Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: FRIDAY, April 20, 1990 TAG: 9004200231
SECTION: SPORTS PAGE: B5 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Bill Brill
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Long
"Everybody says reform is necessary," he said. "It's how and when, rather than why."
If there is to be reasonable reform in the troubled world of college athletics, it must start at the top - in the president's office. And if it takes being nudged along, well, the Knight Commission has just the people to do the shoving.
Funded by Knight-Ridder newspapers, the commission is to be a two-year effort to examine all aspects of college sports. It then will make suggestions about improving the plight of the participants.
Technically, the commission has no power. In truth, it should have significant input into future legislation. Not only does it include five members of the NCAA's Presidents Commission and NCAA Executive Director Dick Schultz, but it includes Rep. Tom McMillen, D-Md., and powerful leaders from the private sector.
You should know McMillen's name. He was a 6-foot-11 basketball player at Maryland and a Rhodes Scholar who had a nice pro career. His senatorial counterpart is Bill Bradley. They may be ex-jocks, but they know the system. They pushed through Congress a bill requiring that graduation rates be made public and given to prospective recruits.
If there is one thing evident after its third meeting, it is that the Knight Commission is having enormous impact in perhaps an unexpected manner. Frankly, it is scaring the hell out of some of the athletic folks, to the point that they anticipate passing legislation even before the Knight folks formulate their proposals.
What this commission has done - which is what the Presidents Commission, unwisely, has never done - is listen to the constituency. The Knight delegation has heard from conference commissioners, faculty representatives, athletic directors, and football and basketball coaches, including mavericks such as Louisiana State's Dale Brown.
The commission gets my support because it not only is willing to listen, but it plans to keep its recommendations simple and forthright.
Hesburgh, the co-chairman along with Bill Friday, former president of the North Carolina university system, listed the "one plus three" plan the commission endorses. It gets to the heart of the problem.
The "one" is the school president, who, backed by his board, must be in charge. Frankly, much of the woes in college sports can be traced directly to the presidential board room, where either the school head didn't know what was going on (Virginia Tech), or where the leader got too involved (North Carolina State).
Many presidents are not supported by their boards. If they tried to tighten up on athletics, they would be immediately challenged or chastised, if not fired. "The president must be in control," said Sam Jankovich, Miami's athletic director.
The "three" are:
Academic integrity: "Don't bring in anybody who can't graduate," Hesburgh said. "The graduation rate of athletes must be comparable to the student body."
Fiscal integrity: Every dollar passes through the normal organs of the university.
Certification: An outside annual audit to certify that institutions are abiding by academic and financial integrity.
Few schools have annual audits. Some have no audits. Too many have spent money recklessly in trying to "keep up with the Joneses." These are plain rules but good ones, and they are aimed at some of the problem areas.
One is shoe contracts, especially in basketball. Some coaches - John Thompson, Bobby Cremins and Jim Valvano come to mind - receive up to $200,000 annually from Nike, the big hitter among the sneakers crowd. They get that money independently. It is considered private enterprise.
"A coach shouldn't have a shoe contract," Jankovich said.
Charles Young, the chancellor at UCLA, said, "It's very unclear who the coach works for. The coach owes us all his time. We need a fixed range that controls compensation." (Coaches are not likely to agree.)
"Money becomes the driving force for the coach and the institution," said Michigan State President John DiBiaggio, a man whose board went against his wishes and gave the athletic director's job to football coach George Perles.
"The AD's job has been emasculated," DiBiaggio said. "The ADs have to generate money. The more money is derived, the more is spent. There is no such thing as going second-class.'
Rick Bay, who left his job as Ohio State athletic director after a power struggle with his president, knows what can happen. Now athletic director at Minnesota, Bay criticized Big Ten Conference presidents for going above the heads of the athletics people and inviting Penn State to join the league. (That decision is falling apart and probably won't be consummated).
"The presidents must make informed decisions," Bay said. "The Presidents Commission made a decision in a vacuum on [reduction of] basketball schedules."
C.M. Newton, a long-time basketball coach and self-professed rookie athletic director at Kentucky, described the situation succinctly: "Reform is needed. There are abuses in recruiting, in compensation for coaches, in time demands for athletes, and in compliance."
Most important, "I feel reform is wanted by 99.9 percent of the coaches," Newton said.
I'd quarrel with his numbers, but not his reasoning.
by CNB