National Collegiate Athletic Association |
The NCAA News - CommentSeptember 16, 1996
Guest editorial -- Is it 'student-athlete' or 'athlete-student'In ancient Greece, the term "Arete" referred to a "striving for excellence in a balanced and unified physical, mental and spiritual way."
In many respects, Arete provided much of the model for intercollegiate athletics as we have come to know it. Recently, however, we see what I consider a disturbing shift in balance that is moving us closer to the physical aspect of college sports and further from its mental and spiritual benefits. The driving force in this shift is the "entertainment value" of the physical component of our sports. In the simplest term, it is the physical value that sells. With entertainment taking a dominant role at the collegiate level, we are striving to become more competitive and, in a sense, more professional. This creates a troubling paradox. As television increasingly dictates where and when we play, we are compelled on the one hand to become more competitive -- and "entertainment-focused" -- while on the other we must fend off criticism for low graduation rates or abandonment of the amateur ideal. In truth, there is little today that separates professional and intercollegiate athletics, and the gap is narrowing. Almost any definition of professionalism will fit the current collegiate model. We pay our coaches, we have year-round training, we charge admission, and we reimburse athletes in the form of educational dollars -- that is, scholarships that enable them to attend universities at little or no personal cost. The remaining significant difference in the intercollegiate model is our primary and stated commitment to education and to the development of life skills. This model leaves little room for the win-at-any-cost philosophy or the obsession always to be "number one." Nonetheless, I fear that many in intercollegiate athletics have accepted, maybe even unintentionally, the position taken by Alabama football coach Paul "Bear" Bryant as long ago as 1975. Coach Bryant said at that time: "I used to go along with the ideal that football players on scholarship were student-athletes, which is what the NCAA calls them, meaning a student first and an athlete second. We were kidding ourselves, trying to make it sound more palatable to academicians. We don't have to say that, and we shouldn't. At the level we play, the boy is really an athlete first and a student second -- the fact that he's a student, the second part of the deal, is the only meaningful way we have to pay him." Keep in mind that coach Bryant made these comments more than 20 years ago, and contrast them with the view of James Lohr, chief executive officer of LGE Sport Science, who suggests a different approach: "Except for professional athletes, sport must be recognized as a vehicle through which life skills can be enhanced and where self-esteem and personal development supersedes all other consideration." I believe we at the intercollegiate level are increasingly behaving in a hypocritical manner, publicly adopting Dr. Lohr's position -- which, to use the popular term, is the politically correct thing to do -- but in actuality adhering more often to coach Bryant's belief. This trend -- the trend toward professionalism in intercollegiate athletics -- is the major reason the University of Michigan presently opposes the idea of a national playoff in college football. Michigan believes the current bowl alliance is the first step toward a full-fledged National Football League-type playoff system. In its attempt to strengthen the bowl system last season, the alliance actually weakened two of the bowls not involved in the so-called national-championship game. Moreover, the Nebraska-Florida game for the national title still came in with a lower television rating than the Rose Bowl game between third-ranked Northwestern and No. 16 Southern California. As a result, many are not hoping to pull the Rose Bowl into the alliance under the goal or guise -- take your pick -- of "strengthening the bowl system and forestalling an NFL-type playoff." Playoff movement Although I completely agree with the goal and its proposed intent, I am convinced that bringing the Rose Bowl into the bowl alliance will only hasten a national playoff and further weaken the overall bowl system. I am further convinced that if the Rose Bowl becomes part of the consuming drive to determine a No. 1 team, a two- or a three-team playoff will not be far behind. Envision the time, for instance, when we have three or even four unbeaten teams, or at least teams with identical records, and a single game can't possibly determine a champion. Add once we see how much revenue is generated by a two- or three-game playoff, how soon will it be before we have an eight- or 16-team format, something already suggested by at least one college coach. Further, as the momentum for a national playoff grows, much of it fueled by the media, I know of no commentator or writer who has even considered the hours of class time that would be missed or the difficulty of scheduling final exams for athletes, let alone the mental aspect of Arete. Consider, too, some other possible consequences of a football playoff format: * Weaker schedules, improving the chances for major football powers to go undefeated and possibly eroding over time the thrill of the great traditional games, such as Michigan and Ohio State. * Growing emphasis on success -- that is, winning -- and less emphasis on excellence, which is the maximization of potential. * Greater temptation to violate recruiting rules and to relax academic standards. While we may have a national championship in other intercollegiate sports, we must recognize that football is the one sport that is different. Whereas basketball and baseball can be played on a day-after or every-other-day schedule, the physical nature of football requires a week between games and, therefore, more time away from the educational process. In addition, none of the other sports are trying to preserve and strengthen the bowl system. Entertainment value To be clear, I fully support the entertainment value of intercollegiate athletics, as should anyone in my position. Beyond sports' competitive aspect, it is, after all, entertainment -- as evidence, a Saturday afternoon in Michigan Stadium. My concern comes when the entertainment component is the controlling factor in decisions we make about our intercollegiate sports and athletes. If most of us at the college level agree with coach Bryant, we should stop the pretense of reform and maximize the entertainment value and control of our programs. If, instead, we side with Dr. Lohr, we must be cautious in the entertainment expansion of our programs unless they also make educational sense. In his book, "Take Time for Paradise," Bart Giamatti, the late baseball commissioner, sums it up well in describing those in our sports world who get badly out of balance in "Arete": "They have prepared no skill or trade, have eschewed all other interests, have made no plan or expressed any desire for a plan, because no one told them or refused to believe that there comes an end to running, an end to the cheers, an end to the life lived on the cuff, and an end to the endless pleasuring of themselves. They never grow up in any real sense, because they were meant always to be young and strong and special, and somewhere in late adolescence, in fact, that expectation was one they shared. They are profoundly innocent." If our student-athletes are indeed innocents when they come to college, as I believe they are, then our universities have an obligation to help them acquire a sense of reality and responsibility. In the debate between reform and the capitulation to entertainment, the real question is what comprises that obligation. If we believe in the student-athlete concept -- as we at Michigan do -- then we owe the athlete a balanced experience whereby he or she learns from priorities that are based on personal development and education. Conversely, if our concept is one of the athlete-student, then we probably do owe the athlete something such as a national football playoff. The challenge -- and the dilemma -- confronting those of us who administer intercollegiate athletics is to reach a decision on our priority. It is becoming increasingly difficult and soon will be impossible to have it both ways. Joe Roberson is director of athletics at the University of Michigan.
Comment -- Limitations few for future of sports TVBY PHILIP R. HOCHBERGTwenty-five years ago this summer, America's sports pages discovered cable television. What seems like a given now -- sports on cable -- wasn't even an afterthought until The Sporting News recognized its potential in a July 1971 article. No one then had the slightest inkling that by late 1996, there would be three channels devoted exclusively to sports news. The industry has moved from a retransmission service of over-the-air signals in 1971 -- when the fifth-largest cable system in the U.S. was in Elmira, New York, and when no system had more than 12 channels and only four systems reported doing any sort of local-origination sports programs -- to a monolith that reaches nearly 70 million homes. Almost all subscribers get one full-time sports channel (ESPN), regional sports networks and two other major sports carriers in TBS and TNT. What of the next five -- let alone 25 -- years? Competition is coming. The hard wire of cable may not be the mode of delivery. Direct-to-home transmission has made inroads already. Witness DirecTV. And even if wire is the delivery system, who's to say it will be the cable wire? What about the phone companies? Have we heard the last from them? Probably not. The 500-channel universe is coming with the transition to digital transmission. And specialty channels will continue to emerge. The Classic Sports Network, the "Deuce" (ESPN2) and the Golf Channel are likely to be joined by the Auto Channel, the Boating Channel, Chop TV (martial arts, not cooking), Fitness Interactive, Premier Horse Network and TRAX TV. What's to stop someone from programming 24 hours of basketball -- it doesn't get watched all day, but it's a "destination" channel? Every game available Up-to-the-minute sports news will be available as ESPN, CNN and TCI/Fox vie to become a continuous sports page. Every game, every season will be available (almost) everywhere, except when blacked out locally. Interactivity will allow viewers to talk back to their televisions, which will listen. They'll be able to decide whether to watch the entire game from an end-zone view or whether they want to follow a particular player around the field. Or they'll be able to bet on horses, right in their living rooms. Sports will continue to become more global. ESPN already has 50 percent more viewers overseas than it has domestically. Our sports will be taken worldwide. And we'll have immediate access to soccer, rugby, curling, you name it. Still, over-the-air television will continue to play a major role in sports. For decades, literally, there have been predictions of cable, pay cable or pay-per-view siphoning off the crown jewels of TV sports, events such as the Super Bowl and the World Series. In fact, the 1992 cable act required the Federal Communications Commission to study the issue of siphoning. The commission's report was an answer in search of a problem. Not to worry; it won't happen. Sports still needs the vast and total exposure of conventional, over-the-air television. And Congress is out there, always looking over the shoulders of the professional sports, threatening them with legislation. Leverage will continue to be the name of the game. The big companies will dominate cable sports. But there will be more choice for viewers. And, with more choice, audiences will get smaller. Still, there should be enough viewers to go around. And enough sport to attract them. The article first appeared in Media Week. Philip R. Hochberg is a Washington-based attorney who is in his 34th year as public address announcer at RFK Stadium for Washington Redskins games. He also does public address announcing for George Washington University basketball games and press box P.A. for football games at the University of Maryland, College Park.
Opinions -- Tennessee seniors agree to eliminate all agent contactsChester Ford, football playerUniversity of Tennessee, Knoxville The Associated Press Discussing an action by seniors on the Tennessee football team to avoid contact with agents or their representatives throughout the season: "We all sat down and talked about agents, how they harm the team. It's not fair to us, it's not fair to the university. Say you get a guy who talks to an agent but hasn't committed, but the agent tells another story. Then there's a lot of trouble. We understand that, so we decided we weren't going to talk to any agents."
Olympics
Tom Weir, columnist "Rules are rules, but is anyone else troubled by the dilemma some of the best U.S. female Olympians face because of NCAA regulations on amateurism? "First, the gold-medal winning women's gymnastics team had to kiss college competition goodbye or pass up a lucrative post-Olympic tour. Now, young swimmers face the same decision with bonuses the U.S. Olympic Committee is paying to medal winners from the Atlanta Games. "There's a big difference between these athletes and those in football and men's basketball. For the men, big bucks await when they get out of college. For these women, time will run out quickly in their sports, and there's no pro league waiting. "Take a poll, and we probably would discover most Americans think our Olympians should be rewarded, not punished. So how about an Olympic waiver?"
Employment earnings
Jim Lambright, football coach Discussing proposed legislation to permit out-of-season employment earnings for Division I student-athletes receiving full grants-in-aid: "It's a good idea because it treats athletes more like regular students. Other students can hold part-time jobs and earn what they need. But as it is now, athletes can only work when school is out."
Bowl alliance
Chris Hill, athletics director
"What's good for college football is to have as many strong teams as possible. It's very frustrating to me that the alliance is not taking it upon themselves to involve everyone in Division
Larry Brown, executive director "I don't think it (the revised bowl alliance) is healthy for college football....Not everyone can be a $20 million bowl. I think it's healthy for college football when all the bowls stay afloat."
Karl D. Benson, commissioner "If the purpose is to create the four best bowl games, then let's design a way to designate the top eight teams to be included in them, regardless of what conference they're from. If that happened, I would have nothing to complain about."
Gambling
Leonard Shapiro, sportswriter Discussing CBS' decision to use oddsmaker Danny Sheridan as part of its college football broadcast team: "We don't question Sheridan's right to provide (gambling) information. Clearly his services are much in demand. But we do object to a major American television network, one that also is the monopoly rights-holder to the NCAA basketball tournament and Final Four, putting Sheridan on the air to focus on college football. No matter how much he protests, how many books or articles he's written or stories he says he's broken, Sheridan is best known as a guy who sets the odds, even if he'd prefer the title 'sports analyst.' "
NCAA 'death penalty'
Steve Wilensky, executive director Discussing the fact that Southern Methodist remains the only institution to which the NCAA's "death penalty" has been applied: "The very sad thing is that had the death penalty been given to other schools, college football could have been cleaned up. I would have been happy for SMU to have taken all the slings and arrows that we took had we been the school that started the cleanup of the NCAA, had they not backed off." |
