National Collegiate Athletic Association

Comment

April 6, 1998

Guest editorial -- Group takes initiative on sportsmanship

BY CHARLIE ADAMS
North Carolina High School Athletic Association

This year I have had the pleasure and challenge of serving as president of the National Federation of State High School Associations. Not only have I had an opportunity to see things from our perspective in North Carolina, but I have traveled all over the country speaking with athletics administrators.

A consistent theme that keeps popping up in those discussions is the concern about sportsmanship.

Let me say up front that I realize, despite some elements in common, there are vast differences between college athletics and what we offer at the high-school level, just as there are differences between intercollegiate athletics and professional sports. We would never try to tell the colleges how to administer their own programs.

But I believe the true purpose of high-school athletics is to build better citizens. It is not necessarily to provide scholarship opportunities or a healthy physical outlet or even an enjoyable co-curricular experience that makes school more fun, although those are all good outcomes. It is to teach lasting values and lessons that our current student-athletes will use far into the next millennium.

There is no question that young student-athletes emulate their idols whom they see play on television. And it is also true that at times those idols don't provide the best sorts of role models in terms of behavior. But we also recognize that high-school student-athletes are role models, too, more accessible than the icons on TV for a community's elementary or middle-school aged youth.

The North Carolina High School Athletic Association offers 22 different sports and crowns more than 70 state team champions, and certainly we have had our share of unsportsmanlike conduct at events, like many of our counterparts across the country. However, we attempt to deal with the "sportsmanship issue" on both sides, with recognition for positive behavior and consequences for inappropriate action.

A few years ago, the association's Board of Directors adopted a sportsmanship/ejection policy, and it underwent some major adjustments for 1997-98. Currently our student-athletes, coaches and game administrators who

are ejected from any contest for certain acts -- such as fighting, taunting, profanity, obscene gestures or disrespectfully addressing or contacting an official -- are suspended from essentially a week's worth of competition, one game in football or two contests in other sports.

Should another ejection occur, that individual is suspended from all sports for the remainder of the season. A third ejection in a school year results in suspension from all activity for one calendar year. It is pleasing that in the four years of existence for this policy, we have not yet had a player or coach receive that one-year suspension.

But that wasn't enough. We were concerned that the ejections of coaches from our contests doubled from the 1994-95 school year to last year. Granted, it went from 56 to 119, and considering the thousands of contests played that is not a large number, but we wanted to send a clear message about that sort of unacceptable behavior. We were also concerned about an alarming number of ejections that were occurring at some particular schools.

That is why we added a new facet dealing with team behavior. The NCHSAA Board strongly believes that participating in the playoffs is a reward for a good season, but that it also carries some responsibility. Therefore, teams whose players and coaches during the regular season accumulate six or more ejections for those aforementioned reasons, or more than three for fighting, are ineligible to participate in postseason play -- period.

Fortunately, at least thus far this year, no team that would have qualified for the playoffs has failed to make it because of the ejection limit.

Besides punitive measures, however, we recognize schools that have exhibited outstanding sportsmanship.

For the last two years, we have presented Sportsmanship Awards from our Student Services Division. Schools have to meet three criteria: (1) have no players or coaches ejected from any contest during the entire academic year; (2) receive an overall positive rating from the game officials and booking agents who work with the school's athletics program; and (3) submit a written plan of how the school promotes sportsmanship and positive behavior.

A total of 35 NCHSAA schools last year had no players or coaches ejected in any sport, a tremendous accomplishment.

We present awards to schools in selected state championship events for the best sportsmanship as demonstrated by players, coaches, school administrators and supporters. Additionally, we have recognized eight high-school coaches, one from each of our eight regions, for exemplary conduct and sportsmanship in our program "Eight Who Make A Difference." Coaches nominated by their schools are selected in a statewide process.

Sportsmanship continues to be a concern. I'm sure we all wonder sometimes if we can really do anything about outbreaks of boorish behavior.

But the North Carolina High School Athletic Association takes seriously its code for participation, which reads, in part: "Competitive athletics cannot be justified as part of the school program unless it contributes to a wholesome rounding out of the personality of the participants and spectators. We shall therefore insist on hard but clean play, resulting in honest victory without conceit or honest defeat without bitterness."

We believe in that code. We believe our job is to build better citizens, and it is our duty to do everything in our power to provide the type of atmosphere in which that can happen.

Charlie Adams is executive director of the North Carolina High School Athletic Association.

Comment -- Reasons to let the service rule stay put

BY PAUL S. FEIN

The NCAA rule change that eliminates the service let in Division I men's tennis this year is a serious mistake. The following major arguments and rebuttals show why the traditional service let rule -- which has stood the test of time so fairly and efficiently since 1875 -- should not be abolished.

Argument 1 -- Service lets, which require serves that hit the net and land in the service box to be replayed, both slow down the match and increase its length. Player arguments about service lets further delay play.

Rebuttal -- Service lets are very infrequent. A survey taken during the 1982 U.S. Open revealed there were only 1.83 let serves per hour of play. (More recently, the no-let rule is being tried in Davis Cup Group III and IV ties, and the International Tennis Federation will release its findings at the end of 1998.)

Empirical evidence further indicates that arguments about service lets are even rarer, especially when compared to disputes about line calls. Therefore, it's fair and reasonable to conclude that eliminating the service let would have little appreciable effect on speeding up tennis.

Argument 2 -- Abolishing the service let, some proponents claim, would push athletes to a higher level of performance.

Rebuttal -- The contrary is true. Playing without the service let actually lowers the caliber of play for both the server and receiver.

Why? How? The two criteria for evaluating a serve are quality -- its power, depth, accuracy, effective spin and variety -- and consistency. Allowing the flukish service-let rebounds -- balls that dribble meekly over the net for aces, pop straight up or carom wildly after hitting the top of the net -- diminishes serving quality as well as inadvertently and wrongly increases consistency. And that de-emphasizes the importance of a sound and effective return of serve and thus further encourages mediocrity.

Andre Agassi, formerly world No. 1 and a superb service returner, after experimenting with the no-let at the Nike Cup in December 1996, noted: "It's ridiculous. It just makes the game a lottery." Even worse, it makes it a dangerous lottery.

Returners could powerfully smash high-popping service lets from inside the service box directly at serve and volleyers in singles and at both opponents in doubles.

That would inevitably cause injuries and animosity.

Argument 3 -- Since service lets are unpredictable and often bizarre, legalizing this element of luck would add spice to the sport.

Rebuttal -- Dual-match and tournament tennis are wonderful tests of skill and will. The present rules offer a fair test of superiority, a sine qua non of any athletics competition. The odds are excellent that the more skillful and stronger-willed player will eventually prevail. This is not to say that luck plays no role. Net cords, mis-hits, bad bounces, bad line calls and bad weather can all make things rather interesting without materially (except rarely) affecting the outcome.

However, any rule change as drastic as abolishing the service let would clearly debase the game's intent, beauty, quality and fairness. As Stefan Edberg, former world No. 1 in singles and doubles, averred: "It's crazy. If the ball hits the net and drops (barely) over, it's an ace? It would be a matter of luck. It's totally unnecessary." And, when such unnecessary and excessive luck occurs on game points, set points and match points, its unfairness and foolishness are magnified.

Argument 4 -- Since play continues after net cords (when the ball hits the top of the net and then lands in the court) during the point, why not continue play after service lets that start the point? What's the difference anyway?

Rebuttal -- The best analogy is baseball's foul ball, which is an integral part of the duel between the pitcher and the batter. An unplayable (not caught on the fly) foul ball counts for the first two strikes, but not for the third strike unless it's an unsuccessful bunt attempt. Baseball people do not consider this inconsistent, but rather a brilliant piece of rules-making and also a time-tested and beneficial tradition. It's hard to imagine baseball's lords ever doing away with third (and successive) foul balls -- which, incidentally, often add to the tension -- merely to "speed up the game." Many tennis people feel the same way about the service let.

They maintain that since the service let starts the point and the net cord happens during the point, the two situations differ considerably in this crucial sense.

The no-let rule is not just a nonsolution to a nonproblem. It's detrimental to the game. Tony Trabert, the 1951 NCAA tennis champion and world's top amateur player in 1955, says "it's foolish to even consider abolishing the service let." Steffi Graf ridiculed it as "stupid." Jimmy Connors criticized it as "nitpicking." Boris Becker warned, "It's not a wise change." And Pete Sampras blasted it as "ridiculous."

They are right.

Paul S. Fein is a tennis writer and a United States Professional Tennis Association teaching professional. He is a former Cornell University varsity tennis team starter in singles and doubles, and his instructional articles have appeared in U.S. and foreign tennis magazines.

Opinions -- Youth gambling at a higher rate than adult population

Jim Nesbitt, writer
Newhouse News Service

"A recently released study by the Harvard University Medical School's Division on Addictions shows the percentage of American teen-agers addicted to gambling is more than twice as large as the adult rate of addiction -- 3.88 percent to 1.6 percent. Teens also show a far higher rate of problem gambling that could lead to full-blown pathological gambling than adults -- 9.45 percent to 3.85 percent.

"This trend is particularly pronounced among college students crossing from their teens into young adulthood -- 672,433 American college students are addicted to gambling, the Harvard study concludes. People in this group show the highest percentages of pathological and problem gambling in the Harvard study....

"These numbers give scientific spine to the avalanche of anecdotal evidence about the rampant growth of illegal sports gambling on college campuses and show that betting scandals involving athletes at Boston College and Arizona State University aren't just isolated incidents. The Harvard study also dovetails with an NCAA survey that shows a quarter of the nation's college athletes bet on sporting events."

Chris Cosenza, Boston College football player
Newhouse News Service

Discussing a gambling scandal at Boston College:

"The attitude was: 'It's just part of the college experience.' To tell the truth, it never crossed my mind it was illegal; it was so commonplace. I'm an athlete, I love sports -- having a little money brings your interest up a little."

Tom Fitzpatrick, columnist
The Arizona Republic

"I fear for college basketball's future. A dark cloud hovers over it. It's the threat posed by organized gambling. Thousands of dollars are bet every week on games across the country. Even Ivy League strongholds have resident bookies with connections to professional gamblers. Point spreads, set in Las Vegas, tell bettors which team is favored and predict the margin of victory.

"Currently, basketball fans are in a state of delirium watching the country's finest college teams battle to reach the Final Four. But there's a dirty little secret that nobody wants to talk about: Nobody knows when a game has been fixed.

"Coaches who've been around the game a lifetime say it's impossible to tell whether a player has taken a bribe to fix the point spread. Here's an example: Stevin 'Hedake' Smith of Arizona State University scored a career-high 39 points while taking $20,000 to fix the spread on the Oregon State game on January 27, 1994. Arizona State was an eight-point favorite. It won by six.

"The gamblers made a killing. They put their winnings back into bets on ASU's game against the University of Oregon two nights later. Stevin Smith suffered a sprained ankle in the first half. But he made a dramatic return in the second half with a heavily taped ankle. Smith helped ASU win by 10 points. But the gamblers collected. The point spread was 15 points."

Wrestling

George T. Bowman, letter to the editor
USA Today

"Despite collegiate wrestling's recent setbacks -- including the tragic deaths of three collegiate wrestlers and the elimination of many varsity programs -- I believe the sport not only will regain its historic stature, but soon will reach unprecedented levels of success....

"My primary cause for optimism...is that amateur wrestling at its highest level is simply the most compelling spectator sport in the world. It is impossible to properly describe the drama of NCAA wrestling's final championship round to a person who has not attended. Twenty-four athletes who have reached the pinnacle of their sport face off in 12 weight classes in the most elemental competition -- no time-outs, no substitutions, no excuses.

"Will amateur wrestling surpass the 'revenue sports' in media attention and hoopla? I hope not. What will continue, however, is the passionate support of the wrestling community, including former wrestlers who recognize that participation in the sport was one of the most important character-building experiences of their lives."