National Collegiate Athletic Association |
CommentAugust 31, 1998
Guest editorial -- Basketball should go back to the basics
BY CLEM HASKINS
As coaches, we are relying on athleticism and physical ability more and more and have gotten away from the fundamentals. Many in our profession are placing too much emphasis on the slam dunk and the three-point shot. Many of the players we see today are unable to execute and perform to the true best of their abilities because of the lack of teaching they receive. Basketball has become a media darling. Television coverage is at an all-time high. Our sport is losing its grasp on instruction of younger players and has become more of a source of entertainment than it is a competitive sport. I feel that we as coaches, educators, and guardians of the game must strive to return to the true essence of basketball. Over the coming years, I feel that if we don't, the United States will lose its competitive edge in foreign competition and will struggle even with the utilization of our professional players. This is why I have chosen to speak out on the future of our game at this time. We invented the game of basketball; we can't take its greatness for granted. I feel as though there is no time like the present for us to step back and take a look at where the game is going and then redirect our sights on the preservation of our competitive edge, the fundamentals, and the principal elements of basketball. The following are a couple of the ideas that I am supporting for changes to the game: 1. Freshman ineligibility: Retain four years following completion of freshman year. 2. Summer camps: Players compete in a maximum of 14 days of competition or in just two different camps at which coaches are on hand to evaluate. Cut the summer evaluation period to 14 days. I look forward to the further discussion on these and other issues that are affecting our game. Working together as a whole, I am confident that we will maintain our focus and mission of promoting the great game of basketball to its fullest potential. Clem Haskins is men's basketball coach at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. Letter to the Editor -- Current policy limits men's opportunitiesConcerning the quote attributed to me in the "Opinions" section of The NCAA News (August 3 issue), I wanted to provide the broader context from which it was taken when I was interviewed by the San Diego Union-Tribune. First, it should be noted that San Diego State University has now achieved a very high level of gender equity in its athletics program. Our NCAA-eligible student population is about 45 percent men and 55 percent women. We have 11 women's sports and seven men's sports, and our participation ratios are 50 percent men and 50 percent women. In terms of actual dollars spent on athletics scholarships, 49 percent is spent on men and 51 percent on women. And in terms of overall expenditures for men's and women's athletics, 54 percent is spent on men and 46 percent on women. Over the last few years we have, by every reasonable measure, significantly increased opportunities for women and have met all apparent female interests in intercollegiate athletics participation on our campus. Nonetheless, under a previous court-ordered consent decree between the California State University (of which San Diego is a part) and the California chapter of the National Organization for Women, the rule of "proportionality" remains in force and our varsity athletics participation ratios must still reflect our enrollment within a 5 percent allowable margin. (Athletics scholarship expenditures must also be within 5 percent and total expenditures must be within 10 percent of enrollment ratios.) The draconian effect of this continued requirement is that while we have presently satisfied women's interests in varsity sports, we have been forced to arbitrarily restrict men's opportunities to participate despite their level of interest. Our athletics budget cannot withstand the sponsorship of yet another sport, but it could certainly accommodate greater squad sizes (for either sex) if interest so warranted. However, "proportionality" dictates that if we allow 60 or so interested male athletes to "walk on" to our football and baseball programs, then we must somehow find the money to start up two new women's programs. We do not have such resources, and we have not found a similar number of women on our campus who are interested in "walking on" to our existing programs. Thus, on our campus, "women's interests are defining (and limiting) men's opportunities" despite the fact that meeting men's interests would add very little cost to our overall program. I must say that this scenario appears "ludicrous" to many people. Proportionality by itself is nothing more than a quota system that hypocritically limits opportunities for men and irresponsibly undermines those who are serious and fair about gender equity. Finally, cutting football scholarships from 85 to 75 on our campus would simply mean reducing scholarship opportunities for men and eliminating an equal number of scholarships for women to maintain proportionality. Thus, leaving alone the argument that a further reduction of football scholarships would diminish the sport's revenue-generating potential (not to mention the possibility of the bigger programs bolting the NCAA over the issue), such action would be counterproductive and could have the effect of reducing Division I athletics opportunities for both men and women alike around the nation.
Richard M. Bay Opinions -- Bat decision will restore baseball's balance
Editorial "In this age of the sensation and the bottom line, it's a rare thing for an institution to put concerns for safety and beauty first. But that's just what the NCAA Executive Committee did the other day when it voted to impose new standards on aluminum bats to reduce the speeds at which balls are struck. Under the new rules, nonwood bats used after next August will have to be engineered so that struck balls come off the bat no faster than 93 mph, the top speed of balls struck with wooden bats. "That will restore some beauty and balance to college baseball, which, because of manufacturers' constant efforts to increase the power of bats, has become an ugly spectacle of cheap home runs and constant scoring. But most important, it will protect players, and particularly pitchers, from the balls rocketing off the juiced-up bats. The decision has dismayed bat manufacturers, one of which has already sued to block the new rules. But the NCAA deserves credit for ignoring the lawsuit threats and acting before a line drive kills some young pitcher."
Jerry Stitt, baseball coach "Coaches included, nobody wants to see an 18-16 game. With the changes to the bats, I think you'll see more strategy come into play: more hit-and-runs and more defense."
Dave Keilitz, executive director "Our board has proposed that the standard be similar to that of a wood bat in terms of performance. We took another survey of 16 coaches at all levels in the last year, and they all felt changes had to be made....We weren't sure it could happen for the 1999 season, but to do it in the year 2000 satisfies a lot of concerns."
Sports equipment
Skip Bayless, columnist "Heck, for high-handicap golfers, 300 yards will become as outdated a measurement for monumental as 300 pounds is for football linemen. This literal boom in technology is changing all of golf's standards, except the length of courses. Breaking 100 gets easier with each discovery of a new distance alloy. "So why hasn't the United States Golf Association moved to protect its game by regulating its equipment? Obviously because clubmakers are making too much money and spending so many millions of it on advertising. "Sure, the USGA went through a charade at the U.S. Open, releasing its findings on the 'spring-like effect' of club faces it had tested. The governing body basically said that every club made to that point was approved. The lone concern, said Executive Director David Fay, 'is what's around the corner.' "Such as wealthy clubmakers with Ryder Cup teams of threatening lawyers. "No, said Fay, 'We faced litigation before and it doesn't affect how we do our business.' "If you believe that, you probably still play with wooden shafts. "Wonder if the USGA trained its binoculars on what the NCAA just voted to do. Its Executive Committee had the mettle to restrict the size and shape of aluminum bats used in college baseball. These titanium-like implements had helped turn the College World Series into a slow-pitch softball tournament of home runs. "In the national-championship pingfest, Southern Cal beat Arizona State, 21-14. You could almost hear Harry Caray saying, 'Popped him up . . . might be . . . could be . . . it is!' "Of course, the leading producer of aluminum bats, Easton Sports Inc., has sued the NCAA for $267 million. The NCAA created this metallic monster in 1970 by allowing aluminum to be used as an unbreakable substitute for wood. The few bucks saved could now cost the NCAA a fortune. "For golf, I fear, fighting the technology onslaught has already become an unplayable lie. One moment, prominent TV commentators tell us that breakthrough equipment hasn't made today's players any better than yesterday's -- a preposterous stance. The next, the same commentators are doing commercials for clubs that 'will allow you to hit it farther than you ever dreamed.' "
Future of NCAA
Michael L. Slive, commissioner "The (restricted-earnings) verdict has created an environment in which people want to talk about the future of the NCAA and the role of the NCAA. Having said that, I think most people want to see it work. We ought to look at what the NCAA does and take stock of what it is doing and make sure it's doing what we want it to do."
Sportsmanship
James E. Delany, commissioner "Anyone who has followed athletics in America over the past 20 years must conclude there has been a general erosion in the standards of acceptable conduct for coaches, athletes and fans at competitive events."
Eugene F. Corrigan, former commissioner "In the name of victory, we've let a lot of things slide. If you put up with (bad behavior), that's just what you're going to get."
|
Basketball as a game has been placed in jeopardy due in large part to concentration on playing the game in a more exciting fashion and not on simply playing to learn the game of basketball, its principles and fundamentals. Players today have little understanding and knowledge of how to play and comprehend the game.