Let’s start with a personal story. It’s about doublespeak.
Years ago a mentor took me aside. This is what he said: “Frank, know the difference between “The Thing” and “The Politics of the Thing.” That way you’re less likely to be duped by political operators.”
It was good advice. How good? A memo came across my desk soon thereafter. The subject of the memo, “Criteria for Change,” seemed benign. But the memo wasn’t about any change: it was about a process for eliminating units and programs. My mentor was spot-on: there was “The Politics of the Thing” (“Criteria for Change”) standing side-by-side with “The Thing” (downsizing).
Courtesy: American.coma subjk
Flash forward to spring 2015…. The Big Ten Conference (B1G) releases a White Paper on college athletics. It’s labeled, “Education First, Athletics Second,” “The Year of Readiness.” Those are very nice words that say absolutely nothing–directly–about what it’s really about.
So, what’s “The Thing?” It’s about ending freshman eligibility in college football and men’s basketball. That’s right, it takes away a benefit for college athletes that has been in place for nearly a half-century (since 1972).
Rather than dismiss the concept out-of-hand (it’s just “The Politics of the Thing”), I believe it’s a subject worthy of analysis and consideration.
What makes it so? I see three reasons.
Courtesy: collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com
First, I like it because it’s not a proposal. It’s a suggestion only, designed to be provocative—to “serve as a launching pad for a national discussion of ideas,” B1G says. That’s not to say The Big Ten is position-neutral. The conference would like to maintain athletes’ 4-year eligibility, but (at the same time) withhold freshmen from participating in men’s revenue-generating collegiate sports. And they would pay for it, too: the non-participating frosh year and four years that follow.
Second, I like it because B1G self-critiques. Institutions of all kinds don’t like to admit failure publicly. They’re more likely to defend practices and dismiss criticisms instead. B1G does neither. It presents numbers (e.g., graduation rates) to argue why reforms are needed in big-time college football and basketball. In so doing B1G engages in sports commentary. An abbreviated form of this White Paper could be published as an Op Ed in a major daily newspaper. It’s that good.
Courtesy: Intelligent College Football.com
Third, I like it because it shows that college athletic administrators are willing to think outside the box — to focus on something other than X’s and O’s and $ and Cents. Leadership like that doesn’t happen as much or as extensively as it could. So it’s refreshing to see a conference take the lead in advancing a proposal that could—not will, but could—be an important step in collegiate sports reform.
But here’s the rub: positives associated with “The Year of Readiness” don’t outweigh deficiencies. Issues stand out for me, some associated with “The Thing” and others associated with “The Politics of the Thing.”
The Thing: Why focus on freshman eligibility? Of all the issues facing college athletics today—of all the reform initiatives that could be undertaken—why this one? It’s Reason #1 why the concept doesn’t pass The Smell Test. For years I taught graduate students how to frame and make an argument. Before settling on the issue they will address I urged students to, first, name other plausible options and, then, to describe why it would be imprudent to pursue any of those options further. It’s not clear to me why B1G settled on frosh eligibility as “The Thing,” that is, THE matter to reform.
It can’t be because there’s a national conversation about this matter. Well, wait. There is. There’s cross-talk among conference commissioners, especially between the Big Ten and the PAC-12. Want proof? Do a Google search for “freshman eligibility” and you’ll find that conference-related articles are among the top hits. When doing that search look for articles coming from athletes and groups that support and defend college athletes. Removing freshman eligibility isn’t high on many (if any) of those reform lists. That finding tells you something about “The Politics of the Thing.” That’s Reason #2 why the concept doesn’t pass The Smell Test.
Courtesy: Changemag.org
The Politics of The Thing: Let me frame my comments, first, by sharing another mentor-related story. Years ago I received this advice: “Frank, always bring something to the table for discussion—an idea, a framework, a proposal—something that’s YOURS.” He continued: “This is especially important if reform is in the air. Take the reins. Get people to focus on what you think is important. Clear the table of other ideas. Because reform work is a grind, people won’t have time or energy to consider multiple ideas simultaneously.”
That’s really good general advice and it certainly applies to the contemporary college sports scene. Reform is in the air. It’s a good idea, politically, for athletic administrators to bring their idea to the table before somebody else’s idea comes to the fore. Heaven forbid what that might bring! It’s always better to control the agenda than to be on the receiving end of somebody else’s agenda. And that’s Reason #3–the need to stay in control–why B1G’s concept fails The Smell Test.
I wonder what other ideas might pop up? Here’s one…. On the day I wrote this column Joe Nocera had a column published in The New York Times. The topic: controversy on the Rutgers campus about the scope of college athletics. The issue: RU is way over budget athletically. To balance the athletic budget last year the school redirected over $26 million of general funds to athletics and students had to pay fees to the tune of $10 million. That’s $36 million dollars–just in one year–to cover the athletic deficit. Yikes! And the last time I checked RU was in … what is it? Oh, THE BIG TEN.
So here are the bottom-line reasons I don’t like B1G’s concept. First and foremost I believe there needs to be a national conversation about reforming college athletics writ large. Proposals for change need to emerge from that discussion. “Small ball” involves picking a topic in advance and focusing on its implementation.
And it’s not just picking one issue. It’s a matter of who gets to choose. Guess who? Conference commissioners, university presidents and chancellors, and athletic directors. The elite, the people who are in charge…and the people who have been in charge as big-time college sports have evolved into big-time troubles. It’s Reason #4 B1G’s concept flunks The Smell Test,
What’s more, I’m concerned about the direction of the reform as B1G frames it. Making freshman ineligibility takes away a benefit from athletes. It harnesses reform on “the backs of the people,” that is, the players. It’s Reason #5 B1G’s concept fails The Smell Test.
Courtesy: Washington Monthly
Approaching change that way isn’t new. I’ve seen it in play many times before. It’s a standard three-step used by institutional elites: keep the system generally “as is”; make adjustments at the edges; and get credit for “taking leadership.”
I also wonder about another matter. Might institutions benefit from freshman ineligibility in ways that have nothing to do with “putting education first?” Consider this: What better way to control John Calipari and his success with Kentucky basketball (‘one and done’ freshmen players)? Can’t compete under current rules? Then change the rules so that freshman can’t play. It’s Reason #6 B1G’s concept doesn’t pass The Smell Test.
While I applaud B1G for at least trying to exert leadership I question the conference’s change rationale and I’m wary about political intent. Without discussing collegiate sports reform broadly, change outcomes are likely to be narrow and generally inconsequential. Besides, you don’t get a boatload of chances at reform. It’s best to seize the opportunity when you have it.
That conclusion reminds me of a reaction I once received—from yet another mentor—in response to an assignment he had given me: “Frank,” he said. “You didn’t go far enough. You didn’t get at the stuff of big change.”
It really hurt to hear those words, but the passage of time has proven him right: I didn’t go far enough and I didn’t get at the stuff of big change.
Neither has B1G.
Note: Here are several other critiques of “The Year of Readiness” concept.
That horrible idea to ban freshmen from playing? Big Ten calling it the ‘year of readiness’ (SB*Nation)
Do Big Ten freshmen need ‘year of readiness?‘(Indy Star)
Scrap it — Big Ten’s year of readiness a bad idea (Fort Wayne News-Sentinal)
Drake Group Questions Freshmen Ineligibility Proposals (The Drake Group)
Big Ten’s “Year of Readiness” is a joke (247Sports)
Big Ten’s ‘year of readiness’ proposal should fall flat (WTHR.com)
Does Education Have Any Place in College Sports Programs? (Pacific-Standard)
Year of Readiness Not about Student-Athletes (FanRag Sports)
