National Collegiate Athletic Association |
CommentMarch 17, 1997
Guest editorial -- CEOs need to show more local involvement
BY LORI A. McQUEENLike Paul Revere's historic horseback announcement two centuries ago, a similar battle cry has increased in volume throughout intercollegiate athletics over the last dozen or so years: "The presidents are coming! The presidents are coming!"
With the last 12 months devoted to formalizing the transition of governing power in the NCAA to presidents, Actually, the call for greater presidential involvement in the governance of the NCAA has been building for quite some time. Although the Association was formed as a result of President Theodore Roosevelt trying to get a handle on the disturbing number of deaths occurring in college football, history has shown that presidents generally have played superficial roles in mapping the course of intercollegiate athletics in the national arena. It was only as recently as the early 1980s that presidents did more than merely react to athletics-related scandals or to the threat of congressional intervention in intercollegiate athletics. Since the 1916 Carnegie Foundation for Advancement of Teaching study, numerous national treatises and commissioned reports have petitioned for more presidential control of athletics. In 1997, it finally is a reality at the national level. While that indeed is good news, the lack of presidential involvement locally remains a serious concern. The modern-day president frequently avoids, at too significant a cost, the political repercussions of being intimately involved in athletics matters on his or her campus. While the savvy president may entertain state legislators, alumni, large donors and trustees at football and basketball games, and present awards to their high-performing, high-profile student-athletes, the same president may never discuss with members of the institution's coaching staff or athletics administrators matters of policy. The problem may not rest with the individual president. It simply may be a result of the changing face of the college presidency. When the NCAA was formed in 1906, col- leges and universities were small and presidents exercised more power and authority over the direction of their campuses. It was not uncommon for a president to remain at an institution for 15 years or more. Since that time, many institutions have grown into the equivalent of small cities with tens of thousands of students, faculty and staff, all while the presidency has become increasingly complex and ambiguous. Today, the average tenure of a president hovers around the five-year mark. Perhaps presidents resist engaging too heavily in athletics at the local level for reasons of self-preservation. There are numerous publicized accounts of presidents who either have resigned under pressure or left institutions willingly because they did not have the authority to make key decisions about their athletics programs. Far more worrisome, though, is the president who does not get involved in athletics because of a belief that it does not warrant the same attention as "academic" matters, for athletics is precisely the issue that draws the most public attention and scrutiny. As a result of the increasingly intense front-page newspaper visibility and network television coverage of athletics' ills, presidents should be gravely concerned and compelled to a greater local involvement. In times like these, not only can institutions suffer damaging blows to their reputation, but they also risk losing public confidence in higher education as an entity with unimpeachable integrity and propriety. Big-time college sports is a reality at the Division I level, and presidents need to be more involved with their programs. While they cannot and should not be expected to micromanage athletics, or any department on campus for that matter, they are required by the NCAA Constitution to maintain "institutional control." There are a number of basic and pragmatic, if not simplistic, steps that presidents can take to ensure that an environment of institutional control is conspicuously present on their campuses: 1. The president should become more knowledgeable about his or her institution's athletics program and its history. Information contained in sports media guides can be quite helpful. Presidents should make it a priority to familiarize themselves personally with coaches and athletics administrators, as well as those who actively support their sports programs. Most importantly, presidents must devote more of their time to communicating with the student-athlete, and not just with those who are stars of revenue-producing teams. 2. The president should actively support his or her athletics program by attending a variety of events such as athletics functions and meetings, not just the football and basketball games. It is easy for a president to be supportive and involved when the school's teams are successful and gaining regional and national prominence, but it is of greater import for presidents to be visible during difficult times in their athletics programs. Issues such as Title IX, gambling, alcohol and drug abuse, sports agents, NCAA investigations and many others should capture as much of the president's attention as NCAA and conference championships. Of leadership, the late Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said it best: "The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands in times of challenge and controversy." 3. The president should insist that the athletics program is operated in compliance with all applicable rules and regulations. Just as the president sets the tone and direction for academics, so too must the president communicate clearly his or her expectations to everyone associated with athletics on that campus. Further, the president must be willing to deal appropriately and responsibly with those who choose not to adhere to those rules and regulations. That cannot be emphasized enough. The president should require continuous rules education for all athletics staff members and others who are involved in matters of athletics, including admissions, registrar and financial-aid personnel. Finally, the president must insist on a comprehensive compliance program that includes written policies and procedures. 4. The president should give careful consideration when selecting a faculty athletics representative, and the president should formulate a written description of the position's responsibilities. NCAA legislation does not articulate the parameters of the faculty athletics representative's role, so the position can be only as effective as the president wishes it to be. The faculty athletics representative position can be critically important in helping to maintain the overall integrity of the athletics program, but only if the person performing these duties is not more concerned with sitting in the first row at games. The president must demonstrate through this appointment that the position is more than just a perk for a "fan." These are but a few simple, yet imminently achievable, recommendations. If a president finds that he or she cannot implement these because of bureaucratic red tape or criticism from within and outside the campus community, the president should seriously ponder this question: Do I really want to serve as president here? While the presidents should be applauded for the unprecedented role they have assumed in the NCAA, it should be considered only as a starting point toward real reform. Presidents have, for too long, limited their participation in policy discourse to the safety of national forums such as the NCAA while, unfortunately, resisting opportunities to create a stronger presence at home, which is where their voices should resonate loudest. Lori A. McQueen, Ed.D., is vice-president of the Collegiate Consulting Group of Executive Sports, a division of Golden Bear International, based in North Palm Beach, Florida. Her 1992 doctoral dissertation at Florida State University was "A Political Systems Analysis of the NCAA Presidents Commission: 1984-1991."
Comment -- March Madness will bring out the best
BO SMOLKABucknell UniversityI've got a message for all the basketball fans out there who have been seduced by the National Basketball Association, with its bright lights, acrobatic dunks and glitzy marketing: You can have it. I'll take March Madness. You can have the NBA, with its many whiners who treat their enormous wealth like some sort of birthright and who are quick to jump ship if the next port has more money. You can have the spoiled superstars who have forgotten how to play defense and who seem offended when they are penalized for missing a practice. You can have the millionaire egos, the larger-than-life icons who expect to be catered to and who call for the coach's neck if every whim is not met. I'll take the college game, especially come tournament time each March. I'll take rollicking pep bands, swaying back and forth in right-left-right unison. I'll take fuzzy-cheeked bench-warmers, holding hands or kneeling together on the sidelines during the final seconds of a nailbiter. I'll take the noon-to-night drama of a conference tournament, a wonderful festival of talent and a harsh survival of the fittest. I'll take players who play defense with intensity, who listen to coaches and respond, who set textbook screens on offense and who fight through them on defense. I'll take players who know they will never be pros but who are driven by a more simple passion: a love of the game born on some urban playground or rural driveway and nurtured through years of hot summer games, high-school gyms and long bus rides. I'll take the Patriot League championship game played between Navy and Bucknell March 5 at Alumni Hall in Annapolis, Maryland, won by Navy, 76-75, after 40 minutes of heart-stopping excitement. I'll take Navy's Michael Heary and Bucknell's J. R. Holden, trading acrobatic shot for acrobatic shot during a furious, fantastic three-minute stretch late in the game that left fans for both teams dizzy. I'll take Navy's Brian Walker and Bucknell's Gordon Mboya, two seniors playing with a sense of urgency, driven by the realization that their next loss is their last game. Ever. I'll take players like Bucknell's Tom Welch, who are like their fellow students, not above them. I'll take players you can meet on campus and with whom you can carry on an intelligent conversation, who don't strut around with sunglasses on indoors, as if any contact with an adoring public is an inconvenience to be avoided at all cost. I'll take Navy's Hassan Booker, who, not long after the championship game ended, went to the Bucknell locker room to seek out J. R. Holden, the magnificent Bucknell point guard who took Bucknell's bitter one-point loss as his own responsibility. Booker wasn't looking to talk trash or shove the freshly cut championship net in Holden's face. He was there to pat Holden's back, hug him, wish him all the best. He was there out of respect for a talent, a grace and a passion that he can appreciate. I'll take coaches like Navy's Don DeVoe and Bucknell's Pat Flannery, who were themselves players once and who now help craft these young men into officers and gentlemen. And I'll take the fans, the college kids with exams looming, who paint their faces and drive all night to be there for that one magical moment when the national spotlight shines on their school. I'll take the sea of orange, blue, gold or whatever other color rabid fans wear to pledge their allegiance and their pride. Some people are worried that college basketball is losing its luster as more and more players leave college early -- or skip it altogether -- to go to the NBA. On March 5, though, Navy and Bucknell proved emphatically that the college game is alive and well. It is healthy because of people like Heary, Holden, Booker and Welch, who leave every ounce of their energy and ability on the court. Yes, there are spectacular players who will flee the college game for the big dollars of the NBA. Yes, the NBA arguably has the greatest athletes in the world. Yet as long as there are college students who play for the love of the game, who are motivated simply by winning and not by greed, who take tremendous pride in representing State U. on the basketball court, the college game will thrive, especially come tournament time. I'll take them. You can have the NBA. Bo Smolka is sports information director at Bucknell University.
Opinions -- Judging character trickier than assessing athletics skills
T. J. Washington, football player "I was lucky enough to come from a two-parent home and I had parents who loved me and supported me and taught me right from wrong. Not everybody comes from that kind of background. That's not to say that people from single-parent homes are automatically bad, but people come from different backgrounds and sometimes you don't know what kind of person you get. When coaches recruit somebody you know what kind of athlete you're getting, but you don't always know what kind of person you're getting."
M. Terrance Holland, athletics director "I hesitate to provide my true feelings because they're so dismal. I think we can make some progress at certain levels, but the overall process would be very difficult to change. If you've read anything about the Roman Empire, you cannot escape the conclusion that we're headed for disaster.... You certainly can't give up. So you keep on trying."
Athletes and race
Tony Coley, football player "You walk in the (NCAA) Convention and the people making the decisions are white. The thing that bothers black athletes the most is, they're a major part of bringing in the revenue, but we're not a major part of making decisions that concern (us)."
Charles S. Farrell, national director "These arenas are built on and generate huge amounts of moneys off the black athletes. What is there in return? A limited number of those make the pros. And a majority do not graduate. "It's a business, with the labor supplied mostly by African-Americans. And there's no direct return on that investment African-Americans are making, but certainly a return when you have coaches making millions of dollars, athletics directors very wealthy, boosters getting prime seats and going to the Final Four."
Chris Samuels, football player "We all pretty much feel like we're being used. We talk about it a lot, you know, as far as the coaches, and how much money that they're making off of us, and you know...basically, it's like the military, if you ask me. They're getting paid, and we're only getting a small percentage of the money."
Gender equity
Marcia L. Saneholtz, senior associate athletics director "The fact is that there are way too many football teams and basketball teams who get what they want, not what they need to be competitive."
Finding revenue
Tim Curley, athletics director Discussing a four-year deal with Nike worth about $3 million: "You have to look for new revenue streams all the time. In our case, it frees up money that gives us an opportunity to meet some strategic objectives like increasing our women's programs. I think as long as it's done in good taste and with proper controls over your relationship and partnership, particularly when you're talking about Division I-A athletes, then it can only be beneficial. "Nike gives us all of the shoes and core apparel for 15 of our 29 sports and they also do our uniforms."
|