The NCAA News - Comment
December 16, 1996
High schools are allies, not our adversaries
BY NORMAN L. BOYLES
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY
For the past two or three years, I have been disturbed by the frequency of comments made by persons representing the NCAA in relation to the high schools of our country and in particular the principals of those high schools.
There are two recent examples. The first was from a faculty representative who reported the NCAA staff as saying that the principals of our high schools will tell you anything you want to hear. This was in regard to the information that is required for certification through the NCAA Initial-Eligibility Clearinghouse. The second was essentially the same comment made to me when I followed up on a waiver request that we filed on behalf of a student-athlete.
I don't think the NCAA should speak, or think, in these terms. The second incident was offered directly to me from an NCAA staff person, as if it were the official stance of the NCAA. It was given as the reason that the committee rejected the waiver request. "These high schools will tell us anything," so therefore we cannot trust anything coming from the high schools.
Who is not to be trusted here? The high schools, the NCAA, the higher-education institutions that prepared the principals of those schools, or the school boards that hired these officials and are responsible for the administration of the schools? I certainly think that to assume that these people will "tell you anything" is not worthy of an institution such as the NCAA.
Let me remind us that the high schools are not working for the NCAA. They work for students. They construct curricula, grading schemes, advising and counseling systems for all high-school students, not just the athletes who will have athletics scholarships at an NCAA school.
When those systems do not conform with a rule passed by the NCAA, whose responsibility is it to arbitrate/negotiate a translation from what the NCAA had in mind and what the specific rule stated? It is more a responsibility of the NCAA in my mind, not the high schools.
But then, I am biased in my viewpoint. I am in favor of the student-athlete. What is the concern if one student, or many students, enter our colleges and universities because of an interpretation in their favor? Let the interpretation be tested with a ruling in their favor rather than chance keeping a qualified athlete out of a college or university.
As I said, curricula and grading schemes are constructed in the belief that they will aid students, not hurt them. I have never heard, in all my years of working in and with school systems, one curriculum committee discuss whether a curriculum change was appropriate by NCAA standards.
The NCAA may be big beyond belief, but it pales in relation to the public school endeavor carried on each day in this country.
Let's keep our relationship with the schools in perspective and use reason when making assertions about who "will tell you anything" to support a position.
Maybe I misunderstood when I was told this. Maybe they were talking about the NCAA.
Norman L. Boyles is faculty athletics representative at Iowa State University, where he is a professor of education.
Proposals have to do with opportunity
Tim Gleason,Commissioner
Ohio Athletic Conference
The Ohio Athletic Conference is sponsoring two proposals at January's NCAA Convention. Proposal No. 76 would allow a Division III student-athlete to participate in 50 halves of basketball contests instead of the current 25 games. Proposal No. 77 would allow 20 halves of football games instead of 10 games.
We recently received a letter notifying us that the NCAA Division III Steering Committee voted to oppose our legislation. The steering committee gave us two reasons for its opposition. First, "this legislation would be too complicated and difficult to monitor." Second, "these proposals would potentially increase the number of contests in which student-athletes could participate, which may interfere with the time needed for student-athletes to concentrate on academics."
Regarding the first point, what we are dealing with here is a varsity/subvarsity issue. Student-athletes cannot play in too many varsity games since the institution does not schedule more than the individual game limit. We are not talking about the better varsity athletes because they do not play subvarsity -- period. What we are talking about is the subvarsity athlete who can get into the end of a varsity game.
It is assumed that any school that conducts a subvarsity program should have in place some mechanism that would prevent an athlete from getting into too many varsity games. The same administrative procedures that an institution currently uses to monitor a student-athlete's contests can be used whether the number is 25 or 50, 10 or 20.
Logic dictates that anyone who believes that these proposals "complicate" the system apparently doesn't have a good system in the first place, since counting to 50 is just as easy as counting to 25, and 20 is just as easy to count to as 10.
Regarding the second point, we do not believe our proposals will negatively impact academics in any way. The kids are already at the game, in uniform, standing on the sideline or sitting on the bench. It's disheartening that many times a coach will not put a player in a game because the game count is so restrictive.
Lopsided scores, although universally hated by every commissioner in Division III, are nonetheless an occasional byproduct of athletics. When a team has the ability to substitute subvarsity players at the end of a varsity game, the score is kept somewhat in check, and more important, more student-athletes get to play.
In addition, parents who attend our games would get to see their kids play in a varsity game rather than go home wondering why Susie or Johnny didn't get in a blowout game at the end. It's a win-win situation all the way around.
Coaches should not be in a position of keeping out young players because a few minutes of varsity action would wipe out a student-athlete's participation in a subvarsity game. That is not what Division III is all about. The cornerstone of the Division III philosophy statement is "to encourage participation by maximizing the number and variety of athletics opportunities for students."
In Division III, we take great pride in our integrity and in our missions. We all have the ability to account for games of participation by student-athletes. We also have the integrity to play by the rules, whatever they may be. Most importantly, we owe it to our student-athletes to maximize the opportunity for them to play, not create rules that keep them on the sidelines.
NBA drain leaves college basketball at a crossroads
Tom Kertes, columnist
The Village Voice
"College basketball is in serious trouble. Of course, any sport would be when its marquee-est stars, almost without exception, play another sport. And, the uncomfortable truth is, just about all of the premier college hoopsters work in the NBA these days.
"Until two years ago, there were eight to 10 early NBA entries every season.Then, the explosion: 18 in 1995, followed by an unreal 40 (!!) this year. The institution of the rookie salary cap has totally backfired, NBA agent Larry Gillman explains. It doesn't allow you to sign the unlimited-money type contract the kids dream about for your first three years in the league. So kids now leave school even earlier to get the three slavery years over with. Which, basically, has left the college game without all of its junior, sophomore and even freshmen superstars.
"Still, college hoops will always survive through its local, alumni-type appeal, St. John's coach Fran Fraschilla tells us. Indeed, no pro sport in America has that built-in advantage. But mere survival, for a sport that threatened to take over television in toto in the early '90s, cannot be enough.
"But without great players -- and, consequently, great teams -- the level of play has dropped significantly.
"Instead, what we've seen so far almost amounts to a conspiracy against greatness. The only two players left who are talented enough to carry a team -- Wake Forest's Tim Duncan and Utah's Keith Van Horn -- are surrounded by such unathletic supporting casts that their teams remain unexceptional."
Gambling Editorial
Worcester Telegram and Gazette
"On the heels of the betting scandal involving Boston College athletes, the recent announcement by Holy Cross College officials that two of their athletes had been suspended for gambling is perturbing.
"As college athletes are well aware, gambling -- even when the wagers do not involve the player's own team -- is a violation of NCAA rules, as well as state law.
"The Holy Cross incident, by all accounts, was an anomaly.
"Moreover, college officials' willingness to deal with the issue openly and decisively sends a welcome message: Athletes who break the rules must take responsibility for their actions and accept the consequences.
"Having said that, it also must be noted that society sends out a welter of mixed messages about gambling. No wonder young people are confused.
"On one hand, gambling is viewed -- with considerable justification -- as a potentially corrupting influence that breeds crime and places a disproportionate burden on many people least able to bear it.
"At the same time, gambling has long been glamorized in popular entertainment -- even though Hollywood images of beautiful people sipping champagne at the baccarat table are jarringly at odds with the reality of desperate down-and-outers buying lottery tickets by the score and polyester-clad seniors feeding their Social Security checks into slot machines a quarter at a time.
"Of late, government has put its weight behind promoting gambling, as states vie to push lotteries, keno and other games of chance designed to extract cash from people's pockets. Meanwhile, federal policy is spreading casino gambling nationwide under the pretext of upholding Native American autonomy.
"Yet government's track record in controlling the crime and abuses associated with gambling is spotty at best. For example, a recent sting by the state attorney general's office -- using youngsters as young as 14 -- found that two-thirds of the 166 keno outlets in 35 Massachusetts communities surveyed failed even to check identifications to make sure players were 18 or older.
"Holy Cross officials moved quickly to nip an isolated gambling problem in the bud. But the recent scandals at prestigious colleges should serve as a warning to government leaders who view gambling as a painless solution to fiscal challenges -- instead of the exploitive sucker bet it is."
Unnamed former student-athlete
Manchester (New Hampshire) Memorial High School
Manchester Union-Leader
"The most widely used part of the newspaper was the page with the point spreads. Guys would bring in the spreads, pick three games and bet five bucks apiece. We'd get one guy we all trusted to collect the money and distribute the winnings after the weekend. And at nighttime on weekends, kids would play cards -- poker and stuff like that. You could win or lose probably $40.
"It was very widespread. Football players, baseball players -- we all did it. We had a pool going for the (NCAA basketball) Final Four. We kept it quiet, kept it out of school, but I'd say at least half the guys on the different teams participated."
Bob Leonard, head football coach
Manchester (New Hampshire) Memorial High School
Manchester Union-Leader
"If you talk to kids, the answers you'll get are: 'Yes, it goes on'; 'Yes, it's extensive'; and, 'The football card is rampant.' That's been the picture for years.
"Do I talk to kids about gambling? Yes, I do -- right away. I don't bet, I don't condone it, and I preach an anti-gambling message. But as much as you tell a kid not to gamble, we live in a society where they can't wait to tell you the odds. Gambling is everywhere -- it's encouraged. In the old days, all we used to hear was 'Drink Schlitz Beer,' and kids drank Schlitz Beer. Now, odds and point spreads are everywhere -- and people are surprised to find out kids are gambling? Give me a break."
|
