Guest editorial -- 'Practical idealists' will affect positive change
By Kenneth A. Shaw
Syracuse University
Now that the Division I Board of Directors has received the recommendations from the Working Group to Study Basketball Issues, it is appropriate for me to comment on the work of that group and the recommendations that came forth. Those recommendations will go forward now to various bodies within the Division I governance structure to flesh out the details.
At a press conference a few weeks ago to announce the recommendations, I referred to the working group as "practical idealists." Some might argue -- and some in the media have argued -- that what that really means is a group of folks with good intentions who at the end of the day didn't do much. Obviously, I disagree with that interpretation and with the sentiment that the recommendations didn't go far enough.
This is still an association in which the will of the majority rules and where progress tends to be more an evolution than a revolution. While few argue that the working group's recommendations are revolutionary, they certainly are more than evolutionary. As practical idealists, the working group was asked to push an agenda of change as far as legal restraints and philosophical differences would carry it -- at this point in time.
The recommendations presented to the Board of Directors are significant steps toward addressing issues in Division I basketball. We confronted these issues -- low graduation and high attrition rates, the recruiting process and the influence of nonscholastic coaches, the overall image of the sport, the almost epidemic impact of illegal sports wagering and gambling, the influence of agents, and the early departure of student-athletes for professional basketball. Problems associated with these issues are not going to go away easily. But we think what we offer will make a difference.
Here's my advice: Don't sell these recommendations short and give them time to affect change. The initial grants-in-aid limit of four will have an impact on high attrition rates.
Giving financial aid for a summer school "head start" will be effective in giving freshman a taste of what these new academic expectations are all about. Extending financial aid to nonqualifiers will address one of the significant access issues we have faced since Proposition 48 was adopted. The incentive-based financial aid model will reward those programs that effectively support student-athletes' academic goals and will punish those with unacceptable graduation rates. These are just four of seven recommendations designed to enhance student-athletes' educational experience.
Reducing the time coaches can evaluate during the summer and driving them back to high-school events during the academic year will reduce the impact on nonscholastic coaches and help reconnect college and high-school coaches. But we think the most significant impact may be a recommended certification process for scholastic and, more importantly, nonscholastic events. Certification would require full financial disclosure to assure that agents and boosters are not involved and that benefits and money for participants do not exceed what is permitted.
And penalties for violations ranging from betting to point shaving will have new teeth with the recommendations addressing illegal sports wagering. Casual bets on college and professional sports have consequences for some loss of eligibility, and betting on your own team or influencing the outcome of a game would result in permanent loss of eligibility.
Finally, the recommendation for a standing "watch dog" committee to monitor Division I college basketball will assure that none of the issues addressed by the working group fall from our radar screens.
Certainly, there is more work to do. And the Division I Working Group to Study Basketball Issues has presented significant first steps and a blueprint for continued scrutiny and fine-tuning.
Kenneth A. Shaw is the chancellor of Syracuse University and chair of the Division I Working Group to Study Basketball Issues.
Comment -- Blue language spoiled a golden moment
Vincent J. Dooley
University of Georiga
With a crowd of more than 90,000 people in the stands and an estimated 40 million more Americans glued to their TV sets, the United States women's soccer team won the World Cup by beating China in a shootout after 120 minutes of scoreless action.
The victory set off an incredible nationwide celebration as Americans rejoiced in the greatest team promotion ever for women's sports.
Since then, the 20 players on the U.S. team have appeared on "Good Morning, America," "Today," CNN, Fox News and other networks and programs. And rightly so. The American women have now captured the two biggest soccer championships -- the World Cup and the 1996 Olympic gold medal, which they won right here in Athens, Georgia, at Sanford Stadium.
But the most recent monumental moment was tainted, in my view, when Brandi Chastain, who made the winning penalty kick, used blatant profanity in a postmatch television interview. The World Cup heroine -- someone who should be a role model for girls and young women all over the U.S. -- used the words "G___ d ___" in praising the ability of a teammate.
When I heard what Chastain said, I was shocked. But since there was no reac tion from the TV announcers, I thought I might have heard her wrong. I wasn't sure until three days later, when the Atlanta Journal-Constitution quoted a spokesman from ABC-TV, who said with regard to the incident: "We were unaware of any reaction . . . we got no calls . . . nothing from the media, not anything." I am still amazed that no one has spoken out publicly against her use of profanity.
At one point, I questioned whether I just haven't adjusted to modern times. To get a perspective on the matter, I called University of Georgia soccer coach Bill Barker, who knows many of the players on the U.S. team, including Brandi Chastain.
Coach Barker was conducting a soccer camp for 450 girls ages 14-16. He told me they were all glued to a huge TV screen watching the World Cup -- and were in ecstasy after the U.S. won. When Chastain made her controversial remark, Barker and his staff tried to explain to the campers -- as best they could -- why Chastain would have said such a thing on national television. That was difficult, but can you imagine parents trying to explain to their daughters why Chastain said what she said?
I hope this was a case of an athlete speaking without thinking -- perhaps because she was caught up in the heat of the moment. Even so, that doesn't absolve Chastain of blame in this matter. To make matters worse, she has yet to apologize for her profanity.
It is a shame that the greatest moment in the history of U.S. women's team sports has, in my opinion, been dampened by the actions of one athlete. I hope that Brandi Chastain will realize the error of her ways and apologize. It will mean a lot to her image and, more importantly, to the way young female athletes learn to conduct themselves.
Vincent J. Dooley is director of athletics at the University of Georgia.
Letter to the Editor -- Reason for decline in male participation is clear
NCAA President Cedric Dempsey must be swimming neck-deep in a pool of denial if he refuses to acknowledge a connection between the drop in participation of male athletes and the negative ramifications of proportionality and compliance to Title IX regulations.
Since 1972, nearly 800 college wrestling programs have been dropped. Wrestling participation was down 33 percent from 1985 to 1997 in the General Accounting Office (GAO) study. Also hard-hit has been men's gymnastics, which is now virtually nonexistent in the NCAA (a drop of 56 percent in the GAO study).
Other male programs are suffering as a result of proportionality and various universities' twisted logic in their compliance to Title IX. In the past three years, a number of institutions at each level have dropped several male programs at one time, citing Title IX compliance as their reasoning. Miami University (Ohio) in Division I, Norfolk State University in Division II and Juniata College in Division III all discontinued several male programs, including wrestling and baseball, to name a few.
Although President Dempsey noted that the data do not point directly to Title IX as a source, the next step in logic is not a far one. While the NCAA may go on record as saying that it encourages compliance without cutting programs, its lack of intervention is shamelessly noticeable. For once, the NCAA finally has an opportunity to step out of its stereotypical punitive role and take a hand in the creation of what Title IX is truly all about -- equal opportunity for all. Not only does the "elimination method" of Title IX compliance prevent male collegians from their right to participate in athletics, but it also goes contrary to the spirit of Title IX itself, preventing female collegians from greater opportunities.
President Dempsey and the NCAA need to take a firmer and more proactive role in their administration of Title IX compliance if the future of collegiate athletics is to be positively shaped for the next millennium.
Without that firm and proactive role, the NCAA will have to bear some responsibility for the elimination of such Olympic sports as ice hockey, skiing, tennis, water polo, wrestling, gymnastics, fencing and rifle (all down in participation by 20 percent or more in the past 11 years). To detach itself from this phenomenon and not intervene at all in the decision-making processes of institutions to eliminate programs is tantamount to giving the NCAA's stamp of approval.
To suggest that the reason for the drop in male participation is unclear is to partake in a Pilate-like washing of the hands. Let's hope that no more casualties are necessary to inspire some type of action by the NCAA to right the wrongs against both male and female athletes -- and the spirit of Title IX.
John V. Lowe
Head Wrestling Coach
Western Maryland College
Opinions -- NCAA should declare athletes prospects from birth
Blaine Newnham, columnist
The Seattle Times
Discussing a school's reported football grant-in-aid offer to a 14-year old athlete:
"The idea of evaluating, recruiting and committing scholarships to grade-school athletes is exasperating. They are in no position to commit, just as the schools are in no position to honor the commitment. How many college coaches last five years? How many young people fulfill their potential as students and athletes?
"Exceptions could be made, as they are for virtuoso musicians or the highest-level scholars, but college coaches, under tremendous pressure to win, would stray beyond exceptions. To keep up, they'd exhaust a search of eighth-graders and then head for seventh-graders. The process would get embarrassing. They'd make bad choices, and so would the kids.
"The NCAA needs to make athletes 'prospects' from birth. Seems silly, but so are the coaches. The rules are there to protect them from themselves. Once again, they've shown they need it."
Title IX
Bev Lewis, women's athletics director
University of Arkansas, Fayetteville
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette
"I'm probably in the minority among women out there when it comes to proportionality. I don't think that's necessarily fair. It's just hard to make up for 130-140 football players. You just don't have enough athletes on teams to make up for it. There's not any (women's) sport that's comparable."
Women's basketball
John Wooden, former men's basketball coach
University of California, Los Angeles
Christian Science Monitor
"For the beauty and the finesse of the game, women play better than the men. They play below the rim. They pass better than men. They shoot free throws better than men. I'd rather see a good women's basketball team play than see these prima donnas all the time."
