Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SATURDAY, January 15, 1994 TAG: 9401150113
SECTION: SPORTS PAGE: C1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Jack Bogaczyk
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
They're going to try to save college basketball coaches from themselves. The postponed boycott that was to begin today was no surprise. It's the sort of self-serving move too many of them have used to build and insulate their programs.
The coaches, black and white but thankfully not unanimous, speak of increased opportunities for youths, particularly minorities, with the restoration of a 14th scholarship in Division I men's basketball. They should save their breath to whine at officials during games.
Coaches used to talk about how valuable a good sixth man was. Now, it's the 14th man. For years in some programs, the 14th or 15th scholarship went to a manager. Now, these men say they can't get along without a third-string swingman.
Most coaches are good guys. Most also are paranoid when it comes to their programs. Television has put many of these coaches in the spotlight, and unless you regularly use the mute button to quiet Dick Vitale, you hear over and over that college basketball is the coaches.
The presidents assumed greater control of athletics when it was shown at too many schools that the coaches couldn't even control themselves. The coaches have only themselves to blame for their situation. Perhaps they should study their own history.
For years, the National Association of Basketball Coaches was little more than a fraternal organization that doled out Final Four tickets. The members met once a year at the NCAA national semifinals, had a few meetings, played golf, partied and combed hotel lobbies for rumors and jobs.
The NCAA Convention, occurring annually in January, was just a blip in their season. It has only been in the past few years that the NABC has begun lobbying - and is starting to be taken seriously by the presidents. The Black Coaches Association, supported by some of its high-profile white NABC brethren, has overreacted on the 14th-scholarship issue.
What would have happened if this week's NCAA Convention hadn't wisely tabled for restudy the proposal to restructure and toughen Propositions 42 and 48? Would these coaches have threatened to jump from the roofs of their arenas? The next time the NABC and BCA seek change, the presidents are less likely to listen.
The Associated Press reported that a coaching source said there was "considerable friction" between the NABC and BCA about the proposed boycott. The source said there was a "feeling . . . the BCA had led everybody to the edge of this cliff, and now everybody was asking, `What are we doing on the edge of this cliff?' "
On ESPN a few nights ago, George Washington coach Mike Jarvis said the NCAA's refusal to reinstate a 14th scholarship was a case of the rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer. Wrong, coach. You and your brethren are the rich, and that's even before we start adding up the revenue from TV shows and shoe deals.
The coaches say the lost scholarship restricts opportunity, in particular for minorities. What about women? They've been a minority in college athletics for years. Still are. Perhaps these coaches should trying walking a few miles in their pumps. The men's losses in recent years mean more opportunities for women.
That isn't just a mind-set on the college campus. Title IX also happens to be federal law.
The reason most Division I recruits go to school is to play hoops first and to get an education second. A 14th scholarship player in the ACC has a much better opportunity to play in the Southern or Big South conferences. A 14th man for two seasons often becomes a frustrated transfer. A 14th scholarship for Division I also siphons players from Division II.
Besides, the type of needy players the coaches have portrayed as deserving this 14th scholarship can go to a Division III school and probably get just about as much financial aid - some low-interest loans would have to be repayed - as they could with an athletic grant. They'd play more, too.
The desire to add a scholarship is a good one - but it's unnecessary in men's basketball. Why shouldn't it go to track and field or baseball - a sport where minorities are few on the college level - or a growing sport such as softball?
What about a scholarship to a needy non-athlete, a drama or music major, a future sportscaster or sportswriter? Maybe the coaches could give up a percentage of their shoe contracts to the schools to fund this grant. Then, let's see how interested the coaches are in helping the inner-city kid. They want your poor, your tired - as long as he can shoot the "J" from beyond the arc.
It's true that men's basketball - thanks to the $1 billion CBS contract for the NCAA Tournament - produces 80 percent of this year's NCAA operating budget, of which 70 percent is returned to the schools. Is that why men's basketball should get more?
The loss of one scholarship isn't going to impact negatively on anyone. There are plenty of opportunities out there for kids away from street corners. College is supposed to be an earned opportunity, not a baby-sitting service.
Now, the big guy in Washington - no, not John Thompson - has called a timeout. Bill Clinton, Janet Reno and Congress are going to intervene between the coaches and the NCAA.
Just what college hoops needs. There already are enough politicians on these sidelines.
by CNB