You Don’t Have to Study to Know This Score

Before we erect a statue to that distinguished academician, John Thompson, before we salute him as a modern-day Joan of Arc, it may be well to consider where he’s coming from.

Thompson is the basketball coach who walked off the court a week ago, protesting a National Collegiate Athletic Assn. ruling barring colleges from granting scholarships to athletes who fail to achieve the NCAA’s academic standards.

John Thompson, you have to understand, is a coach. He runs basketball at Georgetown University and anywhere else he can, and he, like a lot of his colleagues, claims that the action of the NCAA is not only elitist but discriminatory.

Fair enough. Who wants to condone racism?

But what we have here arrayed against the offending Proposal 42 of the NCAA bylaws is not a cast of outstanding educational leaders. What we have here are basketball coaches, football coaches. Their motives are not only suspect, they’re transparent.

Thompson walked off the basketball court in a silent but well-publicized protest against this NCAA enactment, which would prohibit scholarships to all freshmen who fail to achieve a minimum 2.0 grade-point average or score less than 700 on the Scholastic Aptitude Test.

Thompson and associates argue this will punish unfairly kids who come from disadvantaged backgrounds and have had poor educational opportunities.

It will also, coincidentally, punish coaches.

The NCAA is not concerned with the educational opportunities of disadvantaged youngsters from deprived backgrounds. Its concern is with athletes.

So is John Thompson’s. John Thompson is a coach. One of the best. His livelihood depends on a pipeline of outstanding athletes to the basketball court.

No one sees anything wrong with bending the academic rules to upgrade enrollment of underprivileged students.

But why do they always have to be All-American athletes? Why do they always have to be jump shooters, wide receivers, guys who can set picks?

Some years ago, in a burst of zeal for social good, the colleges and universities of California adopted what came to be known as the “2% rule.” This admitted a total of 2% of the matriculating class in their schools under the then-standard requirements for academic admission.

The idea was to get doctors, lawyers, scientists, statesmen.

What it got were power forwards, point guards, nose tackles and pivot men. It’s amazing the percentage of this 2% who turned out to be world-class athletes. Not world-class scholars. Hardly any of them graduated.

It got guys who wouldn’t solve the Middle East crisis but who could figure out a zone defense. We need guys who can lick cancer and we get guys who can lick the L.A. Clippers.

Far be it from me to suggest that the coaches are motivated more by self-interest than the public weal but you can’t help noticing how they have closed ranks on this issue. You think they want to try to win the Final Four with students?

They talk out of both sides of their mouths. First, they say the NCAA should get out of academics and leave that to the administrators of the universities whose job it is. The NCAA should get out of education. Leave that to the professors.

Then, they say the NCAA should work with high schools to ensure that athletes receive “proper guidance.”

Figure that one out and bring the answer in Monday.

The cynical conclusion would seem to be that coaches figure they can handle their college presidents. And they probably can. It may take 40 years for a college to be able to turn out a President or secretary of state. But it can go to the Rose Bowl this year. If you’re a college president, are you going to listen to your conscience or your coach?

Some years ago, at a coaching clinic in Santa Barbara, the late Bear Bryant, one late night when the bourbon was flowing and the conversation got confidential, delivered himself of this thought to live by:

“If you got any genuine, 14-carat, book-toting, milk-drinking students on your list, send them to Stanford. But if you got any whiskey-drinking, poker-playing, pool-shooting, girl-chasing young studs who can play football, you send them to ol’ Bear.”

Coaches and academicians have had an adversary relationship since time began. Coaches have won it. It’s a very brave faculty member today who would flunk the school’s star athlete. Also, probably, a very unemployed one.

So, I find it just a little bit amusing that the coaches are wrapping themselves in the flag and self-righteous arguments on this one. Fighting for their “program,” I can dig. Trying to tell the country that they’re embarked on some kind of holy crusade makes me want to say, “Please! Not while I’m eating.”

We all know where the coaches are coming from. You think they want to leave all those 40-point forwards, hook-shot artists and off-guards out there? You think a coach cares if his top scorer can spell or pick out the United States of America from an unmarked map?

The NCAA is trying to keep athletic programs from suiting up illiterates, trying to keep the available space in colleges or universities from being cluttered up by athletes whose main contribution to our culture is going to be the dunk shot. The NCAA doesn’t care if the dean of admissions bends the rules to let in 5-foot 2-inch bespectacled youngsters with academic potential. You think the coaches would walk off the court for those youngsters’ rights to academic exception?

America is the only country in the world that thinks the function of the university is to win the Fiesta Bowl. Or the Final Four. It may be why we’re buying Japanese cars.

I don’t mean to be cynical about John Thompson. I mean, look at it this way: If he can’t keep getting 7-foot centers through the college boards, whatever are the New York Knicks--or even the Indiana Pacers--going to do?