Guest editorial -- When talking athletics, more not always better
By Curtis W. Tong
One of the more fascinating aspects of my life's work as a physical educator, coach and athletics administrator has been to observe the developments that have occurred in our field during recent decades, primarily in heightening the emphasis on winning as the measure of success.
I don't find that, in itself, distasteful. But the practices that have accompanied the push to win -- including the exploitation of student-athletes -- have raised some deep concerns, not only on a personal level but for some coaching colleagues and college faculties, generally.
Their concerns center on what I shall call the "More is Better Syndrome" in college athletics. What is becoming far more commonplace, for example, are greater demands for more recruitment, more athletics-related amenities, more travel, more television coverage, more and longer practice periods, more games and more demands on student time. The "More is Better Syndrome," we are reminded, not only assures winning teams, but also increases the athletics coffers.
Clearly, one cannot dispute the truths of that which winning, the products of more, can generate. We know that winning programs entice the best recruits, media interest, and, yes, even shoe and other commercial contracts. The opportunities for the coach to advance in earning power at his or her own institution, or in negotiations with other schools or in professional sports, also are enhanced with winning teams.
All of this and accolades as well are huge enticements to accent winning and the press for more in the conduct of college athletics. However, educational factions protective of the student welfare seriously question the benefits of such escalation. Extended seasons and excessive travel, particularly, impose too heavily on student academic accomplishment through missed class time.
It also has been argued that excessive concentration of time devoted to public relations and other adjunct functions, so essential to winning, detracts from a coach's focus on teaching and other student needs. Off-campus recruitment comes under question as a productive use of the coach's professional
time and as a participating member of the college community.
Common in current coaching practices, however, is a tendency to narrow the definition of a coach's role to athletics accomplishment only. Yet, in bridging these obligations, coaches abdicate themselves from the time-honored principles that must dictate their work -- an equal concern for student-related needs in the classroom and other on-campus learning opportunities.
What is it about principles that lend so importantly to life as an athletics coach? Familiarity with principles almost ensures that students participating on teams will be protected in their educational pursuits. The principled coach fully understands that he or she is working with students who should be respected as students, as well as athletes. Simply, this means that the center of attention in the coaching experience is concern for student learning and performance. This encourages regular class attendance, broad-range educational experiences, an emphasis on learning and teaching in the coaching process, and the extension of every effort toward the student-athletes' successful completion of undergraduate experiences.
While these principles seem more widely accepted in small-college programs, they remain an honored commitment by many coaches at universities with major athletics programs.
It seems that the primary factor that has brought about the "More is Better" patterns in college athletics has been the provision of large sums of money and other advantages to coaches and winning programs through participation in "March Madness" or other postseason experiences.
However, devilish pressures always seem to follow these perquisites. Still, there may be a way out of hell if a design could be implemented that would open postseason tournaments to all college and university teams.
Obviously, such a scheme would require shorter regular seasons. But, importantly, it might also defuse many of the demands to win in order to meet lofty tournament selection standards and other real or imagined gains that accompany tournament selections. Fewer missed classes and an experience shared by all student-athletes, not only those on elite teams, would appease many of the concerns presently shared by the caretakers of academic interests.
For coaches, too, the easing of burdensome stresses, magnified by the urgency to win for purposes of attaining an elusive tourney selection, likely would be welcomed. Their worth as coaches, then, would not be measured so much by that standard.
Such a plan might better allow athletes to again become students and coaches to re-emerge as teachers.
It would be worth consideration.
From a historical perspective, the century-old life of intercollegiate athletics in America has seen only a short run. Perhaps it is too early to determine its ultimate success or demise as an educational arm of institutions of higher learning. Yet, I think it important to understand historical patterns of sport development, as they often are repeated, and, so, impact current trends. These patterns would suggest caution or change in present practices characterized by demands for more. The commercial influences that lent to the decline of Grecian and Roman sport, and to those societies generally, closely parallel modes of conduct in many areas of college sport today.
It may be very difficult to dull appetites whetted to the practices so commonplace today. Yet, many signs point to the need for a directional reassessment of college athletics. My sense is that dramatic directional change is unlikely to occur from within the profession, wedded as we have become to the dollars and the hoopla that direct our appetites for more.
Neither is reassessment likely to be initiated by college presidents. They have been, largely, a quiet group in recent years, seemingly caught up with the financial benefits and personal acclaim realized by winning programs.
If a reshaping of athletics is to transpire, it will come from restless faculties and principled coaches, many of whom have tired of the double standards of admissions, the pressures on them to wink at athletics-related indiscretions, and the apathetic attitudes of misdirected athletes and coaches indifferent to academic concerns. Faculty urging for change may induce athletics interests to ascertain that the coaches of tomorrow are schooled not only in the "hows" of coaching, but in the traditional pedagogy of coaching students in academic settings.
It is far too early to write off college athletics because of current malpractices condoned by some unprincipled leaders in and out of direct touch with students. The athletics arenas, fields and pools still hold the potential to be venues where some of the great lessons of life are learned when purposeful teaching and leadership is exercised in the conduct of sports programs.
Curtis W. Tong is a former director of athletics at Pomona-Pitzer Colleges. Tong retired in 1998.
Comment -- Use of proportionality test is out of control
By Robert G. Lewis
State University of New York at Albany
In a March 1 NCAA News article by Kay Hawes called "Proportionality Standard Becomes A Moving Target," the opening paragraph states, "A national trend in higher education, one that has nothing to do with intercollegiate athletics, may complicate the issue of Title IX compliance -- now and in the future."
The trend to which the article refers is that women's college enrollment has continued to increase each year and the numbers are growing at a more rapid rate than men. The article also says that women now make up more of the overall student body than they did in previous years.
I believe that this trend in higher education should not have anything to do with intercollegiate athletics, and I also would submit that it absolutely should not have anything to do with Title IX compliance.
No one can argue that Title IX isn't a good and a fair law. It took until 1972 to pass this law and several years following its passage before there was any wide-ranging implementation. The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has stipulated that institutions may be in compliance with Title IX by applying at least one of three criteria (prongs), one of which is proportionality. However, more than ever before, proportionality has become the primary method in which compliance is being judged.
Better indicators
If the intent of Title IX is to prevent discrimination on the basis of sex and to improve opportunities for the underrepresented sex, then it would seem that the applica-tion of prongs two and three would be better indicators to determine whether opportunities are being denied and discrimination is prevalent.
Prong No. 2 says that "if the members of one sex are underrepresented among intercollegiate athletes, the institution needs to show a history and a continuing practice of program expansion which is demonstrably responsive to developing interests and abilities of that sex." The third prong says, in part, "if the members of one sex are underrepresented, the institution needs to demonstrate that the interests and abilities of the members of that sex have been fully and effectively accommodated by the present program."
In more basic terms, has the institution continued to add sports to give the underrepresented sex more opportunities and has it been receptive to students' requests to add sports if there is sufficient interest? If institutions do not meet at least one of those criteria, it appears that they are clearly denying opportunities for the underrepresented sex. In just about every case, it is the women students who are underrepresented.
I believe, as do some others, that those who favor proportionality as the primary factor in measuring compliance are missing the best way to comply with Title IX. Is it discriminatory if one sex has a higher enrollment and yet has fewer athletes in the institution's athletics program? The answer is probably "yes" if either or both of prongs two and three are not met. But the answer has to be "no" if there is no discrimination or lack of opportunities for the underrepresented sex, regardless of the enrollment ratio.
Strict proportionality inappropriate
Charlotte West, former senior woman administrator at the University of Southern Illinois at Carbondale, says that a school with a huge women's enrollment would be remiss to provide more slots to men. She says, "Those 80 percent of the women have every right to have 80 percent of the slots." My question is why? I don't see the relevance or believe that's appropriate. It would be just as inappropriate to limit opportunities for women at institutions like the service academies, Georgia Tech, etc. (where males far outnumber females) to the percentage of their enrollment. Again, if there is interest and they are underrepresented, opportunities should be provided, enrollment ratios notwithstanding.
If trying out for the team was open to the entire student body and there was no recruitment of athletes, a better case could be made for proportionality. However, athletes are recruited. They are not drawn from the regular student body. Whether your enrollment is small or large, whether you have more females or more males, you can recruit the same number of athletes. Because prospective athletes are not recruited from the incumbent student body, what do enrollment numbers have to do with anything?
Christine Grant, the highly respected and articulate women's athletics director at the University of Iowa, says that "For almost 100 years, women were denied these sporting opportunities -- it's only fair that they be given their rightful share of opportunities today."
She is absolutely right. Women should not be denied their rightful share of opportunities. I disagree, however, that proportionality needs to be the main factor in giving women their fair share.
Situation creates absurdities
The proportionality issue can be carried to all kinds of extremes. In her article, Ms. Hawes reveals that women now make up more of the overall student body than they did in previous years and the imbalance is growing every year. Are institutions now going to check with their admissions offices each year before deciding which teams to add or delete from their programs? I hope not.
Even more absurd, one school was looking to add men's sports as a tool to attract more male students. Wouldn't it be better to attract students by offering a top-notch academic program?
If proportionality is the answer to our problems, maybe we need to look at other aspects of college life and the demographics of the entire student body. For example, should the school band members reflect the makeup of the student body? Should the percentage of men, women, African-Americans, Asians, Jewish students, Catholics, etc., in the band or any other student organization reflect a percentage of the school's enrollment?
How about the makeup of the school's teams? Would anyone suggest that big-time Division I basketball programs limit the number of African-Americans on their teams to reflect the number of African-Americans in the student body? I don't think so.
Look at all three tests
It is not the intent of this article to trivialize the problems that our colleges and universities face as they battle with the complex issues of gender equity. We simply need to look at all three of OCR's guidelines and determine if at least one is being met. Schools that meet one of the criteria are supposed to be in compliance.
Unfortunately, the current primary measuring stick being used more and more is proportionality, which has caused some institutions to arbitrarily add women's sports regardless of student interest. They then attempt to round up players to get enough live bodies to field a team. This is sometimes done at the expense of some men's sports. I do not believe that this is right or fair, as it does not necessarily meet the needs, interests and abilities of these students, which ought to be the main focus.
We should not deny participation opportunities for our students, but we need not "force feed" them just to add a few numbers to meet the proportionality standard. This is not what Title IX is all about and it certainly is not the fairest way to reach equity.
I believe that Ms. Grant is correct when she says that what is needed is a thorough examination and national discussion on this issue. She also adds that the gender-equity issue ought to addressed simultaneously with cost reduction of intercollegiate athletics and if dollars could be saved, it would free up money for women's sporting opportunities (and I would add, without cutting men's opportunities).
I also would like to see the OCR and the courts look more favorably at proportionality as only one of the three criteria (prongs) when determining compliance with Title IX and to implement whichever prong is most applicable to resolve a given situation.
Proportionality is not the only answer and it may not be the answer at all.
Robert G. Lewis is an associate professor in physical education and men's tennis coach (emeritus) at the State University of New York at Albany. Lewis can be reached via e-mail at: Tennis176@aol.com.
Comment -- Use output instead of input as academic measure
By John E. Moore Jr.
Drury College
In the last several weeks, there has been widespread discussion and even consternation because a federal court has ruled the NCAA's use of college entrance examination scores is discriminatory and therefore invalid.
This eligibility qualification was adopted in 1992 to enhance the integrity of college sports and to ensure that athletes also were legitimate students. The court's invalidation of the entrance examination standard now prompts continuing discussion of the old dilemma of how best to balance athletics and academics.
In achieving this balance, the NCAA might productively consider an output measure rather than an input measure. It also is important to give athletics coaches a substantial stake in their athletes' academic success. Coaches have incentives to recruit and develop winning teams; they also should have incentives to recruit and develop young men and women who are successful students as well.
In Divisions I and II, coaches have a number of athletics scholarships to recruit the best players possible. I propose giving coaches an incentive to offer athletics scholarships to promising athletes who also are promising students. The proposal is simple and should be relatively easy to administer and enforce. It is based on the assumption that varsity athletes (who often are heroes and models) should be expected to graduate from college. The proposal is as follows:
For each varsity athlete who fails to graduate by the end of the academic year following the year in which he or she completes athletics eligibility, the sport in which the student competes would lose a scholarship for a period of three years or until the student completes a degree, whichever comes first.
This policy places a premium on academic success, which culminates in the student-athlete's graduation. However, it also allows students to enter college and prove they can be successful academically. The scholarship penalty provides a significant incentive to improve graduation rates for all athletes.
Is a policy like this possible? Undoubtedly, a number of coaches will cry foul because the implication of failing to graduate players would be significant. A coach would have to evaluate carefully a student's academic potential as well as his or her athletics ability in making recruiting decisions. Is abuse possible? Probably, but in most instances the basic integrity of presidents, athletics directors and coaches should be sufficient to make an output-oriented system work.
This is a simple proposal for collegiate athletics, yet with far-reaching implications. It addresses the dilemma created by the invalidation of the NCAA's primary input standard of entrance test scores. It also addresses the most fundamental issue in collegiate athletics today -- the issue of balance and integrity of academics and athletics.
John E. Moore Jr. is president of Drury College.
Opinions -- Athlete benefits may look appealing to 'regular' students
Paul M. Anderson, assistant professor
Marquette University Law School
Street & Smith's SportsBusiness Journal
Responding to an editorial stating that big-time college sport has little to do with amateurism regardless of what definition is used:
"The NCAA defines amateurism in one way, the U.S. Olympic Committee in another, the Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association in another. The notion of some 'myth of amateurism' must take into account that there is no such thing as a strictly 'amateur' athlete in many senses.
"While the NCAA's system may not be the best system to promote some blind notion of amateurism, many of the athletes who are supposedly exploited by the NCAA and their universities end up making astronomical amounts of money while never being involved in the punishment that eventually hurts the university after they are gone. ...
"If the reason for pointing out some sort of myth of amateurism is to show that the college student-athletes should be paid, one must also understand that they clearly already are -- they receive scholarships, and now can receive some form of employment-related income. A 'regular' student who works 40-hour weeks to pay off college and living expenses during college must look at these athletes with envy. ...
"If this is the reality of the situation, we are in a much more dire situation than commentators would lead us to believe, and those thousands of 'regular' students at most schools who do not get any extra benefits (at least, any that they will not end up paying back in student loans for years to come) are the ones that are really being exploited."
Basketball recruiting
C.M. Newton, director of athletics
University of Kentucky
Chronicle of Higher Education
"What we've got is a pretty badly flawed model for recruiting, and making minor modifications to it -- I don't think that is an option."
Morgan Wooten, basketball coach
DeMatha (Maryland) High School
Chronicle of Higher Education
"Colleges have got to find out how to eliminate the middlemen. At least high-school coaches are responsible to some authority -- I'm responsible to my principal, the rector, and the chairman of my Board of Trustees."
Title IX
James C. Garland, president
Miami University (Ohio)
Chronicle of Higher Education
"I think almost everyone in higher education believes the goal of Title IX is worthy. The controversy is whether the end justifies the means, and that's the battleground where this is being fought."
