes are treated in a mixed fashion by the NCAA as well. On the
one hand, JC's are allowed to transfer to four-year colleges and participate in
sports, as if they were wanted and treated as equals. However, they are not allowed
to transfer, regardless of the number of hours of college credit earned, unless they
obtain a specific degree from their junior college first. They may have proven
themselves academically and thus worthy of being treated as equals with peers
recruited straight out of high school. But they must also obtain a degree from
junior college even if that degree has little if anything to do with their ultimate
career path.
Common sense suggests that junior college athletes would be best suited by entering
their universities in the spring, especially in sports like football that have
spring practice. It would allow them to acclimate both to the academic rigors and
the complexities of their sport prior to the fall season. But the only junior
college athletes who can transfer at mid year are those who could have attended
universities straight out of high school. Those who might need junior college to
prepare them for a university are punished for their efforts by restricting their
freedom to transfer to four-year colleges. Is this a mistake or part of a plan?
The Big 10, in its infinite wisdom, went even farther for awhile and required junior
college athletes to remain ineligible for a full year after transferring. They
claimed it was to help these athletes acclimate to the university setting, but it
seemed like additional punishment to most. It took awhile, but heavy pressure from
athletic departments within the Big 10 finally got them to rescind this draconian
requirement. After all, other conferences had a recruiting advantage since no
junior college athlete wanted to waste a year in the Big 10. But even then, the Big
10 only relented once it was obvious that no other major conferences would go along
with them. Another accident, or a continuation and expansion of a trend?
The one thing all these rules and regulations have in common is their seeming
punative nature toward the athlete who is not also an outstanding student. Many
wonder how the NCAA could so consistently misunderstand the needs of the student
athlete, especially all those great athletes who make universities money but are
academic risks. To me, a better question is why it is so hard for most people to
understand the needs, desires, and tendencies of the people who work within the NCAA
hierarchy? We must understand them to understand their grand plan.
To understand NCAA leaders, it is necessary to understand the indirect mind. This
can be difficult for athletes, their coaches and fans because it is the exact
opposite of how they do business. Even though we all have both direct and indirect
parts to our brains and use both daily, sports is ultimately a left-brain, direct
activity.
In athletics, one wins on merit, with the best rewarded for their direct
accomplishments. One puts a ball in a basket, scores a touchdown, tackles, blocks,
etc., all direct activities. Evaluations of athletic results are done through
statistics and other logical, left-brained thought processes. Money is donated by
alumni and applied directly to the costs of maintaining athletic scholarships and
athletic department budgets. You win, you get a raise; you lose, you get fired.
Pretty straightforward stuff. Everyone understands the rules, and direct action is
taken toward those who break the rules or can't compete in a fair, open market.
However, one does not necessarily become a college president, chancellor or faculty
representative through merit. Sure, most are highly successful academically, but
they don't have to be. In fact, most obtain their jobs through the indirect methods
of coalition-building and politics. It is ultimately a subjective decision of a
school board, Board of Trustees, or faculty search committee that chooses university
leaders. And these decision-makers are either appointed or voted to their positions
via a politicized process.
Politics is not a direct brain activity. Rather, it is an indirect process whereby
one can supercede the rules of merit to receive an appointment that will be
compatible with the political leanings of those making the hirings. Winners of the
political process are adept at more creative, subjective, indirect activities
whereby they say what they think people want to hear rather than prove their value
in a more direct fashion. One who is adept at indirectness is usually extremely
clever and creative, using his right brain to charm his audiences and sell his
concepts while always keeping his real agendas hidden.
Such a person rarely if ever gives a direct order to his subordinates, preferring to
give hints they interpret as orders or giving threats if it is not carried out.
Thus, he can always later take personal credit if the subordinate succeeds in his
task or deny that he gave such an order if failure results. This is called
plausible deniability, and it is a major reward to encourage indirectness.
If I am confusing in this description, I apologize. Part of the problem with
describing indirectness is that one is trying to use a direct, logical language to
describe an indirect process. Indirectness comes more from the feeling, emotional,
intuitive part of our nature where nuance and subtlety are preferred over
directness. But perhaps a couple examples of indirect people and their behavior
will aid in understanding.
A classic example of an indirect leader was former President Richard Nixon. He was
an accomplished politician, but he was so indirect he could never make himself admit
directly that he was guilty of the charges against him even though they were
sufficient to force his resignation. And he could never make a direct apology. All
he could do was imply that his resignation made the necessary statements for him.
Nixon was incapable of making a direct statement even when it would have saved his
career and his presidency. Most people at the time agreed that he could have gained
public sympathy if he admitted his mistakes and asked forgiveness. But even then,
he continued to fabricate one story after another, to the point where even his
staunchest supporters realized he was lying. It was truly like Pinocchio, and
Nixon's nose (symbolically) continued to grow with every lie because he was spinning
in a circle with no direct techniques available to extricate himself from his
plight.
As another example, Myles Brand used an indirect technique to relieve Bobby Knight
of his coaching job at Indiana. No one in charge at Indiana wanted to fire Knight
directly because of the promised backlash from Knight and his followers. Those
school administrators were afraid of him and allowed him to behave in extreme ways
without major punishment, even though they tired of all the bad publicity and
secretly hoped to find a way to remove him.
Brand did not fire Knight directly either but worked behind the scenes to create a
contract in which Knight had to agree to a series of behavior limitations, any one
of which could result in his termination. Knight wanted to keep his job, and he
arrogantly assumed he was immune to being fired, so he signed the contract. But the
contract was so vague that most any of a litany of typical Knight acts would trigger
his dismissal.
And that is what happened. The actual act that led to final termination was rather
tame by Knight's standards. But when it happened, Myles Brand could legally state
that he had no choice but to carry out the dictates of the contract and ask for
Knight's dismissal. He was not firing him directly, he was just carrying out the
wishes of the contract and washing his hands of the whole affair.
See the cleverness of the plan in action? Brand deflected some personal blame while
appearing to get the credit for standing up to the bully. Brand didn't stand up to
anyone, he just gave Knight enough rope and let him hang himself. I have no doubt
that his success at eliminating Knight helped Brand acquire the plum job he has now.
Indirect leaders are notorious for coming up with creative slogans that will appeal
to the masses while disguising their real intent. They will appear to offer special
opportunities that appeal to those who don't read between the lines. I won't offer
examples here, but you need look no farther than any political campaign to find
numerous ones. The more grandiose the phrase sounds, the more likely it is designed
to hide a plan that is an exact opposite of that stated.
Politicians and academics alike love to package their plans in creative banners, in
the hope it will help them get their way. And I might add the procedure is
extremely effective as a majority of people are quick to believe every slogan that
offers them what they think they want. They don't usually take the time to dissect
the plan, looking beyond its grand promises to the actual inner workings described
only in the fine print or couched in riddles.
Getting back to the real agenda of the NCAA, it is easy to pretend that they truly
care about student athletes and wish them to succeed academically. After all, that
is their stated purpose. It is also their purpose to punish those schools who take
shortcuts and try to recruit athletes who lack an academic commitment. Everyone
wants these things, don't they?
But is that their real agenda? Historically, a number of university administrators
tend to be academic elitists. Do you really think these elitists are open-hearted
educators who want the disadvantaged to rise up and succeed academically and maybe
end up competing for their jobs? I don't think so. In fact, I think a majority of
them would rather return to simpler times when academic issues were unpublicized and
limited only to other academic elite.
Looking back at Proposition 48 and similar NCAA legislation, if we assume their real
desire is to eliminate poorly-qualified student-athletes without exposing possible
racial or intellectual bias, then their policies begin to make some sense. I think
they were smart enough from the start to know their rules were punative. I think
they wanted to scare the universities within their organization out of recruiting
those who were academic risks. And I believe they were emboldened by the
realization that they were continuing the appearance of taking the higher ground so
their own bias would not show. This is prime indirect behavior, and I say they were
smart enough to use this creativity to personal advantage.
I realize some athletes were motivated to improve their study habits as a result of
NCAA rule changes, and some high schools were forced to do a better job of offering
curriculae that would help their athletes become eligible for college scholarships.
I also realize that some athletes and especially some universities found new ways of
cheating so as to circumvent the rules in their constant attempt to compete on the
battlefields of college athletes. And I realize that I cannot prove my contentions
regarding the hidden agenda of the NCAA because they keep no records of their
private deliberations, shred any documents necessary to protect their position, and
never make direct statements in public that would incriminate themselves.
But the only common thread in all their rule-making is a continuing attempt to
discriminate against those athletes at bottom rungs of the academic ladder.
Ideally, I believe it is the NCAA's wish that the only student-athletes to attend
their institutions are those with high college entrance exam results and high
grade-point averages. I also believe they do not care about those who have proven
time and again that they can compete academically if only their early background had
prepared them better for the challenge and the entrance exams were not culturally
biased.
They want to maintain the image of academic eliteism with them as the primary movers
and shakers. And the latest legislation again provides this false facade. Frankly,
I believe they care more about the notion they are legislating against mediocrity
than the practical application of that notion. As long as they don't hear about the
misuse of the system, they can go along their merry way pretending to be miracle
workers. And they simply presume that all academicians will see things the same way
and take over control of their own universities' athletic departments. This has
never happened before and won't happen now, but they are in denial on this reality
as well.
Of course, the leaders within the NCAA don't really want to lose any money from TV
and other sources. But they do believe they will continue to be popular and rich
even if universities end up competing with mediocre athletes. This is where their
deception becomes self-defeating. If they are truly able to eliminate those who are
athletes first and students second, they will lose many of their best athletes,
especially in the cash cows of football and basketball. In the long run, the
general public might be less willing to fork over all the cash that presently lines
NCAA pockets. But onward they climb toward that ultimate paradox, with no long-term
insight into the true complexity of the situation.
For as Brumbaugh described so specifically last week, universities will find all
sorts of ways to cheat. Not all of them, of course, but enough to create the
perception of hypocrisy that has evolved with each previous major legislation. And
some of those cheaters will be represented within the NCAA by the very academicians
who helped to plan the legislation.
Remember the salary cap in the National Basketball Association? The owners (i.e.
administrators) demanded limits on salary inflation to protect the poorer teams.
Then, some of those same owners discovered creative loopholes in their own laws that
allowed them to break the salary cap. They didn't really want all the rules, they
just wanted the public to think they wanted them. Sound familiar?
If the NCAA truly succeeds in carrying out its hidden agenda, it might end up
destroying college athletics as we presently know it. I envision the creation of
professional minor leagues in both football and basketball where top athletes can
learn and develop in preparation for a professional career and bypass college
altogether. And I envision the NCAA leaders bemoaning the loss of all the income
they used to derive from their athletic competitions. After all, who wants to pay
to see mediocrity?
Of course, by then it will be too late. Once they kill off the "goose that laid the
golden egg", they won't be able to bring it back to life again. But I really don't
think they have thought that far ahead. Do you?
Go Illini!
Illinisports
|