Analysis : Give the NCAA an ‘A’ for Its Big Clean-Up Effort

Even the most hardened cynics had to be struck by the honest enthusiasm shown by the presidents and chancellors who met last week in New Orleans to deal with the toughest, most embarrassing problems in college athletics.

NCAA officials usually react rather than act when the subject is cheating, gambling, drugs or academic standards. We are used to seeing them react defensively, smoothing ruffled feathers, explaining away any corruption. When a scandal has occurred, the party line has been shock and outrage. The party line has been that this, surely, is an isolated case.

But at the NCAA’s Special Convention on Integrity, they were standing up and saying that, by golly, things are out of hand. They have decided that, ultimately, they are responsible for what goes on at their universities, and they are going to start setting things straight right now. No more leaving athletic problems to the athletic directors. These delegates let it be known that they’re mad as hell and they’re not going to take it anymore.

Most noticeably, what the chief executive officers of NCAA institutions did last week was vote in penalties that will make cheating a very bad risk. Repeat offenders will suffer penalties that could virtually destroy an athletic program. A few years ago, the University of San Francisco dropped its basketball program after scandals embarrassed the school. It is being reinstated, now that it has been purged. That is the kind of effect the new legislation would have.

Coaches who cheat will face sanctions that follow them to other schools. Athletes who cheat will be held accountable. Schools that cheat will lose NCAA voting rights--and lots of money.

Whether schools that are hit with these kind of sanctions will race straight to the courthouse with a platoon of attorneys or whether they will follow the intent of the Presidents’ Commission and accept the penalties they voted in--by a landslide--remains to be seen. Whether some of the new rules will be softened by subsequent conventions also remains to be seen.

But, on the whole, the intent and the trend is clear. Athletic departments will no longer be strong, autonomous islands within their universities. Presidents and chancellors are taking control and intend to run the departments according to their own standards.

Remember when UCLA made the surprise announcement that its new athletic director was Pete Dalis, a career bureaucrat who had been brought up through the university ranks under the existing chancellor and vice chancellors, with no real experience in big-time intercollegiate athletics? It seemed to be the final stage in a process that had been going on since J.D. Morgan died, a process by which the chancellor’s office was taking control of the athletic department.

And, indeed, it was. The trend across the country is the same. The chief executive officers are getting into the game.

Jackie Sherrill, athletic director and football coach at Texas A&M;, thinks it’s a good idea. Sherrill said: “The institutions at which the CEOs are actively involved in the athletic department are the ones that are successful. You can put that in bold print.”

Besides the commitment to tougher rules and rule enforcement, there was, across the board, a commitment to all aspects of integrity in college athletics.

And, again, instead of waiting for the roof to fall in, these educators are taking the initiative against gambling and drugs, admitting straight out that, yes, there are serious problems. We all knew that, of course, but we didn’t expect anyone to admit it.

Arliss Roaden, president of Tennessee Tech, called point-shaving and drugs “an ominous combination.” He reported that the NCAA has been meeting with both the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration, offering all cooperation in cleaning up intercollegiate athletics.

John Toner, athletic director at the University of Connecticut, gave a report on the progress being made toward drug-testing of college athletes. Citing “the integrity of the sport and the safety of the student-athlete,” he said that his committee would recommend testing not only for performance-enhancing drugs but also street drugs at a cost of more than $500,000 a year to the NCAA.

In a separate press conference held in conjunction with the convention, Richard Lapchick, head of the sports studies program at Northeastern University, announced a consortium of 10 universities that are active in programs to bring professional athletes who did not graduate from college back to get their degrees. These pros pay for their education by making personal appearances in high schools and junior high schools telling younger athletes not to waste that time in school, not to allow themselves to be used by the athletic system.

The combined effect was stunning. In a matter of days we were bombarded with plans to combat cheating, gambling, drugs and academic abuses.

While most of the media headed to New Orleans with curiosity and a healthy skepticism, expecting the proposals to be shouted down or watered down, the delegates to the special convention came armed with serious, aggressive plans. They presented a strong, united front, largely because of the peer pressure involved, but also because of their conviction.

They were convincing.

Only time will tell whether the cleanup effort will be effective, but the delegates to this convention left no doubt that the cleanup effort is on. Idealistic though it may be, it’s a necessary starting point. And you have to believe they’re serious.