At What Cost
| May 8th, 2008 by Robert | Word Count: 1131 | Reading Time 4:34 | 2,488 views |
I recently ran across an article on ESPN that I instantly felt the need to write about. At least I wanted to give my personal opinion on the matter. I know that the sports world relies on winning. If you don’t have a winning team, then attendance dries up, revenue goes away, and players won’t come to the city to play as free agents. That’s the pro world. There are also issues with the collegiate sports institutions. Coaches are required to win, not teach or help players mature. Basketball, baseball, football, it doesn’t matter. All competitive sports are involved. Winning has become the only statistic that matters. For this article, we will focus on the collegiate level of sports since the players are not getting paid to play (well, that’s the rule anyway) and sports are an avenue to help the young adult receive an education through potential scholarships.
Coaches, what is their true responsibility in a collegiate setting? Sure, their job is in the sports department and sports is competition and logic says winning is the goal. So is winning the goal of a collegiate coach? Yes, but is it the number one goal? Should it be the number one goal? Currently, winning is the focal point of collegiate sports particularly in the Division 1 level. Why? Well of course it makes everyone feel better. It’s an awesome sensation to win at competition. You put in hours of practice, focus on your skill and teamwork, and implement a strategy to give your team the edge to win. When everything comes together and you succeed during the game and win, it’s the pinnacle of competition. Win, it’s a drug of choice for athletes and serious fans alike. This “drug” is so powerful, that players, coaches, alumni, and even directors of the school will succumb to the massive pressure of winning, winning at all costs.
What exactly is this “cost” I am talking about. I am talking about many things, among them, sacrificing the integrity of the school, sacrificing the young person’s ability to receive an education, and sacrificing the inherent honesty of true competition. Which cost is worse? To me, disregarding the young adult’s ability to earn a higher education is the worst cost. Integrity of the school can be rebuilt and the damage you do to the game can be patched over time. However, failing to provide a proper education to a young adult cannot be fixed. It cannot be redone. It cannot be apologized for. College teams fail to graduate players at an acceptable rate (this does not include early entries to pro leagues). Players are consistently forwarded to general study degrees or some other basic degree which are “easier” to obtain. Even then, players fail to complete their studies for a full degree. This is true even with the schools “helping” student athletes keep a grade point acceptable to play.
Coaches are driven to find players who can help them win. Find players who may not be the best person or teammate, but someone who can be a star in their field of play. This is where the ESPN story comes into play. A college basketball team, Maryland, has signed and given a scholarship to a player who has been in constant trouble for the last few years. He is a 23 year old at this point. Not your usual young adult entering college on the heels of a great prep career. He was a huge prep star and was on his way to college until several bad decisions and grades derailed his life. Quote from ESPN:
“… charged with felonies on two separate occasions (for statutory rape and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute) that were pled down to misdemeanors, was sentenced to a year in jail (11 months were suspended and he served two weeks) and was involved in a fight with a teammate.”
Mistakes yes, but very serious mistakes. Do these mistakes make him forever a “bad” person? No, they do not. However, if a person has shown the propensity of being a bad person over a lengthy time period, then a change is not going to happen overnight. A person can change, I have no doubt. However, getting people to believe this change can be easier when you score 20 points per game and your team missed the biggest tournament of the year last year.
Maryland, and its coach, were/are in desperate need of an impact player to improve their chances of returning to the multi-million dollar money machine called the NCAA Tournament. Alumni REQUIRE the team to be in the tourney, school directors DEPEND on the money received by being invited to the tourney, and coaches NEED the recognition and exposure on national television from the tourney. You get the idea, require, depend, need, those are words which result from an attitude of “winning at all costs.” Focus is not upon the growth of the player, but on the program. Focus is not about the education of the player, but to keep their GPA high enough to be eligible. Focus is not on the integrity of the program, but on winning. Can you win without “focusing” on winning? Sure. Great coaches bring the best out of everyone around them, in every way. They foster learning, they teach lessons, and they stay true to the ethics of the game.
Winning, the drug, can manipulate even the best coaches and players out there. It has even corrupted our institutions of higher learning. Why? It’s not the fact that winning is a drug, but what comes along with winning is money. Dollars from advertising, increased attendance rates, increased alumni donations, increased sports agreements with product makers, and increased revenue from entering tournaments. Schools make huge sums of money from their sports programs. It’s a business in the end for them, not a scholastic venture. Do the players make anything (legal that is)? No. They receive a scholarship for their education. This education is an afterthought in the minds of the school. They want to win. Who cares what the kid knows, they only have 4 years of eligibility anyway. Replace them with a new prep star later.
In the end, our schools of higher learning have fallen to using their scholarships as bait to get a player into their school to help them win. Scholarships are gold. Getting a free college education immediately puts you ahead of the curve upon entry to the real world. Sports are the secondary focus here, education is the key. Schools that fall prey to the almighty dollar are degrading their entire establishment. They are sacrificing the one thing they pride themselves on most, an education. Win, but not at the cost of educating young adults.
Citation: http://www.espn.com/ Luke Winn/May 5, 2008
on May 8th, 2008 at 12:31 pm:
My first point, which I’m sure you won’t dispute, is “Good coaches succeed at winning and teaching.”
While my college coach was a bum, my high school coach taught me many valuable lessons off the court, and was a stickler for rules on (and off) the court, the suicides we ran can atest to that. That being said, let’s jump more into the rest of your well written article.
The fact that college coaches are required to win, brings up the movie Blue Chips. Where Nick Nolte, a good coach, was having problems recruiting for various reasons. He turned to the program, i.e. alumni, to help him get players. He basically bought them off if you haven’t seen it. As a good coach who reached the end of his rope, he felt horrible and later resigned, giving up the alumni, quoting, “We have the best damn players money can buy.”
But, winning is technically the only statistic that matters, I have seen many stats on coaches involving their graduation rates. A good coach can win by doing just what he is slated to do…coaching.
This is really a hard angle to write about, I feel. Because, not all coaches have the win-only mentality. I follow Ohio State football very closely. When they won their last national title in 2002, there starting QB was studying to be some sort of a doctor (can’t remember now). He had exemplary marks. Others on the team had similar marks in countless fields. That’s football.
I think the biggest problem with graduation rates lies in basketball. Rarely do you see a guy finish four years of school when on a basketball scholarship. Is that good or bad? Who knows. My suggestion: all basketball players with potential for the NBA should be required to take at least five business/finance courses. We all know that once they retire from the NBA, there lives go to hell for the most part. At least with some financial advice, from people who aren’t taking it, they would have a litte knowledge how not to go bankrupt.
I have to work now, and didn’t really compile this the way I wanted, but…to summarize: I don’t see anything changing in the near future in regards to schools becoming more focused on academics in part to winning. Schools receive bukoos of money from athletics and thus will let them get away with more than the average student. How do constant problems like Pac Man Jones keep getting work? If they were in an office type setting, no way they would be employed.
on May 8th, 2008 at 1:26 pm:
Yes, I have seen and at one point or the other, owned Blue Chips. It’s about the most realistic version of the state of college athletics as you can see. Well, at least highly competitive athletics. Everyone likes to think our teams are all derived from “Hoosiers,” but it’s just not the case, anymore.
I’ll agree there are programs out there that are holding on and doing their best to promote education. They are the few that continue to have principles behind their actions. However, greed even undermines the most steadfast program. Football does have a lower pre-entry rate. Primarily due to the fact that younger football player’s bodies are not physically mature enough to make it in the NFL. Playing against grown men in a truly physical sport keeps them in school. But, for every pre-med major, there are 20 general study players (most likely more).
Basketball is based on quickness and athleticism and the younger body can withstand the NBA because of the type of sport it is (unless you are a power forward). Basketball has always been a quick outlet for the money grab. Go one year to school, head out for multi-millions. I would too, it’s like a lottery ticket. However, players with suspect backgrounds should not be brought into a program just because of their athletic impact. It’s a sacrifice of the school’s integrity to do so.
I agree that every student athlete should be required having some sort of minor in business. Let me restate that. EVERY student should be required to have some sort of business experience from college. Our country does not educate people on many of life’s needs and business and money knowledge are two of the most required aspects of living beyond scholastic endeavors. I agree, things won’t change as long as there is a billion dollar industry created from the abilities of “free” student athletes. They (most) are used for their talent and given nothing of value in return. They might all as well just skip college and enter professional sports or semi-pro leagues.
on May 8th, 2008 at 2:52 pm:
You always hear of athletes or celebs going bankrupt. When I hear something like this I can’t help but laugh. I am currently making $10 an hour while wife is an elementary school teacher, so by no means are we loaded. We have vehicle payments, insurance, credit card bills, student loans, just as most do. We aren’t even close to bankrupt. We can’t afford to go clubbing, or bar hopping and are thrifty when grocery shopping or what have you, but we afford what we must. An above average athlete makes more in a year than I’ll likely see in my entire life. That tells you that they don’t know how to manage money right there. Put a year’s salary in the bank and you’ll be set when you retire. It’s that simple. God love those who put aside money or found other ventures, like Lenny Dykstra. He sounds slightly retarded but he’s made tons in the stock market after a year of reserach. Work is through and so are my thoughts.
on May 8th, 2008 at 4:27 pm:
Yes, the athletes and celebrities have no concept of where money comes from when they are doled out millions at such young ages. They have never had to work “hard” for their money so they assume it will just continue to show up in large bank deposits. That is part of the problem regarding the lack of focus from school for these instant millionaires. They are provided no direction, no help, no education on how to handle their opportunity.
They are treated as objects, or pieces to the puzzle. They are pawns in the game of collegiate athletics and they end up paying the price after their talent dries up. Success can ruin a player or celebrity because at some point in time, success runs out.
on May 14th, 2008 at 8:16 pm:
Good article, it still boggles my mind why the NBA saw fit to require a young man to wait, what is it until they are 20 year of age to enter the draft. They basically agree to a four year offer from a school, which they have no intention of fulfilling. Then go pro after one year. In essence it takes away an education from a student athlete who is more interested in higher learning than chasing the $$$.
on May 14th, 2008 at 9:18 pm:
The NBA thought they were helping their league because of the recent influx of youngsters trying to realize their dream by entering the draft and then flopping. The penalty for doing so was the removal of amateur status and thus division one schools cannot give a scholarship for athletics to them. These youngsters who were getting their heads filled by money hungry agents were paying the price for adults lying to them.
Now, there are of course the Kobe’s, Garnett’s, and a few others. But there are 20 other kids for each of them who never even stepped foot in an NBA arena who thought they were “Lottery Picks.” However, with the NBA “saving” these kids, they have created a situation where these kids are now basically basketball mercenaries. They serve a school for 1 to 2 years to pass the minimum age rule and off they go with no intention of EVER attending school. It’s a waste of a scholarship and only given because they know it will help the school athletic program. Ever hear of Carmelo Anthony and Kevin Durant? Two very high profile examples.
In the end, I agree, they are removing a scholarship that could be given to an individual who would utilize the opportunity of an education.