The recent comments on the NC$$ rules about boosters' activities
remind me of something which is somehow easy to forget (at least
for me) but should always be foremost  in our mind when thinking
about the NCAA.
 
Coaches and athletic directors control--and until recently virtually
without interference--the NCAA.  What are coaches and athletic
directors concerned about?  Maximizing the chances that their programs
will be winning ones.  What can we expect--their livlihoods depend
upon this.  The scenario then becomes a simple game theory exercise.
Since all coaches and ADs want to win as much as possible, but having
winners in competitions also requires having losers among those
with whom they compete, the most which can be expected to come out of
any cooperative efforts are agreements which equalize the chances of
winning--and losing.
 
Thus most of the NCAA rules are intended to slavisly "level the playing
field" (should I say "rink" for this list?).  The result can and is
carried to extremes, such as the examples recently bounced around
hockey-l.  My previous institution fired the basketball coach when it
became aware that he had paid for the plane ticket for one of his
players to go to a family funeral, and for a bus ticket for another
player to make a home visit.  The firing took place only, of course,
because these were violations of NCAA rules, not because the coach
was seen as having done something morally wrong.  In fact, from any
rational perspective he was being unusually saintly.  (But hey--this
rule keeps competition "fair" by making sure recruiters aren't going
around saying "If your mother dies we'll fly you home for the
funeral" to the detriment of competing institutions, right?!)
 
My point is that although somehow the NC$$ has managed to develop a
mystique which implies it is the moral guardian in college sports,
what it mainly guards is the interests of its members vis-a-vis one
another in terms of even competition.  I suppose this is OK, but hardly
something which deserves the awe and respect which should be accorded to
say, the Food & Drug Association (assuming the FDA's performance were
actually deserving of accolades, of course).
 
It was only when the President's Commission became active (after
presidents received a LOT of heat from many quarters) that NCAA
legislation aimed at college athletes' academic welfare, for example,
became at all prominent.
 
Let's face it--collegiate athletics are recreation   for the athletes
and entertainment for the fans.  Period.* There's nothing wrong with
recreation and entertainment--and I love it (them).  But I think it
will help our collective sanity if we remember just what the primary
motivation for having an NC$$ is, and don't expect things from it
which don't serve that purpose (much as some of us would like to see
them).
 
* except for the fortunate and very skilled few who will make it as
  professional athletes and get valuable training and exposure during
  their college careers
 
                      ***********************************
                     *      Steve Christopher, NMU       *
                    *  "Go 'Cats!''Goin' for it again in  *
                    *     '93--With a little less "O"     *
                    *          and a lot more "D"!        *
                     *        [log in to unmask]         *
                      ***********************************