Comment

September 15, 1997

• Guest editorial -- Finding middle ground on sportsmanship ...By Craig Clifford and Randolph M. Feezell
• Comment -- Cutting sports not 'the right thing to do'
• Opinions -- Nature of the job is changing for athletics directors

Guest editorial -- Finding middle ground on sportsmanship

BY CRAIG CLIFFORD AND RANDOLPH M. FEEZELL

When we forget the balance of playfulness and seriousness, sportsmanship falls by the wayside.

Two extreme views of competition are based on a confusion about the balance of playfulness and seriousness in sport. Our intention is to offer a middle way that preserves this essential balance.

At one extreme is the view that winning is everything and the only thing, that nothing is ever gained in losing, except learning that losing is bad. Competition on this model is like war: The opponent is the enemy and the goal is to destroy the enemy.

At the other extreme is the view that competition is inherently bad, that all forms of play in which there are winners and losers are unethical, psychologically destructive, educationally ineffective. On this view, only noncompetitive play is acceptable. Sports are acceptable only if they are organized, coached, and taught in such a way that winning -- and therefore talent and ability -- doesn't matter at all. On this view, "having fun" is the only thing that matters.

The winning-is-everything approach loses track of the spirit of play; the fun-is-everything approach loses track of the seriousness. To the one, we ought to say "Lighten up" and to the other, "Get serious."

From the standpoint of the middle ground on which sport is both playful and serious, both of these extremes are based on the same misunderstanding of the nature of competition.

On one level, competition does involve winners and losers; and, more specifically, if one side wins, the other necessarily loses. But on another level, competition is an opportunity for the development, exercise and expression of human excellence. Trying to win means trying to do the best I can at the game, trying to be as excellent as possible in all of the ways that the game calls for. But it is precisely my opponent's effort to excel, my opponent's effort to perform better than I do, that gives me the opportunity to strive for excellence. By the same token, I make it possible for my opponent to strive for excellence.

In that sense I ought to be thankful for a great opponent. On one level opponents "oppose" each other; on another level they are engaged in a mutual striving for excellence.

Of course, it's little wonder that some people would conclude that competition is inherently bad if their competitive experiences have been characterized by the winning-is-everything attitude. If winning is everything and you're better than I am, then what's the point? If I'm going to lose, it's pretty obvious that my only rational choice is to refuse to compete. Or, if I am better than you and you will get nothing from losing to me, then my beating you is nothing short of exploitation. Both of those situations would be morally repugnant.

At the other extreme, if you teach kids that winning doesn't matter at all, you're not being honest about the nature of competition. If it doesn't matter at all whether I win or lose, if it doesn't matter at all whether I throw the ball well or poorly, what's the point?

If the winning-is-everything extreme is morally repugnant, the winning-is-nothing extreme is morally inane. A beginning youth league might well employ a rule that all players play a certain number of minutes to allow all of the participants an opportunity to learn the skills of the game, but such a rule employed to downplay the competitive aspect of the game misses the point of competition.

To steer a course between these extremes, we have to articulate the value of participating in the game and the opportunity that that participation affords. At the risk of combating cliches with cliches, we do need to return to the notion that, at some deeper level, it's not whether you win or lose -- after all, somebody must lose for somebody else to win -- but how you play the game. In fact, we can take this idea one step further: It's not just how you play the game that ultimately matters, but how the game is played, for it is participation in that game that is valuable. How I play the game contributes to the quality of that game for me, my teammates, coach, and opponents -- even spectators and the community.

It's not whether you win or lose, but what kind of game everyone gets to participate in. Central to the game is the effort of the participants to win, and without the participants' commitment to winning, there is no game. It is not, however, the winning itself that ultimately matters, but the sorts of things we experience and come to understand by playing the game, and the opportunities for human excellence that playing the game affords.

Coach Skeptical: But if you tell your players that winning isn't everything, will they try as hard to win? Will it matter enough to them? I want my players to be as competitive as they can be. I want them to hurt like I do when they lose. Isn't it still winning that really matters?

Don't misunderstand what we're saying. We believe that winning really matters -- and that it should matter. But it matters within the context of participating in an exhilarating experience of trying to become excellent and learning things about ourselves.

The main problem with the winning-is-everything attitude is that it diminishes the importance of all the other good things about sport. It's like going to a good movie and saying the only good thing about it was how it turned out.

An understanding of the richness of sport helps us sustain the balance of playfulness and seriousness, and this very balance provides space for other important values -- including sportsmanship -- to flourish. In fact, what we're saying is that competitiveness -- striving to win -- is an essential part of sportsmanship.

Craig Clifford is an associate professor of philosophy at Tarleton State University. Randolph M. Feezell is a professor of philosophy at Creighton University. This commentary is excerpted from their book, "Coaching For Character: Reclaiming The Principles Of Sportsmanship."

Comment -- Cutting sports not 'the right thing to do'

BY ROBERT G. LEWIS

Recent legal decisions against colleges and universities for Title IX violations have caused administrators to rush to compliance in the name of "gender equity." Unfortunately, this "rush," in many situations, has created confusion and bitterness due to the often abrupt, and sometimes unnecessary, termination of men's nonrevenue sports such as wrestling, swimming and gymnastics.

All too often, all that is needed is a well-conceived plan of action to bring a program into compliance.

Much has been written in this paper as well as other publications about methods of compliance instituted by different colleges and universities. George Mason University recently announced a four-year plan to bring its program into compliance with Title IX without cutting any men's programs. It is one of several institutions that appears to be sincerely concerned about every one of its athletes, men and women, regardless of their chosen sport.

Administrators at these institutions are to be commended for their efforts and their determination to achieve gender equity by increasing rather than decreasing opportunities for participation.

No attempt at alternative

However, as has been well documented in the past, there are other universities that have declared that they cannot "afford" to add women's sports without terminating some of their men's programs. At these institutions, there is rarely any legitimate attempt at a creative plan that would save men's "minor-sport" programs. Their easy way out is simply to comply by subtraction, and the motives of those making the decisions are somewhat suspect in some instances.

Why are some administrators so willing to terminate men's sports as the first step to achieve equity? I believe it's important and relevant to take a closer look, especially when it is sudden and without warning. Many staunch supporters of Title IX have argued that cutting men's programs ought to be the last step in the process, not the first. All too often, however, it is the first step.

'Lack of funds'

The most popular argument used by directors of athletics when eliminating sports is "lack of funds." "Lack of funds" in most cases is the result of attempting to "keep up with the Joneses," especially in football and basketball. These so-called revenue-producing (not always profit-making) sports need to continue to expand their budgets because everyone else is doing so. Steve Erber, director of athletics at Muhlenberg College, correctly calls this an arms race.

If institutions unilaterally scale back their funding or even maintain the status quo for their high-profile programs, they fear that they could be putting themselves at a competitive, as well as a recruiting, disadvantage. Therefore, if and when the money gets tight, cutbacks are made in other sports. Funds thus recovered are reallocated into football and basketball as these sports' budgets continue to escalate. Money is not saved, it is simply reallocated. Men's "minor sports" get hurt and ADs blame (even while saluting) gender equity and Title IX.

A similar situation presents itself when institutions decide to "upgrade" their programs from Division III to Division II and on to Division I. When scholarships become part of the package along with increased travel, coaching staffs, salaries, etc., budgets increase dramatically, especially in football, basketball and often ice hockey. Again, while publicly emphasizing "gender equity," administrators conveniently jettison their burdensome nonrevenue-producing men's sports and reallocate funds to the "big sport" programs.

Make no mistake, an ideal program to some would be football, basketball and spectators.

It is particularly appalling when many of the same ADs claim in politically correct terms that "gender equity is not only the law, but it is the right thing to do" while singling out athletes to lose intercollegiate sports opportunities because of their gender.

There are several reasons for institutions participating in Division I. A primary consideration is that the university will incur a substantial increase in revenue though donations, corporate sponsorship, gate receipts and even television. Unfortunately, at most Division I programs, expenses exceed revenue and programs operate at a deficit.

Losing money, but still spending

A recently published survey, "Revenues and Expenses of Divisions I and II Intercollegiate Athletics Programs" in 1995, brings to light the ongoing myth that Division I programs are profitable. A total of 206 Division I institutions responded to the survey. Of them, 144 reported that expenses exceeded revenues, 58 said that revenues exceeded expenses while four reported that they broke even. An alarming 70 percent of these institutions of higher learning participating in Division I athletics lost money. For Division I programs participating in Division I-AA football, the news was even worse, with 85 percent of respondents reporting deficits in their overall program.

Despite this survey, administrators, especially directors of athletics, continue to promote the idea of expanding revenues when listing the merits of moving to Division I.

The question ought to be asked: If Division I is bound to make more money, why is it necessary to cut programs?

In recent years, high-profile universities such as Syracuse, Wisconsin, UCLA and Michigan, to name a few, have either cut or attempted to cut some men's programs. These large institutions appear regularly on television, play in large arenas usually filled to capacity and derive income from their participation and their leagues' participation in NCAA championships and bowl games. Certainly, they ought to be able to afford to add women's programs without axing men's programs. It just appears that too often, gender equity is simply a convenient way to "streamline" the athletics program for the subsidizing of the few glamour sports -- more money for fewer athletes.

In the June 16 NCAA News Comment section, Milton Richards, director of athletics at the State University of New York at Albany, stated that "short-term pain will lead to long-term gain." He went on to mention that under his guidance, the university dropped three "minor" men's sports to achieve gender equity -- what he called "the right thing to do." Interestingly, he made two glaring omissions. First, he failed to mention that women's swimming was also dropped from the program. What does that say about motive?

Second, he failed to mention that the sports programs were dropped less than a month after the university announced its decision to move from Division III to Division II (it has since declared its intention to proceed to Division I status by 1998). Odd coincidence?

Such situations can and should be avoided. It is not fair to undergraduate male athletes whose sports have been suddenly terminated to be forced to make the difficult and bitter choice either to transfer or prematurely end their intercollegiate athletics careers.

It would be far more honest as well as palatable to athletes and coaches of men's "minor sports" if directors of athletics at some Divisions I and II schools would admit that their sports have to go because of the tremendous cost of football and basketball. Usually, however, the "minor sports" victims are told that they must be sacrificed in the name of "gender equity." It is not right. It is not fair, and it should not be allowed to happen.

Therefore, I believe that the NCAA needs to take a more active role when programs are suddenly altered and reduced, supposedly due to "gender equity." If universities are stepping up in divisions, otherwise boosting their money sports, such moves should not be accompanied by programmatic cutbacks. If you can't afford to upgrade your program, don't do it. It is not the right thing to do.

Robert G. Lewis, now retired, formerly was an associate professor of physical education and men's tennis coach at the State University of New York at Albany.

Opinions -- Nature of the job is changing for athletics directors

Clarence Underwood
Senior associate director of athletics
Michigan State University
The Detroit News

Discussing what is required of an athletics director:

"There still has to be a balance, a background in both economics as well as in athletics education. The product you're dealing with, primarily, is the student-athlete.

"You have to understand that product more than anything else. If you don't do that, understand how that fits in the whole system, then the business aspect of it will not do you any good. You have to know athletics, understand coaches, coaches' mentality, understand the environment of compliance, academics -- all that, you have to understand that very clearly.

"And then you have to understand the business side, where you need to go out and raise the money, find the resources to be sure those programs function at the level you want them to."

Merritt Norvell, director of athletics
Michigan State University
The Detroit News

"Most people in business in the private sector have had quite a bit of management training. Formal training, as well as a lot of experiential training. That's important, because there's a certain toughness you have to have today in this particular job, and I don't necessarily see that toughness and perspective in what I would call traditional people who come up just through the athletics management graduate program and have risen up through the ranks.

"You've got to have strong skills in personnel management -- that's a high percentage of the program, you're either hiring or firing, or negotiating contracts with people. I think you need to understand big-money management, you need to have strategic planning skills, you need to be visionary in some respects. Those are all skills you learn pretty readily in the private sector."

Tom Stanton, director of athletics
Baylor University
The Dallas Morning News

"There has to be a passion that individuals have for the institutions they represent. Yes, the athletics director's job has changed. You're always trying to find ways to help you expand the fund-raising. We'll see more corporate types with a business approach, but also with a passion for an institution because they have a link."

Frank Windegger, director of athletics
Texas Christian University
The Dallas Morning News

"This job has evolved into a very big business. Twenty years ago, you had more time to watch practices. Now there is gender equity, litigation and drug testing. It's harder to get away from the desk and the phone."

Grant Teaff, executive director
American Football Coaches Association
The Dallas Morning News

"There was a time when athletics directors ruled the roost. In the last several years, college presidents have been much more involved in athletics. And we've seen the conference commissioners become strong."

Metal baseball bats

Bill Williams, executive director
The Louisville Slugger Museum
The Denver Post

"We didn't want to make aluminum bats. We were dragged kicking and screaming, quite honestly, into the aluminum-bat business....We thought it would ruin the game of baseball. But we had to survive....

"The aluminum companies started taking these space-age alloys they used to make airplanes and rocket ships and turning them into tubing for bats. Now you have stronger aluminum and light weight. USC used our bats and hit 14 homers in the 1995 College World Series.

"The NCAA decided it had gone too far. The future of baseball is going to be determined in the metallurgical laboratories? We can't allow this to happen."