Sunday, July 22, 2012

Institutional Neglect of Institutional Power: Should the NCAA Penalize Penn State’s Football Program


(A version of this essay appeared in New York Times: Room for Debate)

The travesty of the Penn State/Sandusky-gate speaks loudly to institutional power and the culture of protection, cover-up, and secrecy that prevails in college athletics, specifically, and university administrations, in general. The severity of Sandusky’s offenses goes beyond the reach of the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (NCAA) ability or need to take action against Penn State football program for the following reasons:

·      Sandusky was found guilty in a court of law and will be sentenced to time in prison. Any additional criminal charges of neglect by university administrators should also be addressed by the court of law. 
·      According to President of the NCAA, Mark Emmert, the mission of the NCAA “is to be an integral part of higher education and to focus on the development of our student athletes.”[1] Any penalty administered by the NCAA against the Penn State Football program will undoubtedly and adversely impact the athletes they are concern with developing. Since no athletes were implicated in these charges, penalizing the football team or other athletic teams would only result in penalizing the innocent.
·      Lastly, although the public perception regarding the power of the NCAA may be distorted, the institutional neglect that occurred at Penn State reached beyond the athletic department, and since a Penn State University employee, who had access to university property and the opportunity to violate young boys, the University should be held liable. Effectively addressing this institutional neglect is far beyond the reach of the “power” of the NCAA.

Efforts of the NCAA should be in addressing the organizational culture of the athletic departments they oversee that allow good and bad men to behave badly where criminal behavior occurs and is protected. Fostering transparency and addressing the athletic privilege that is abused within these athletic departments should be a priority in the NCAA’s mission of focusing on the development of student athletes.

Additional collaborative efforts by the NCAA and the University/University System should take the following into consideration:

1). They should provide assistance (counseling services, etc.; fine the athletic department to cover the tab) to the victims, remove Paterno's statue from on campus and his name from all buildings on campus (regardless of his donations), remove his statue, disavow Paterno's & Sandusky's athletic accomplishments from the time of the first offense, etc.
2). The above suggestions are tolerable given the commercial interests of both of the NCAA and University.  Keep in mind that the NCAA's primary role is as an advisory board that governs its members, but it has evolved into a corporate enterprise that now manages the commercial interests and expansion of its members. With that said, Penn State football is a major corporate enterprise: e.g., during the 2011-2012 season football revenue was $72,747,734 with expenses of $19, 519,288 - not a bad ratio. The NCAA and Big Ten will be taking this into consideration before acting irrationally by handing out a Death Penalty. I know SMU is an example, but the offenses were directly related to the TEAM and involved team members.
3) This case is unprecedented and will require unprecedented action.



[1] On the Mark: Quotes from President Emmert on various NCAA topics. http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/NCAA+President/On+the+Mark (accessed July 16, 2012).

Monday, July 16, 2012

College Football Playoff: Unstoppable


The financial impact of a college football playoff is estimated to be worth from $5-$6 billion. This estimate is predicted based on a multi-year media agreement.  It does not include the sell of tickets or the economic impact to the hosting cities. Yes, the “former” BCS system had it flaws of not accurately producing a national champion and the bowls were losing popularity, but are these the motivating factors? I doubt if there would be many disagreements to the conclusion that the move to a playoff system is driven purely by economic motives. The urgency to generate more revenue, build bigger facilities, and to host bigger collegiate sport spectacles is like a runaway train speeding unmanned, uncontrollable, and without the aid of Denzel Washington and Chris Pine to bring it under control; it’s unstoppable. 

The issue that is often lost in the discussion regarding revenue generation and expenditure is the athletic labor force – the athlete. Therefore as the revenue increases so do the athletic demands that are placed on this athletic labor force. There is no way to expect greater returns without the expectation of greater athletic output, which ultimately require athletes to make sacrifices to their lives as “students”. 

The final issue of concern is the racial dynamics of this athletic labor force.  For racial demographics of the 2011 and 2012 BCS National Championship games, Blacks athletes made of 61% of the teams competing in the games. In last year’s championship game alone, Black athletes made up 71% of the teams. My main point here is that Black males are economic imperatives; i.e., their athletic talent is essential to the economic viability and expansion of this college football industry. Similar to the key position Black male basketball players occupy in generating 90% of the NCAA’s revenue, Black male football players are critical to the college football enterprise.

Since we have evolved to a playoff system, is the possibility for compensating athletes beyond the bare minimum of an athletic scholarship becoming more of a reality? Is fair compensation inevitable; especially as athletic demands increased placing greater pressure on athletes? Or, will we continue to allow this unstoppable system continue out of control on the backs of young men?