Fr. McFarland's missive on March Madness, Gonzaga, and HC
Jan 21, 2020 11:12:48 GMT -5
mm67 likes this
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Jan 21, 2020 11:12:48 GMT -5
I'm posting this here so as not to further derail threads in other forums.
I had not seen this commentary by Fr. McF. before, --perhaps because this was before? the original Crossports. This was published by the NCAA on May 10, 2004, in NCAA News, and the intended audience seems to be presidents of NCAA member institutions.
Michael C. McFarland
President, College of the Holy Cross
[Interestingly, no S.J.]
I had not seen this commentary by Fr. McF. before, --perhaps because this was before? the original Crossports. This was published by the NCAA on May 10, 2004, in NCAA News, and the intended audience seems to be presidents of NCAA member institutions.
The on-court statistics from the recent Division I men's basketball tournament were impressive. Nonetheless, there's a sour aftertaste to what's popularly termed "March Madness" because off-court statistics have been depressing.
Athlete graduation rates among top programs in men's basketball (and football) are dismal. In many programs, fewer than half the recruited athletes receive a degree within the six-year period considered normal for traditional college students. Often they are left with very little preparation for a future beyond athletics. It is no wonder that many of these athletes end up feeling exploited, so much so that some are demanding that they be paid for their labors on the field and on the court. Moreover, the many scandals we have endured over the past 18 months show what can happen when highly recruited athletes are brought in with little connection to the intellectual and community life of the university, inadequate supervision and a distorted sense of privilege.
There certainly are plenty of temptations to be part of March Madness. A school that reaches the Sweet Sixteen is likely to be featured in many stories, some on a national scale. The coverage can extend beyond the team to some of the unique characteristics of the institution itself. Even a president who thinks a pick-and-roll is a fancy deli sandwich can suddenly get very interested in basketball when the national media come calling.
The attention is even more intense when a relative unknown suddenly rises up to upset more famous and highly favored rivals. I was at Gonzaga University a few years ago when it came out of the West Coast Conference to beat Minnesota, Stanford and Florida to reach the Elite Eight, barely losing to eventual national champion Connecticut. Everyone was charmed by the obscure school with the unpronounceable name and the unassuming, articulate players and coach. The interest was so intense that the local network affiliates had their remote trucks parked permanently on campus for the duration of the tournament run.
The impact on the school was enormous. Applications increased by 30 percent the next year, and the growth continued in subsequent years as Gonzaga continued its tournament success. This allowed the university to increase its first-year class size from 500 to 600 to close to 1,000 without any loss of quality, helping it to grow out of a budget crisis.
Of course Gonzaga is a fine school with much to offer. Students do not choose to go there simply because of its success in basketball. But the extensive exposure it has received because of basketball has made many more potential students aware of its attractions, with obvious benefits to the school.
Even well-established institutions have leveraged successful sports programs to intensify interest among potential students, resulting in more selective admissions, and enhanced rankings and reputations. Notable examples are Georgetown, Duke, Boston College, Notre Dame and Southern California. A winning team, especially one with national visibility, can increase interest, loyalty and commitment among current students, alumni and other important constituencies. It is no wonder that many presidents, trustees and other campus leaders see intercollegiate sports as a tool for institutional advancement, no matter what their personal feelings about them are.
But here's where the problems begin: Winning at the level required to make the Sweet Sixteen in basketball or a major bowl in football requires incredible talent. The number of athletes coming out of high school who are real "difference makers" is limited. Even fewer also have the intellectual ability, scholastic background and commitment to be successful college students -- far fewer than required by all the institutions looking to build or maintain big-time sports programs. As a result, there is intense competition for the best athletes, which leads many schools to lower admission standards dramatically for athletes, and recruiters to offer the kind of attractions that 18-year-old boys dream about.
As a consequence, many college athletes are unprepared, uninterested and uncomfortable in the classroom and exist in a culture that tolerates and even fosters boorish, destructive and illegal behavior. Many presidents, uncomfortable though they may be with this state of affairs, turn a blind eye on the situation in hopes that it will not blow up and embarrass them and their institutions. They are convinced, often by the urging of their coaches and fans, that adhering too strictly to standards will cost them their competitive edge and all the strategic advantages that go with it.
Presidents will get the problem under control only by taking action together, in ways that go beyond the rather modest proposals now before the NCAA. They need to set admissions standards to ensure that any athlete admitted is equipped to become a successful student; and they need to set and enforce high expectations for athletes as students and as members of the community. This seems simple enough, but evidently it is not happening.
Nevertheless it is possible. In the Patriot League, to which Holy Cross belongs, each school calculates an academic index (AI) based on the SAT scores and high-school rank or grade-point average for each recruited athlete. Both individual AIs and team averages are expected to be consistent with those of the student body as a whole. Each year the presidents review the results and hold one another accountable for any exceptions. A similar system is used in the Ivy Group. Once they matriculate, these student-athletes are held to the same standards as other students, both in and out of the classroom. The result is the highest graduation rates reported by any league in Division I athletics and student-athletes who consistently go on to become successful leaders in their chosen fields after graduation.
Admittedly, Patriot League schools are not typical Division I schools. They are among the smallest in Division I and are more selective and demanding academically than all but a few of their Division I brethren. Nevertheless, they are an example of how Division I-level athletics can be done in ways that do not do violence to the ideals of academic integrity and community responsibility that all of us espouse.
I believe that athletics can build character, leadership and teamwork in ways that add value to the academic experience. The result can be a stronger graduate better prepared to contribute to his or her community and nation. Unfortunately, that is not what we're seeing in many colleges and universities that have been "led to (sports) temptation."
Perhaps "March Madness" is the right name after all.
Athlete graduation rates among top programs in men's basketball (and football) are dismal. In many programs, fewer than half the recruited athletes receive a degree within the six-year period considered normal for traditional college students. Often they are left with very little preparation for a future beyond athletics. It is no wonder that many of these athletes end up feeling exploited, so much so that some are demanding that they be paid for their labors on the field and on the court. Moreover, the many scandals we have endured over the past 18 months show what can happen when highly recruited athletes are brought in with little connection to the intellectual and community life of the university, inadequate supervision and a distorted sense of privilege.
There certainly are plenty of temptations to be part of March Madness. A school that reaches the Sweet Sixteen is likely to be featured in many stories, some on a national scale. The coverage can extend beyond the team to some of the unique characteristics of the institution itself. Even a president who thinks a pick-and-roll is a fancy deli sandwich can suddenly get very interested in basketball when the national media come calling.
The attention is even more intense when a relative unknown suddenly rises up to upset more famous and highly favored rivals. I was at Gonzaga University a few years ago when it came out of the West Coast Conference to beat Minnesota, Stanford and Florida to reach the Elite Eight, barely losing to eventual national champion Connecticut. Everyone was charmed by the obscure school with the unpronounceable name and the unassuming, articulate players and coach. The interest was so intense that the local network affiliates had their remote trucks parked permanently on campus for the duration of the tournament run.
The impact on the school was enormous. Applications increased by 30 percent the next year, and the growth continued in subsequent years as Gonzaga continued its tournament success. This allowed the university to increase its first-year class size from 500 to 600 to close to 1,000 without any loss of quality, helping it to grow out of a budget crisis.
Of course Gonzaga is a fine school with much to offer. Students do not choose to go there simply because of its success in basketball. But the extensive exposure it has received because of basketball has made many more potential students aware of its attractions, with obvious benefits to the school.
Even well-established institutions have leveraged successful sports programs to intensify interest among potential students, resulting in more selective admissions, and enhanced rankings and reputations. Notable examples are Georgetown, Duke, Boston College, Notre Dame and Southern California. A winning team, especially one with national visibility, can increase interest, loyalty and commitment among current students, alumni and other important constituencies. It is no wonder that many presidents, trustees and other campus leaders see intercollegiate sports as a tool for institutional advancement, no matter what their personal feelings about them are.
But here's where the problems begin: Winning at the level required to make the Sweet Sixteen in basketball or a major bowl in football requires incredible talent. The number of athletes coming out of high school who are real "difference makers" is limited. Even fewer also have the intellectual ability, scholastic background and commitment to be successful college students -- far fewer than required by all the institutions looking to build or maintain big-time sports programs. As a result, there is intense competition for the best athletes, which leads many schools to lower admission standards dramatically for athletes, and recruiters to offer the kind of attractions that 18-year-old boys dream about.
As a consequence, many college athletes are unprepared, uninterested and uncomfortable in the classroom and exist in a culture that tolerates and even fosters boorish, destructive and illegal behavior. Many presidents, uncomfortable though they may be with this state of affairs, turn a blind eye on the situation in hopes that it will not blow up and embarrass them and their institutions. They are convinced, often by the urging of their coaches and fans, that adhering too strictly to standards will cost them their competitive edge and all the strategic advantages that go with it.
Presidents will get the problem under control only by taking action together, in ways that go beyond the rather modest proposals now before the NCAA. They need to set admissions standards to ensure that any athlete admitted is equipped to become a successful student; and they need to set and enforce high expectations for athletes as students and as members of the community. This seems simple enough, but evidently it is not happening.
Nevertheless it is possible. In the Patriot League, to which Holy Cross belongs, each school calculates an academic index (AI) based on the SAT scores and high-school rank or grade-point average for each recruited athlete. Both individual AIs and team averages are expected to be consistent with those of the student body as a whole. Each year the presidents review the results and hold one another accountable for any exceptions. A similar system is used in the Ivy Group. Once they matriculate, these student-athletes are held to the same standards as other students, both in and out of the classroom. The result is the highest graduation rates reported by any league in Division I athletics and student-athletes who consistently go on to become successful leaders in their chosen fields after graduation.
Admittedly, Patriot League schools are not typical Division I schools. They are among the smallest in Division I and are more selective and demanding academically than all but a few of their Division I brethren. Nevertheless, they are an example of how Division I-level athletics can be done in ways that do not do violence to the ideals of academic integrity and community responsibility that all of us espouse.
I believe that athletics can build character, leadership and teamwork in ways that add value to the academic experience. The result can be a stronger graduate better prepared to contribute to his or her community and nation. Unfortunately, that is not what we're seeing in many colleges and universities that have been "led to (sports) temptation."
Perhaps "March Madness" is the right name after all.
President, College of the Holy Cross
[Interestingly, no S.J.]
