And now college athletics ‘reform’ season begins

Alabama had barely hoisted the BCS national championship trophy late Monday night when the long-winded explications of the entire college athletic landscape were being churned out.

Actually, those missives have been continuing for a good long while. But in the context of a remarkable and dispiriting college football season — fraught with realignment, record streams of television money and a jarring sex abuse scandal — these arguments will take on a new complexion.

The college basketball season is in midstream, but football has been driving the argument more than ever, prompting such non-sporting journalistic figures as Taylor Branch and, more recently, columnist Joe Nocera of The New York Times (here and here) to launch tirades against the NCAA.

And with the NCAA convention beginning Wednesday in Indianapolis, sportswriter Patrick Hruby piles on to that theme, exhorting college athletes in revenue sports — football is his only reference here — to go on strike:

“It would make the bad situation of big-time college sports better by making it more equitable, more honest. By exercising their dormant power, players would become partners, not serfs, free to make negotiable demands instead of unheeded requests. Maybe college athletes don’t want cash. Maybe they want four-year, irrevocable scholarships and lifetime health insurance for their injuries. Maybe they want the same right to profit from their image and endorsement deals that college-attending actors and musicians take for granted. Or maybe they really do want a salaried piece of the multibillion-dollar pie. Whatever the case, the important thing isn’t the particulars; it’s that athletes would have the ability to ask. And that matters. At their core — or at least at the for-show ersatz core that ensures ongoing tax-exempt educational status – college sports are supposed to be about more than wins and losses. They’re supposed to be about building and shaping character. Do we want a system that conditions our athletes to think like atomized short-timers, too cynical and defeated to care about anything but the scraps they can grift from a corrupt system? Or do we want sports to nurture independent thinkers, empowered individuals who also can work together for a common good?”

This thinking is running headlong into more traditional reformers, who continue their windmill-tilting about regaining some notion of the amateur ideal. But Douglas Lederman of Insider Higher Ed is skeptical these calls will be heeded, since they haven’t been before.

A few details of his reporting jump out — the possibility of something like class-action Title IX litigation that may prompt cutbacks in football that women’s sports advocates have wanted for years. One such veteran, former Women’s Sports Foundation head Donna Lopiano, tries making her long-standing claims about the “arms race” more startling than ever, believing this also might quell the cult of the coach that led to scandals at Penn State and Ohio State.

That’s unlikely, as are renewed desires to strip the NCAA of its tax exemption. But Lederman casts a very long-range scenario for possible change:

“And while it is often suggested that the most-visible and richest sports programs own all the power in the NCAA, the Ivy League, Division III and other nonscholarship programs have something on which the sports powerhouses arguably depend: the ability to cloak themselves in the ‘amateur’ mantle that the most competitive and commercialized football and basketball programs have increasing difficulty claiming.

“In a restructured college sports landscape in which the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’ are much more clearly and formally separated, it is not too farfetched to envision a group of angry members of Congress looking very differently than they historically have at the question of whether big-time sports is truly an amateur enterprise that warrants tax exemption as an educational activity.”

Article Global Facebook Twitter Myspace Friendfeed Technorati del.icio.us Digg Google Yahoo Buzz StumbleUpon Eli Pets

3 Comments

  1. Bern
    Posted January 17, 2012 at 6:15 pm | Permalink

    Lopiano has certainly always hated on football. Maybe it comes from all those years at Texas. I think it’s very frustrating for her and her kindred spirits to understand that football isn’t going anywhere and it’s popularity continues to increase.

    Based upon a reference in one of your prior blogposts I picked up a copy of Ying Wushanley’s excellent book “Playing Nice and Losing”. I didn’t realize that Lopiano had been so deeply involved in the AIAW. The book helped me understand better why lesbian athletes in particular wanted the AIAW to remain in place. As one of the most senior out lesbians associated with women’s sports here in the states I’m sure the football thing drives her crazy.

    In any case, thanks for the recommendation. Great Book!

  2. Posted January 21, 2012 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

    As for those who “wanted the AIAW to remain in place,” I would say that it wasn’t about anyone’s sexuality as much as it was a certain feminist viewpoint about how college athletics should be organized and governed.

  3. Bern
    Posted January 21, 2012 at 10:56 pm | Permalink

    My understanding of Wushanley’s analysis is that the AIAW had abandoned their original sports educational model for the men’s competitive model well before they went broke. It was particularly interesting to see that they abandoned their “no athletic scholarship” and “no championship competition” policies primarily due to pressure from AIAW member institutions, not evil outside forces.

    Point being, when folks like LaVoi harken back to the supposed golden days of the AIAW the truth is that they had abandoned their original sports model and were commercializing their competitions as quickly as they could because they were tired of trying to run their programs without funding which was how the educational model was originally set up.

    It was also interesting to me how the demise of the AIAW was at least partially an unintended consequence of Title IX because the NCAA was concerned that if they didn’t offer women comparable competitive opportunities to the men’s programs they’d be sued under Title IX.

    The Gender Feminist / sexuality issue in this context is interesting. It continues to be the 800 pound gorilla in the room relative to women’s sports. I have been following WTS contributor Pat Griffin’s blog for a while and just finished reading her book, “Strong Women, Deep Closets” which I also found to be an eye opener. No point in commenting on that here other than to say that there are many involved in women’s athletics that are less concerned with the actual sports than they are with their collective social agendas.