Winning is not everything; it is a goal, an achievement, the point of competition. But, no competition is important without a sound foundation of rules, moral attitudes, and purpose. Indiana basketball under-performs today, according to the many, based on the metric of winning. And the call is for a fix; that call is loud, persistent, and immediate. The "We" of Indiana basketball seems to assert of claim of right to a place at the top of NCAA basketball pyramid. But, the question is what will or should be paid to achieve the goal of the "We."
Of course, the loudest in the fan base are those with the greatest investment in self-identity with the Indiana tribe. Their sense of self seems challenged when IU loses, which is one strong reason I resist the "We" language. Winning and losing and competing is for the athletes, not the fans, and it is in respect to those who undergo the effort and place themselves out front of these fans, crazed or supportive, that I resist this looseness of language. I linger on the "We," but it is important. Why?
A wave of entitlement sweeps across these boards, demanding wins and titles, without reference to what not only the game, but the entire NCAA, has become. I have made these comments elsewhere, and here I reassert them.
One has to ask the nature of the competition before committing to win in a system. The dilemma is to ask what it is that is demanded of a program, or an athlete, in order to compete. These issues roared loudly in the cycling world when a champion rider could not compete in the Tour de France without assistance of various blood doping or performance enhancing drugs. Paying the cost of what it "took" to win the competition destroyed the competition itself. The NCAA of today faces analogous issues, but most of the "We" assume the role of an ostrich, with head in the sand. And the roar of the crowd is to spend, fire, replace, build, and do all those many things deemed necessary to place Indiana in competition to be at the top of the NCAA basketball pyramid. The roar of the crowed ignores these realities: the NCAA of today is not what it was fifty years ago, or even twenty. The question is not just being committed to excellence, which, I believe, is a legitimate goal of the university, but to be committed to winning with the college sports climate of today.
IU is one of the better, if not at the top, of financially responsible athletic departments. The great issue of the day in revenue sportsis the athletics arms race. IU is the benefactor of being in the financially strongest conferences in the nation, a conference with a great economic impact on the university as an academic consortium as well as athletic. Nonetheless, IU Athletics, according to a recent report, does receive approximately $2.7 million in "inter-university" transfers out of a $71 million budget. For me, that is still too much (Purdue does its programs with no subsidies).
The real basketball arms race begins to Indiana's south: both Kentucky and Louisville are receiving grotesque subsidies from taxpayers for their stadiums. If that is what it takes to be NCAA champion, then let them have it. Championships are tarnished by the social conditions from which they arise: that Johnny Wilson did not fit on IU's team in 1947 casts a pall over IU's teams of the era. That Kentucky waited until 1969 to recruit a player "like" Tom Payne; that Kentucky refused to play U of L for so many years; that even U of L took until 1962 to recruit an African-American (Wade Houston); that Shannon Scott's father was the first African-American at UNC in 1967 all cloud those times in achievement and memory. These social conditions are part of the era and part of the picture needed to understand those teams.
Today, money, not ethnic identification, is the qualifier for the current era, and we must be aware of what is happening with money. We know of significant issues of non-qualified athletes attending many great schools today: UNC, Michigan, Indiana, Minnesota . . . . all of these the supposed leaders of college sports. We know of Chris Washburn, but celebrate Jim Valvano. We know the horrible story of Kevin Ross. We know of an Indiana team where many earned their F's.
It is time to question this "era." Take a peek at the allegations being made in a major lawsuit filed against the NCAA regarding the UNC mess. We know most of these; but, the volume of the infractions and the identity of the responsible parties is humbling to those who regard college athletics as anything akin to the past:
During the 1986 to 1987 academic year, a Syracuse University basketball player who failed a course and was in danger of losing his eligibility was permitted to retake the course with an individual tutor, without registering for the course and in violation of university regulations. The athlete earned a C upon retaking the course, and his academic transcript was altered so that the new grade replaced the failing grade;
In 1988, in order to establish eligibility for a transferring football player, the recruiting coordinator at the University of California-Berkeley convinced a community college instructor to award academic credit to the player, although the player had never attended class or completed any academic work;
In 1989, three Drake University basketball players who had transferred from junior college reported difficulty with their course work to an assistant coach responsible for overseeing academic support services for the team. In response, the assistant coach personally 16 completed various papers for the players;
Also in 1989, in order to maintain the eligibility of a basketball player at Miami University of Ohio, the head basketball coach enrolled the player in a class "Taught" by the coach and awarded the player an A grade, which was needed for the player to retain his eligibility. The head basketball coach awarded the A Grade even though the player did not complete any work for the class and failed to participate in it;
From 1990-1993, the head baseball coach at Southwest Texas State University Awarded six baseball players A grades and academic credit for a physical education course that he taught, although the players never attended or participated in the course in any way;
From 1991-1993, basketball coaches at New Mexico State University helped at least six academically challenged players who were transferring from junior colleges obtain fraudulent academic credit. These coaches, along with other athletic staff, provided materials and assistance to ensure that players completed course assignments and examinations in correspondence courses, all to ensure eligibility;
From 1993 to 1998, faculty and staff at the University of Minnesota were found to have completed take-home exams and prepared nearly 400 pieces of course work for at least 18 athletes in order to keep them eligible. A secretary in the athletics department admitted that she composed papers, completed homework assignments, and prepared take-home exams for the players. Another tutor provided additional assistance to basketball players to protect theireligibility, including by writing dozens of papers for those players, at the direction of the department's academic counselor. One of the staff involved was allowed to continue assisting players despite being caught completing a take-home exam with a player. Athletics Staff also intimidated professors and registrar staff at the University of Minnesota into changing grades for athletes in orderto maintain their eligibility;
From 1998-2000, a recruiting coordinator at the University of Kentucky knowingly committed academic fraud by preparing papers or portions thereof for enrolled-student-athletes. The NCAA's public report of this incident describes a practice in which Kentucky student-athletes would participate in study sessions organized by the recruiting coordinator, with the knowledge and approval of the head football coach, during which the recruiting coordinator would provide written passages and oral suggestions to the athletes to help them complete their homework. The report also cites three confirmed examples of the recruiting coordinator contributing to student-athlete work;
In August 1999, two football players at the University of California-Berkeley were permitted to enroll retroactively in classes taught the previous semester and received C grades. The NCAA, which learned of this activity during the Class Period, confirmed this episode in a publicly issued report and disclosed that the football coach was aware of these special arrangements;
In the fall of 2001, the University of Georgia offered a basketball coaching class in which all 39 students received A grades. Several of the students were basketball players who 22 reported rarely or never attending class and doing no work but achieved A grades nonetheless. One player reported that the instructor, who was an assistant basketball coach, informed the player of his enrollment and that he did not need to attend;
In 2006, the New York Times reported that at Auburn University, members of the 2004 undefeated football team had received high grades in "directed reading" sociology and criminology courses that required no attendance and almost no work;
From 2004-2007, at least 61 student-athletes across 10 sports at Florida State University (FSU) received substantial assistance from tutors in completing coursework assigned for certain online courses;
In 2008, the Ann Arbor News reported that a University of Michigan professor taught 294 independent study courses from 2004 to 2007. Eighty-five percent of those taking the courses were student-athletes, according to the report. Student-athletes recounted that they had been steered to these classes by their athletic department counselors and earned 3-4 credits for meeting with the professor for just 15 minutes weekly, conducting little research, and devoting only a few hours per week to the class;
At UNC, one former head football coach, John Bunting, admitted to knowing of the paper classes and his successor, Butch Davis, also admitted some knowledge. Current men's basketball coach Roy Williams is steadfast that he did not know.
At UNC, Rashad McCants said he made the Dean's list without attending classes.
At UNC, paper classes were openly discussed as a way to keep athletes eligible to play, and former football player Michael McAdoo told CNN he was forced into majoring in African American studies, the department at the heart of the paper-classes scandal.
The issue behind the current crisis, if I may call it that, is money. Athletic departments are receiving huge media contracts; sell expensive tickets; look to major donors; and are, very, very often, receiving public subsidies. A USA today report asserts that Indiana University uses $2,561,958 is school funds, i.e., state funds, tuition, tuition waivers etc. as well as federal Work Study amounts for athletes. It also includes university-provided support such as administrative costs, facilities and grounds maintenance, security, risk management, utilities, depreciation, and debt service.The subsidy number is $6,443,593 for IUPUI, and a similar number for IUPFW, and is an incredible $15,946,549 for Ball State. Louisville, Virginia, Tennessee, Arizona State, Oregon State, UNLV, Maryland, Connecticut, Oregon State, Mississippi, Cincinnati, and many others have subsidies in excess of $10,000,000 per year. Rutgers leads, with an incredible $46,000,000. At Ball State, students pay a fee of $305.33 per semester for athletics.
So, as the masses scream for more, should we all look within and ask what or school, our university, a place of study, research, and learning should do to win. Has or will the growing beast of athletic entertainment engulf the university and destroy or harm its real purpose? How loudly should university supporters be protesting if IU fails to land on the top of NCAA basketball? Fans may answer this easily if their focus is only sports; but, how should students, alumni, faculty, and citizens respond? The University of Chicago is an excellent school . . . . There is no purpose in selling the soul of a university for what I am more and more seeing as a flawed championship.
Even more important is the real dilemma: if what is required to win so outlandish that it creates a system that is not a competition, but a race amongst economic powers, what is achieved by winning? Does it matter? Why should a university participate?
nmst
This post was edited on 3/10 9:53 PM by dlh,
Of course, the loudest in the fan base are those with the greatest investment in self-identity with the Indiana tribe. Their sense of self seems challenged when IU loses, which is one strong reason I resist the "We" language. Winning and losing and competing is for the athletes, not the fans, and it is in respect to those who undergo the effort and place themselves out front of these fans, crazed or supportive, that I resist this looseness of language. I linger on the "We," but it is important. Why?
A wave of entitlement sweeps across these boards, demanding wins and titles, without reference to what not only the game, but the entire NCAA, has become. I have made these comments elsewhere, and here I reassert them.
One has to ask the nature of the competition before committing to win in a system. The dilemma is to ask what it is that is demanded of a program, or an athlete, in order to compete. These issues roared loudly in the cycling world when a champion rider could not compete in the Tour de France without assistance of various blood doping or performance enhancing drugs. Paying the cost of what it "took" to win the competition destroyed the competition itself. The NCAA of today faces analogous issues, but most of the "We" assume the role of an ostrich, with head in the sand. And the roar of the crowd is to spend, fire, replace, build, and do all those many things deemed necessary to place Indiana in competition to be at the top of the NCAA basketball pyramid. The roar of the crowed ignores these realities: the NCAA of today is not what it was fifty years ago, or even twenty. The question is not just being committed to excellence, which, I believe, is a legitimate goal of the university, but to be committed to winning with the college sports climate of today.
IU is one of the better, if not at the top, of financially responsible athletic departments. The great issue of the day in revenue sportsis the athletics arms race. IU is the benefactor of being in the financially strongest conferences in the nation, a conference with a great economic impact on the university as an academic consortium as well as athletic. Nonetheless, IU Athletics, according to a recent report, does receive approximately $2.7 million in "inter-university" transfers out of a $71 million budget. For me, that is still too much (Purdue does its programs with no subsidies).
The real basketball arms race begins to Indiana's south: both Kentucky and Louisville are receiving grotesque subsidies from taxpayers for their stadiums. If that is what it takes to be NCAA champion, then let them have it. Championships are tarnished by the social conditions from which they arise: that Johnny Wilson did not fit on IU's team in 1947 casts a pall over IU's teams of the era. That Kentucky waited until 1969 to recruit a player "like" Tom Payne; that Kentucky refused to play U of L for so many years; that even U of L took until 1962 to recruit an African-American (Wade Houston); that Shannon Scott's father was the first African-American at UNC in 1967 all cloud those times in achievement and memory. These social conditions are part of the era and part of the picture needed to understand those teams.
Today, money, not ethnic identification, is the qualifier for the current era, and we must be aware of what is happening with money. We know of significant issues of non-qualified athletes attending many great schools today: UNC, Michigan, Indiana, Minnesota . . . . all of these the supposed leaders of college sports. We know of Chris Washburn, but celebrate Jim Valvano. We know the horrible story of Kevin Ross. We know of an Indiana team where many earned their F's.
It is time to question this "era." Take a peek at the allegations being made in a major lawsuit filed against the NCAA regarding the UNC mess. We know most of these; but, the volume of the infractions and the identity of the responsible parties is humbling to those who regard college athletics as anything akin to the past:
During the 1986 to 1987 academic year, a Syracuse University basketball player who failed a course and was in danger of losing his eligibility was permitted to retake the course with an individual tutor, without registering for the course and in violation of university regulations. The athlete earned a C upon retaking the course, and his academic transcript was altered so that the new grade replaced the failing grade;
In 1988, in order to establish eligibility for a transferring football player, the recruiting coordinator at the University of California-Berkeley convinced a community college instructor to award academic credit to the player, although the player had never attended class or completed any academic work;
In 1989, three Drake University basketball players who had transferred from junior college reported difficulty with their course work to an assistant coach responsible for overseeing academic support services for the team. In response, the assistant coach personally 16 completed various papers for the players;
Also in 1989, in order to maintain the eligibility of a basketball player at Miami University of Ohio, the head basketball coach enrolled the player in a class "Taught" by the coach and awarded the player an A grade, which was needed for the player to retain his eligibility. The head basketball coach awarded the A Grade even though the player did not complete any work for the class and failed to participate in it;
From 1990-1993, the head baseball coach at Southwest Texas State University Awarded six baseball players A grades and academic credit for a physical education course that he taught, although the players never attended or participated in the course in any way;
From 1991-1993, basketball coaches at New Mexico State University helped at least six academically challenged players who were transferring from junior colleges obtain fraudulent academic credit. These coaches, along with other athletic staff, provided materials and assistance to ensure that players completed course assignments and examinations in correspondence courses, all to ensure eligibility;
From 1993 to 1998, faculty and staff at the University of Minnesota were found to have completed take-home exams and prepared nearly 400 pieces of course work for at least 18 athletes in order to keep them eligible. A secretary in the athletics department admitted that she composed papers, completed homework assignments, and prepared take-home exams for the players. Another tutor provided additional assistance to basketball players to protect theireligibility, including by writing dozens of papers for those players, at the direction of the department's academic counselor. One of the staff involved was allowed to continue assisting players despite being caught completing a take-home exam with a player. Athletics Staff also intimidated professors and registrar staff at the University of Minnesota into changing grades for athletes in orderto maintain their eligibility;
From 1998-2000, a recruiting coordinator at the University of Kentucky knowingly committed academic fraud by preparing papers or portions thereof for enrolled-student-athletes. The NCAA's public report of this incident describes a practice in which Kentucky student-athletes would participate in study sessions organized by the recruiting coordinator, with the knowledge and approval of the head football coach, during which the recruiting coordinator would provide written passages and oral suggestions to the athletes to help them complete their homework. The report also cites three confirmed examples of the recruiting coordinator contributing to student-athlete work;
In August 1999, two football players at the University of California-Berkeley were permitted to enroll retroactively in classes taught the previous semester and received C grades. The NCAA, which learned of this activity during the Class Period, confirmed this episode in a publicly issued report and disclosed that the football coach was aware of these special arrangements;
In the fall of 2001, the University of Georgia offered a basketball coaching class in which all 39 students received A grades. Several of the students were basketball players who 22 reported rarely or never attending class and doing no work but achieved A grades nonetheless. One player reported that the instructor, who was an assistant basketball coach, informed the player of his enrollment and that he did not need to attend;
In 2006, the New York Times reported that at Auburn University, members of the 2004 undefeated football team had received high grades in "directed reading" sociology and criminology courses that required no attendance and almost no work;
From 2004-2007, at least 61 student-athletes across 10 sports at Florida State University (FSU) received substantial assistance from tutors in completing coursework assigned for certain online courses;
In 2008, the Ann Arbor News reported that a University of Michigan professor taught 294 independent study courses from 2004 to 2007. Eighty-five percent of those taking the courses were student-athletes, according to the report. Student-athletes recounted that they had been steered to these classes by their athletic department counselors and earned 3-4 credits for meeting with the professor for just 15 minutes weekly, conducting little research, and devoting only a few hours per week to the class;
At UNC, one former head football coach, John Bunting, admitted to knowing of the paper classes and his successor, Butch Davis, also admitted some knowledge. Current men's basketball coach Roy Williams is steadfast that he did not know.
At UNC, Rashad McCants said he made the Dean's list without attending classes.
At UNC, paper classes were openly discussed as a way to keep athletes eligible to play, and former football player Michael McAdoo told CNN he was forced into majoring in African American studies, the department at the heart of the paper-classes scandal.
The issue behind the current crisis, if I may call it that, is money. Athletic departments are receiving huge media contracts; sell expensive tickets; look to major donors; and are, very, very often, receiving public subsidies. A USA today report asserts that Indiana University uses $2,561,958 is school funds, i.e., state funds, tuition, tuition waivers etc. as well as federal Work Study amounts for athletes. It also includes university-provided support such as administrative costs, facilities and grounds maintenance, security, risk management, utilities, depreciation, and debt service.The subsidy number is $6,443,593 for IUPUI, and a similar number for IUPFW, and is an incredible $15,946,549 for Ball State. Louisville, Virginia, Tennessee, Arizona State, Oregon State, UNLV, Maryland, Connecticut, Oregon State, Mississippi, Cincinnati, and many others have subsidies in excess of $10,000,000 per year. Rutgers leads, with an incredible $46,000,000. At Ball State, students pay a fee of $305.33 per semester for athletics.
So, as the masses scream for more, should we all look within and ask what or school, our university, a place of study, research, and learning should do to win. Has or will the growing beast of athletic entertainment engulf the university and destroy or harm its real purpose? How loudly should university supporters be protesting if IU fails to land on the top of NCAA basketball? Fans may answer this easily if their focus is only sports; but, how should students, alumni, faculty, and citizens respond? The University of Chicago is an excellent school . . . . There is no purpose in selling the soul of a university for what I am more and more seeing as a flawed championship.
Even more important is the real dilemma: if what is required to win so outlandish that it creates a system that is not a competition, but a race amongst economic powers, what is achieved by winning? Does it matter? Why should a university participate?
nmst
This post was edited on 3/10 9:53 PM by dlh,
