Folks, folks! Where do you think the NCAA came from in the first place?
From people in athletics (primarily coaches) at colleges. And what was
and for nearly their entire history with the organization has been their
primary motivation? ATTEMPTING TO EQUALIZE COMPETITION!!!!!
Is that a worthy "academic" endeavor? No, of course not!
Is that something to "protect" "student athletes"? Ditto!!
All the talk about the Ingraham suspension--it's exactly the kind of
thing coaches and athletic directors DEMAND from the NCAA! The rule
which says you have to sit out a year when you try to transfer between
Div I programs is due to the fact that Division I athletic program
personnel (read coaches and ADs) are trying to prevent their being
raided by each other. The one year sitout is a disincentive, since it
(a) makes the athlete sit idle for a year, something he/she hardly ever
wants to do, and (b) means the "raiding" of the receiving institution at
least gets its gratification delayed instead of immediately.
Is the one year sitout rule reasonable? If you're concerned about
student athletes' being able to play when and where they want, no, of
course not. If you're concerned that your erstwhile competitors may be
more attractive to your athletes than you are, of course it is. The
same philosophy underlies virtually every NCAA rule, and over the years
they have become unbelievably complex and Byzantine. BUT THE BASIC
UNDERLYING PHILOSOPHY IS EXACTLY WHAT ATHLETIC PROGRAMS *WANT*! Even
though, when it comes back to bite their own programs, they almost
invariably scream outrage.
The only nonathletic rules enforced by the NC$$ have come about recently
as the President's Commission put in Proposition 48 and a couple of
other things, very minor in the larger picture.
As far as the Ingraham (spelling?) case goes, I have to wonder along
with Charlie Shub--"rightness" of the rule itself aside--why Maine isn't
forfeiting the games in which Cal, an ineligible player, played last
year. In any event, it seems to me the punishment is truly aimed at
Maine, not the player. True, Cal now doesn't get to play in 14 games
this year. But if the rule had been followed (again, arguments about
the rule are a different matter), Cal would have missed the 14 games
LAST season, so what's the difference, as far as he's concerned?
My main point is that coaches and ADs will inevitably want to develop a
bureaucracy which legislates and enforces rules designed to "level the
playing field," no matter how cumbersome and apparently unfair it
ultimately becomes. I would predict that if college hockey would secede
from the NC$$ the new hockey organization before very long would be
getting much the same kind of blasts on this list that the NC$$ does
now. The only exception would be the specially outrageous (to us) cases
where hockey now comes out on the short end of the stick due to the
dominance of other sports. In all fairness, however, I feel that this
is really only the case with respect to the sharing of NC$$ championship
revenues for programs with "mixed" divisional affiliations. (That is,
as when Division I hockey programs playing in what are otherwise
Division II or III schools--for football, etc.--don't receive anything
even if their team wins the national title at Division I; while
non-hockey schools, as long as they're in the right division, DO share
in them.)
Anyway, when it comes to the NC$$, are we sure we shouldn't quote Pogo:
"We have met the enemy and he is us!"?
**********************************************************************
* Steve Christopher, NMU [log in to unmask] - GO CATS! * * * * *
* NCAA Division I Hockey National Champions 1990-91 * "WE'VE * *
* NCAA Division I Hockey Final Eight 1991-92 * ONLY * *
* NCAA Division I Hockey Final Eight 1992-93 * JUST * *
* WCHA League Champions 1990-91 * BEGUN"* *
* WCHA Playoff Champions 1988-89/1990-91/1991-92 * * * * *
**********************************************************************
|
