Thirteen Iowa football players are recovering after being hospitalized with exertional illness. What should be learned?

A bullet dodged. The episode involving the hospitalization of 13 Iowa football players for exertional illness is one of the most frightening college sports stories in recent memory.

To review, 13 Iowa players were hospitalized this week after especially strenuous offseason workouts. Their symptoms included dizziness and dark urine.

Here are the articles written in the wake of the event (the number of affected players originally was 12 but later became 13):

Iowa football players cite strenuous workouts before hospitalizations (Des Moines Register)

More on hospitalized Hawkeyes players (ESPN)

12 football players hospitalized with exertional condition (Cedar Rapids Gazette)

Why are 13 Iowa players hospitalized? No firm answers (HawkCentral.com)

Iowa sets timeline for probe into hospitalized football players (USA Today)

The HawkCentral.com article portrayed the condition as fairly common for settings like military training and NFL camps.

But multiple days of hospitalization? Clearly, this was a serious problem.

Some blunt commentary followed, raising legitimate questions about football out-of-season conditioning practices:

Offseason workouts need changes before the next funeral (Dennis Dodd, CBSSports.com)

Was Iowa punishing players? (Dennis Dodd, CBSSports.com)

Iowa deserves close scrutiny after 13 players hospitalized (Matt Hayes, Sporting News)

No explanation reasonable when workout puts 13 in hospital (Gregg Doyel, CBSSports.com)

Parallels have been drawn to the 1997 wrestling-workout deaths, but the circumstances with this case are different. In wrestling, inappropriate workouts were designed for a particular purpose: to make weight. Part of the remedy was to prohibit particular practices, but the main solution was to establish baseline weights for the wrestlers so that the incentive for dangerous weight-loss practices was eliminated.

The Iowa episode didn’t involve rubber suits or steam rooms or purposeful vomiting. Instead, it appeared to be about traditional workout practices, done to excess.

The Dodd column quoted Oklahoma head trainer Scott Anderson from various presentations over the last year: “The way we’re training college football players in this day and age is putting them at risk … The intensity with which it (offseason drills) is done is not sport-specific. The intensity becomes irrational. The intensity, if not the drill, is wholly, fully irrelevant to sport. It’s just purely, openly punishment, not performance.”

What should be done to prevent something like this from happening again?

Emmert on the record. NCAA President Mark Emmert was in the news recently, taking on everything from college sports financing to whether college athletes have become too shielded from professional sports.

Mark Emmert says NCAA doesn’t have ‘tsunami of cash’ (The Associated Press)

New NCAA president speaks candidly at Winthrop event (Rock Hill Herald)

NCAA President Mark Emmert says NCAA doesn’t have ‘tsunami of cash’ (FanHouse)

Pay-to-play not the way [The State (Columbia, S.C.)]

Q&A with NCAA President Mark Emmert (Omaha World-Herald)

When Emmert wasn’t saying something himself, things were being said about him:

What did he know, when did he know it? (Jay Bilas, ESPN)

Bilas lived up to his usual standards of self-assuredness, chiding the NCAA president for daring to say that most programs did not recruit Enes Kanter because they knew of the eligibility risks. Kentucky did sign Canter, and he was subsequently ruled ineligible. “The truth is, Emmert has no earthly idea what people in college basketball ‘knew,’ ” Bilas wrote.

Basketball analyst, lawyer and clairvoyant. Bilas’ talents know no bounds.

By the way, a fan/“reporter” from Kentucky recently planted himself outside the NCAA building, ostensibly refusing to leave until his questions about Kanter were answered. That technique isn’t going to work most of the time, but in this case, NCAA Director of Communication Strategy Chuck Wynne surprised Drew Franklin by providing a number of candid and specific answers about the Kanter case. The seven-minute video is an entertaining and interesting watch.

Texas media agreement, Part 2. Last week brought the news of the 20-year, $300 million Texas-ESPN media agreement. This week came the analysis:

Texas Longhorns set bad precedent with TV deal (Drew Sharp, Detroit News)

OU football: Will Texas network hurt? (Berry Tramel, The Oklahoman)

Time Warner Cable in talks for Longhorns network stake (SportsBusiness Journal)

Aggies’ AD Bill Byrne says Texas’ new cable network could conflict with NCAA recruiting rules (Dallas Morning News)

Why Texas should go independent (Brian Fremeau, ESPN)

On the subject of big bucks, the SportsBusiness Journal reported that this was a lucrative year for the Bowl Championship Series:

BCS payouts grow along with big shares for Big Six conferences (SportsBusiness Journal)

Meanwhile, in Division II … Last week I mentioned that the NCAA GOALS and SCORE studies had guided important decision-making, especially with Division II’s Life in the Balance initiative. Inside Higher Ed’s David Moltz took a good luck at how Division II has achieved addition through subtraction:

Less-is-more approach to sports (Inside Higher Ed)

By the way, the article includes praise for Division II’s approach from Allen Sack, one of the nation’s most vocal critics of many college sports practices. “All of these efforts that have been afoot in Division II to ease up on athletes and let them be students, that’s what’s being lost at the Division I level,” Sack said. “I really don’t see any effort being made at that level to make a compromise on this, but I’d like to see it.”

Oversigning. Discussion about oversigning recruiting classes in Division I football is gaining energy.

Oversigning offenders won’t be curbed by NCAA’s toothless rule (Andy Staples, SI.com)

A better oversigning rule (John Infante, NCAA Bylaw Blog)

Conference realignment updates. Will a week pass without news about possible changes in Division I conferences? Maybe, but probably not in our lifetimes.

Mountain West won’t expand further (The Associated Press)

Big East needs to get tough with Notre Dame (David Lariviere, Forbes)

Big East won’t wait for Villanova to make expansion decision (USA Today)

Central Florida thinks South Florida is trying to block its path to Big East (FanHouse)

Higher education issues. This week yielded discussions about the future of higher education.

The New York Times assembled experts to react to the book “Academically Adrift,” which asserts that almost half of all college students learn little in their first two years.

Does college make you smarter? (New York Times)

The observations are edgy, including the charge that colleges and universities are less interested in education than in keeping cash-paying students happy.

That discussion has ramifications for the high-entertainment approach of the biggest Division I programs, and that point was discussed Thursday at Stanford:

Duke prof weighs tradeoffs between academics, athletics at universities (Stanford Daily)

On another higher ed matter, a looming funding crisis was examined in detail in the Chronicle of Higher Education:

State spending on higher education edges down, as deficits loom (Chronicle of Higher Education)

The gist is that public higher education institutions are facing potentially catastrophic funding shortfalls as federal stimulus money evaporates and tax cuts take hold.

Some presidents and administrators even have a name for it: The Cliff.

I spoke about with Metro State President Stephen Jordan a while back about how The Cliff relates to athletics, and here’s some of what he had to say:

“If you’re already faced with losing 20 percent of your state support and making cuts, do you think there are institutions that can do that and do it only on the academic and student-services side and leave athletics untouched? I think the small institutions are most afraid of the impact this will have because they don’t have an ability to make that up much. Their size really limits the way they can respond….

“At a minimum, it has the potential to imperil individual programs. In some cases, it might imperil entire athletic departments. And I think people are scared to death about this right now….

“I’m not convinced at this point that there’s a lot that can be done (NCAA) legislatively to solve this problem. Anything we do that reduces competitions and reduces the expenses associated with out-of-season is important. I do think the problem we have is the disconnect between the reality of what senior-level people are dealing with on the financial picture and the pressure that coaches and athletic directors put to keep everything the way it is. We’ve got to start finding ways to reduce our costs. To me, again, it’s the number of games, travel time and the things that we keep over time adding to be included in scholarships. All those things add up….

“Student fees might be a part of the solution, but here’s what’s going to happen: The make-up for the general-fund cuts, the institutions are going to do it by raising tuition. So the fees have to be looked at in the context of … all these other decisions presidents are going to have to make about how they keep the ship afloat.”

Putting the ‘student’ back in ‘student-athlete.’ Rob Kasper of the Baltimore Sun this week put together an excellent column:

Putting the ‘student’ back in ‘student-athlete’ at College Park (Rob Kasper, Baltimore Sun)

Here’s his conclusion: “Collegiate football is certainly a big business, and the notion of student-athletes may seem quaint in an era of multimillion-dollar sponsorships and TV contracts. But we should remember that the athletes themselves are the only ones not getting paid in the bargain, and very few of them will get the ultimate payoff of a professional career. The football players bring prestige to the university, and they pay the way for much of the rest of the athletic department. The least we can do in exchange is to make sure they actually get an education.”

Thomas Robinson’s tragedy. Kansas basketball player Thomas Robinson has lived a lifetime of difficulty in the month. First, his maternal grandparents died about two weeks apart. Then last Friday, his mother Lisa died suddenly from a heart attack. Robinson was left trying to figure out how to care for his 9-year-old sister Jayla.

The story is sad beyond words, but the response has been uplifting.

Kansas raising money for Robinson’s younger sister (The Associated Press)

KU fans close ranks around Robinson (Kansas City Star)

NCAA grants relief for Kansas athletics to assist Robinson (University Daily Kansan)

For what it’s worth, a couple of the benefits provided in this case (such as permitting the university to pay for travel to Ms. Robinson’s funeral) are explicitly covered in the Division I Manual and didn’t require any special NCAA authorization or confirmation.

Finally … Thursday was the 10th anniversary of one of the saddest days in college sports history. On Jan. 27, 2001, a plane crash killed 10 Oklahoma State men’s basketball players and staff members. 

OSU plane crash incites change in athletic travel (Tulsa World)

Memories, guilt live on 10 years after Oklahoma State plane crash (FanHouse)

This is a good week to reflect on research, one of the NCAA’s main tools for developing sound policy and better legislation.

Evaluating the student-athlete experience. During last week’s NCAA Convention, the NCAA released its quadrennial report on student-athlete experiences. The Growth, Opportunities, Aspirations, and Learning of Students in College (GOALS) study considered current student-athletes while a companion examination, the Study of College Outcomes and Recent Experiences (SCORE), looked at how former student-athletes regard their experiences.

This all sounds dry, but it’s important. Read on.

NCAA study delves into practice time, coaches’ trust (USA Today)

Listen carefully to college athletes (Jon Solomon, Birmingham News)

College athletes identify trouble spots in women’s basketball (Chronicle of Higher Education)

Solomon provided the most complete review of the GOALS study for his readers, concluding with this observation: “College sports possess so many great qualities. And just as many issues that can be damaging. Listen to the athletes carefully enough, and you’ll hear them all.”

Solomon is 100 percent correct. The NCAA should get credit for asking tough questions, but studies are pointless if nobody acts on the concerns that are uncovered.

Fortunately, the NCAA’s record in this area is encouraging. In the original GOALS examination, the emphasis fell mostly on student-athlete time demands. Those data were used to guide changes in Division I baseball and, more dramatically, in Division II, where playing and practice seasons in most sports were reduced last January through the “Life in the Balance” legislative initiative.

This time around, the GOALS study identified a possible concern with relationships between student-athletes and coaches, especially in women’s basketball. NCAA Research Committee chair Kurt Beron drew a prudent conclusion: “While we observe some differences between women’s basketball and other sports on various elements in these data, it’s important to note that we can’t attribute causality with this information. Is it the case that women’s basketball coaches are behaving differently than coaches in other sports, or are they being held to higher standards by the student-athletes? These are certainly issues for further study.”

Over the last two decades, the NCAA has made enormous advances in its research efforts. Better research has informed improvements in academics, safety, race and gender demographics, and finances, among other things. Critics too often use NCAA research out of context as ammunition to highlight the weakness of college sports. In fact, the Association’s ability to look inward is one of its greatest strengths.

For more information, visit the NCAA research page on NCAA.org.

——–

Coverage of several other matters was provided in the wake of the Convention, including this column:

NCAA Council missed chance to put academics first (John Gillooly, Providence Journal)

Gillooly was writing on the Legislative Council’s defeat of a proposal that would have curtailed early student-athlete recruiting commitments in Division I sports. Gillooly was right to question whether adults contribute to challenges facing urban educators by cultivating illusions of athletics grandeur among children.

“Now (urban educators) also have to worry about college basketball coaches instilling a perception in young kids that they have to spend a lot of time developing their game before they even get into high school,” Gillooly wrote. “Forget going home to do your middle school homework; you need to stay on the playground and work on that jumper.”

Maybe NCAA legislation isn’t the answer, but this question isn’t going to disappear.

Here are a few other stories from the tail end of the NCAA Convention:

NCAA considers academic crackdown in basketball, football (USA Today)

NCAA’s new leader impresses AD Kuntz (Ventura County Star)

(Division II) sports seasons to start later (Inside Higher Ed)

Caution advised on NCAA legislation over likenesses (San Antonio Express)

NCAA enforcement coming under more scrutiny (USA Today)

Reform the NCAA? Group’s new president has his hands full (Rachel Blount, Minneapolis Star Tribune)

Pay for play and the Bylaw Blog. John Infante’s Bylaw Blog, which shares space with this blog on the front of NCAA.org, took a pass as “What Would Paying Student-Athletes Look Like?” The post won immediate acclaim from CBSSports.com’s Ray Ratto, which should be regarded as a sign of trouble.

Infante does not appear to be endorsing pay-for-play. Rather, he’s attempting to frame the proposal that should be discussed. But he gets quite comfortable with his hypothetical during the course of the analysis.

“If you run the league right, it may even be a wash in costs for many football programs (although that’s beyond the score of this post),” Infante wrote.

The discussion certainly becomes easier if you don’t worry about interferences such as money, competitive equity and the many consequences of turning student-athletes into employees.

Here’s what NCAA President Mark Emmert has said about pay-for-play: “Student-athletes will never be paid as long as I’m president of the NCAA. Student-athletes are just that: They’re ‘student-athletes.’ They’re not employees of the university. … It is grossly inappropriate for universities to even talk about paying student-athletes.”

That seems clear enough to indicate this discussion isn’t on the docket.

Student-athletes and violence. Business Insider recently waded into the issue of student-athlete violence.

Does the NCAA ignore student-athlete violence? (Skip Oliva, Business Insider)

To state the obvious, serious allegations of violent sexual assault should concern any right-minded person. Whether that should trigger an NCAA response is an entirely different question.

If you’re interested in learning more, a videostream of an NCAA Convention session on the subject is available on NCAA.org.

None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Wrote Seth Newman of the Bleacher Report: “The NCAA wouldn’t want a playoff system because of all the money it makes during the BCS with its bowl sponsors.”

Greedy NCAA and the money maker BCS: How fans can have a playoff system (Seth Newman, Bleacher Report)

Repeat after me: The NCAA does not make any money from Division I postseason bowl games. If you want more information about NCAA revenue, here’s the budget report (the 2009-10 report will be posted next week, by the way). Bowl-games revenue is not included in NCAA television and marketing fees, nor is it included among championships, because that money goes directly to conferences and member schools.

A financial gusher in Texas. This week, ESPN and the University of Texas at Austin formally agreed on a $300 million, 20-year media deal, mostly focusing on the institution’s intercollegiate athletics program.

UT sets new standard with $300 million ESPN deal (Austin American-Statesman)

Texas reaches 20-year, $300 million deal with ESPN (The Associated Press)

All Longhorns, all the time (Inside Higher Ed)

Texas’ star just got way brighter with new TV network (Dennis Dodd, CBSSports.com)

University of Texas’ TV network is a lucrative web of conflicts (Michael Rosenberg, Sports Illustrated)

Conference aftershocks continue. At last week’s NCAA Convention, NCAA President Mark Emmert said he anticipates more intra-division movement as conferences continue to realign. Recent headlines appear to make him a prophet:

Commissioner says WAC has new members lined up (Beaumont Enterprise)

WAC automatic bid will survive (CBSSports.com)

WAC readies to build on new foundation (FanHouse)

San Jose State a possible expansion target for Mountain West Conference (San Jose Mercury News)

NSIC to expand to 16 schools for 2012-13 season (St. Cloud Times)

There was also this:

Abilene Christian University considering switch to Division I (KXTS TV)

If Abilene Christian wants in the Division I game, the school will have to deal with a bigger ante. At the 2011 NCAA Convention, Division I approved new membership standards that could make the application fee top $1 million.

Coverage of the NCAA Convention and postseason football issues dominated the national college sports discussion for the week. Last Friday’s Enes Kanter decision attracted attention as well.

NCAA Convention. The NCAA conducted its 105th annual Convention this week in San Antonio. Media attention focused on NCAA President Mark Emmert, for whom this was the first Convention, and several major legislative issues in Division I.

Here’s a rundown on coverage from the event. Additional coverage (for all divisions, but especially for Divisions II and III) is also available on NCAA.org:

NCAA Convention to open in San Antonio today (San Antonio Express)

NCAA president speaks out against ‘threats’ to college sports (Chronicle of Higher Education)

Emmert has full plate at his 1st NCAA convention (Mike Marot, The Associated Press)

Emmert: Clearly stating his mission (Jeff Rabjohns, Indianapolis Star)

NCAA likely won’t propose emergency legislation regarding Newton case at this week’s Convention (Birmingham News)

For NCAA, is relaxing rules on agents the best remedy? (USA Today)

NCAA talks shady agent contact (San Antonio Express)

NCAA president sees more conference realignment on horizon (San Antonio Express)

Finally, some good news for the WAC: Proposal 2010-100 passes (San Antonio Express)

NCAA president: Tougher parent rules needed (The Associated Press)

NCAA president answers critics (David Moltz, Inside Higher Ed)

NCAA president doesn’t shy from controversy (San Antonio Express)

NCAA president Emmert sets no-nonsense tone in address (USA Today)

NCAA votes to keep status quo on rules (San Antonio Express)

NCAA balks at efforts to loosen restrictions on athletes’ images in ads (Chronicle of Higher Education)

At many colleges, no health insurance means no playing time (Chronicle of Higher Education)

By the way, props to the San Antonio Express, the local newspaper, for its coverage of the Convention.

Enes Kanter. Those who believed Kentucky basketball player Enes Kanter should be eligible to compete this year were disappointed in last Friday’s final ruling that he is permanently ineligible.

Those who disagree with the decision of the Division I Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committee − among them Kentucky President Lee Todd, Athletics Director Mitch Barnhart and coach John Calipari – certainly are entitled to their opinions.

Todd, a member of the Division I Board of Directors, was especially blunt: “As an NCAA Board member, I continue to be puzzled and confused by the reasoning behind the decision, which seems to be an inconsistent and arbitrary application of the rules.”

NCAA President Mark Emmert saw it differently. Speaking to Sports Illustrated’s Seth Davis, he said: “The facts are utterly unambiguous, the rule is utterly unambiguous and the intention of the membership is utterly unambiguous. The vast majority of people in collegiate basketball knew that this was an issue with Enes Kanter. Kentucky knew it. Everybody who talked with him knew it. So I’m amazed that people are shocked by the fact that he is ineligible.”

For my part, I’m going to put in a good word for the honorable individuals from the NCAA membership who volunteer their time to serve on the eligibility and infractions committees that are required to adjudicate matters such as this. The work is difficult and time-consuming. Abundant knowledge of NCAA regulations is required, along with good judgment and the ability to work with legal experts.

Occasionally, as with the Kanter case, the reward for service is a swirl of controversy. They deserve better, but I’m afraid that anger is going to be a constant companion for folks who serve in these roles.

Anyway, here’s a representative look at what was written in the wake of the Kanter decision:

NCAA president offers strong words on Enes Kanter (Sports Illustrated)

Calipari: Kanter ruling sets precedent (ESPN)

Kanter’s well-being foremost on Calipari’s mind (Lexington Herald-Leader)

Calipari, Todd and Barnhart ‘disappointed’ that NCAA denies Kanter’s appeal for eligibility (Lexington Herald-Leader)

Barnhart calls NCAA rules a ‘moving target’ (Lexington  Herald-Leader)

NCAA denies Kanter appeal; Kentucky center ruled permanently ineligible (Sporting News)

Enes Kanter still a top prospect (ESPN)

NCAA rulings hardly consistent [Sam Ellis, Daily Tar Heel (student newspaper)]

No consistency in NCAA rulings (Dick Vitale, ESPN)

RIP, 2010 football season. Auburn defeated Oregon on Monday in one of the greatest national championship games ever, but the game itself didn’t necessarily dominate media space. Writers were seriously wound up about eligibility matters and the structure of the postseason.

Although writers flail at the NCAA for not conducting a major-college playoff, it’s worth saying again that the NCAA is a membership association and that championships can be established only by votes of the member colleges and universities. I know there are those out there who believe that if the NCAA really wanted a playoff to happen, it would. Such statements, however, reveal a lack of understanding of what the NCAA is and how the Association is governed.

Some chatter about a playoff:

BCS title game crowns a champion of a fraudulent system (Sally Jenkins, Washington Post)

College football playoff, not BCS, makes more dollars and sense (Monte Poole, San Jose Mercury-News)

NCAA won’t fix broken system (Lennox Rawlings, Winston Salem Journal)

Some other football issues:

Penalties, scandals highlight irregular college season (USA Today)

It’s getting harder for college football to outrun its seamy side (Bill Livingston, Cleveland Plain Dealer)

Take a tip from Cecil Newton and pay the players (The Associated Press, Tim Dahlberg)

The next step: academics in the BCS? (Gregg Easterbrook, ESPN)

On eve of BCS championship, a call for the NCAA to reform college football (Sally Jenkins, Washington Post)

Political heavy hitters take on college bowls (New York Times)

Ahead Of BCS championship, amateurism considered (National Public Radio)

Potpourri. A few other interesting stories and columns from the week:

Lifetime chits would allow athletes to be students, too (Bruce Smith, Chronicle of Higher Education)

UNLV athletics working to be independent of state money (Las Vegas Sun)

Expansion crunch time: UCF is the best fit for Big East [Central Florida Future (student newspaper)]

Finally … Last week, I wrote about how it was inappropriate to compare modern-college athletics to 19th century plantations.

This week, the social-injustice comparison is sweatshops.

Is college athletics a sweatshop? (Bob Greene, CNN)

In a word, no.

Again, consider this an appeal to tone down the rhetoric. Just because a union boss says it, that doesn’t make it so. College athletics has nothing in common with sweatshops.

The holiday break provided little break from controversy in the world of college sports. Major attention was devoted to an extra-benefits issue at Ohio State. An excessive-celebration penalty in the Pinstripe Bowl prompted extensive discussion.

Eligibility issues – again. The number of high-profile eligibility and enforcement cases over the last several months attracted the attention of USA Today’s Steve Weiberg, who postulated Tuesday that it all reflects a renewed NCAA commitment to curtail professionalism among college athletes.

Despite criticism, NCAA takes firm stance on professionalism (USA Today)

Weiberg’s piece is informative, although I do wonder at what point writers will abandon citations of the “plantation” metaphor for the current college athletics model (attorney David Cornwell was quoted to that effect). Participants in college sports are not compelled to participate, and their human needs – food, shelter, medical care, education – are routinely honored. To compare their condition to that of enslaved plantation workers minimizes the plight of Africans who were brought to this country in chains, routinely beaten, usually malnourished, seldom educated and deprived of liberty in every sense of the word.

The Ohio State football matter (five players suspended for games next year, but not for Tuesday’s Sugar Bowl) set off a bipolar reaction in the media. Most commentators appeared to believe the student-athletes should have been suspended for the bowl game. Others believed the five-game suspensions for next year were too harsh.

It’s fair game to criticize the NCAA, but writers should sharpen their aim before firing. In a Columbus Dispatch column, Rob Oller wrote: “When a school signs on with the NCAA, it agrees to allow the association to tighten the noose as it deems necessary. Break the rules and be left with an appeals process that seldom gets challenged in court. Could Ohio State refuse to accept the suspensions? Certainly, but then the NCAA could refuse to sanction the school’s varsity sports, which would mean no help with scheduling games, no officials to work those games and no opponents for those games; NCAA-member schools would be forbidden from playing the Buckeyes. No postseason tournaments, either. Ohio State would be left to schedule non-NCAA schools. At that point, it would make more sense to leave for the NAIA, which of course makes no sense at all.”

Well, we can agree on the last five words.

For what it’s worth, the NCAA provides no help in scheduling games, it does not assign officials for regular-season contests and it does not prevent teams from scheduling as they like, beyond reasonable requirements that reflect an institution’s divisional affiliation. Further, the insinuation that the NCAA appeals process is a sham is simply wrong.

Anyway, here’s some of what was written about the Ohio State episode:

Cam Newton, Terrelle Pryor rulings are completely different (Tony Barnhart, Atlanta Journal-Constitution)

NCAA is sending wrong message (Sally Jenkins, Washington Post)

There’s no profit in standing up to NCAA (Rob Oller, Columbus Dispatch)

Jim Tressel, Ohio State can and should suspend players for Sugar Bowl (Pat McManamon, FanHouse)

NCAA denies playing favorites (The Associated Press)

NCAA issues rare response to critics (New York Times)

Pryor’s acts expose charade of college athletics (Yahoo Sports)

Delany didn’t lobby for suspended players (ESPN)

Ohio State mess fuels notion NCAA is making up rules as it goes along (Stewart Mandel, SI.com)

NCAA: Show me the money! (Frank DeFord, National Public Radio)

“Pay for Play.” Based on an interview from Inside Higher Education, I’m looking forward to reading Ronald A. Smith’s new book, “Pay for Play: A History of Big-Time College Athletic Reform.”

“Pay for Play” (Inside Higher Ed)

A couple of points from the interview are especially worth noting.

First, one rationale for substantial corporate/commercial support of athletics programs has been that the model mimics what is occurring elsewhere in higher education. Smith acknowledges this but says there is a fallacy in saying that commercialism on the academic side is invariably appropriate: “The commercialization and corporatization of colleges and universities to make money for their institutions from teaching, research and athletics is not new, but it is increasing − some say at an alarming rate. The fact that it started with a basically non-educational activity, athletics, is not surprising. That it is intensifying in medical schools, science research and for-profit distance education on the Internet is even more troublesome than what is occurring in athletics.”

The second point involves Smith’s vision for reform:

“Reform, to help ensure academic integrity in intercollegiate athletic programs, will continue to be unsuccessful until the major players are brought together. Presidents cannot, or will not, do so on their own as is the situation today in the NCAA. The major players, I believe, should be the presidents, governing boards (who set university policy), faculties (who have most to do with academic integrity) and students (who are directly involved in playing the games). They must be brought together to create rules that will improve the situation, so that the athletes become an integral part of the student body academically and a level playing field can be created athletically.”

Of course, a case can be made that presidents, faculty and students already are involved in NCAA decision-making, with the final authority for most decisions resting with the presidents. Smith, however, seems to suggest that better policy would come from having more varied perspectives directly involved in making ultimate decisions.

The observation about greater involvement for governing boards is worthwhile. Here’s what the late NCAA President Myles Brand said in an October 2006 speech at the National Press Club: “Presidents too will benefit from a well-defined relationship pertaining to athletics with their governing boards. The NCAA has entered into an agreement with the Association of Governing Boards (to help) educate new governing board members around the country on the proper relationship between boards that set policy in athletics and presidents who put those policies into action and oversee the campus athletics administration.”

No doubt that was a step in the right direction, but was it enough? Do board members need to somehow be formally involved in framing NCAA rules and policies?

It’s a long-term question, but given their importance to the enterprise, it’s something worth considering.

Deductive reasoning. The Washington Post recently included an op-ed piece from Charles Clotfelter, a Duke University public policy professor who encouraged discontinuation of the tax deduction for major college sports programs.

Stop the tax deduction for major college sports programs (Charles Clotfelter, Washington Post)

I’m all for a good tax-reform discussion, but I wasn’t overly persuaded by Professor Clotfelter’s arguments – at least not the ones he put forth in his column. Perhaps he holds an underlying assumption that athletics is not a genuine educational endeavor, but he never made that case. Instead, he seemed to object to people giving so they will have the opportunity to be entertained. In fact, many tax-deductible donation opportunities, including the United Way, come with recognition and incentive programs.

Tax reform is one of the most important issues facing the country, but the question should be approached systematically, not emotionally and not piecemeal.

High school drug testing losing its juice? The Dallas Morning News reported that a reduction in state funding is causing Texas to cut back on steroid testing for high school athletes.

Steroid testing program for high school athletes shrinks as state cuts funds (Dallas Morning News)

Sadly, this trend is almost certain to get worse as the state-government funding crisis accelerates. The Texas circumstance, no doubt playing out in other states, is concerning. To save money and to maximize the number of tests, the state’s high school governing body has tested for only 10 drugs (experts told the Morning News that 40 might be a more appropriate number). The 10 drugs that are tested for are not the most pervasive, leading to few negative tests and giving politicians permission to claim that the problem may be overstated.

It’s a happy day indeed if high school athletes are almost completely free of performance-enhancing drugs, but it’s far from certain that is truly the case. Legitimate testing is still necessary, even if states are unwilling to shoulder the burden themselves. Whether the cost has to be borne locally or as part of the regrettable (but increasingly common) pay-to-play arrangement in high schools, this is one issue that shouldn’t be swept under the rug.

Excessive celebration or excessive officiating? I can’t recall any officiating decision that generated the response of the excessive-celebration call in the final moments of the Syracuse-Kansas State Pinstripe Bowl on Dec. 30.

To review, Kansas State’s Adrian Hilburn scored to pull the Wildcats within two points with about a minute remaining. As he reached the back of the end zone, he briefly saluted the cheering Kansas State fans in the stands. Kansas State was penalized 15 yards on the ensuing conversion, a doubly stiff penalty since the Wildcats had to go for two. The conversion failed and Syracuse won, 36-34.

Suffice to say that media commentators did not back the call:

Officials should be accountable (Manhattan Mercury)

Double standard for celebrations (Mechelle Voepel, ESPN)

Kansas State excessive celebration penalty a new low for refs (SBNation)

Zebra report: Sugar Bowl safety, celebratory salute and illegal substitution (Matt Snyder, FanHouse)

The NCAA Football Rules Committee established the excessive-celebration rule in 1995. At the time, there was widespread consensus that out-of-control behavior needed to be reined in, but even at the outset, the experts knew that interpretation was going to be a problem.

Clearly, that’s still the case. As authorities pointed out after the game, the call fell within the letter of the rule (in fact, salutes are specifically prohibited). However, I saw crowd salutes in other games in 2010 that were not called. Likewise, spontaneous first-down signals by players were flagged in some games but not in others.

This is a hard one. Control is obviously necessary, but a zero-tolerance approach doesn’t seem appropriate either.

Look for the Football Rules Committee to give this some consideration in February.

Division III academic reporting. On Wednesday, Division III issued the results of its pilot academic reporting program. The study showed that for the 115 schools that voluntarily submitted graduation-rates data, 66 percent of student-athletes who enrolled as freshmen in 2003 graduated within six year. That compares favorably with the 65 percent graduation rate for the general student body at the 444 active and provisional Division III member schools. The Division III rate also compares well with federal graduation rates for the most recent cohorts in Division I (64 percent for student-athletes; 63 percent for the student body) and Division II (56 percent for student-athletes; 47 percent for the student body).

How do grad rates of Division III athletes measure up? Quite well, NCAA says (Chronicle of Higher Education)

Athletes and students graduate comparably (Inside Higher Education)