NCAA Graduates to New Dimensions of Pretense

Leave it to the National Collegiate Athletic Assn., always on the cutting edge of hypocrisy, to protect itself from the long arm of the law.

Most recently, the NCAA’s Presidents’ Commission recommended, among other things, that schools be forced to disclose graduation rates of their scholarship athletes. At first look, a noble gesture.

But I don’t suppose the Commission’s actions had anything to do with a recent government survey showing that from 1982 through ‘87, 35 of 97 Division I institutions graduated only 20% of their basketball players? Or that two legislators, Sen. Bill Bradley (D-New Jersey) and Tom McMillen (D-Maryland), who somehow managed to play college basketball, earn degrees, become Rhodes Scholars and have professional playing careers, are sponsoring a mandatory disclosure bill that would require federally funded schools to report the graduation rates of their athletes to the U.S. Department of Education and also to the scholarship recipients themselves? In short, the NCAA’s worst nightmare: an honest-to-goodness, suffer-the-consequences-if-you-don’t-comply law.

Truth is, the NCAA would rather see Jerry Tarkanian, its arch-enemy from Nevada Las Vegas, be named executive director than see the federal government become involved in its affairs. The NCAA fears government intervention like Zsa Zsa fears motorcycle cops. And with good reason: the government can order it to do things it doesn’t want to.

This simple fact partly explains the Commission’s recent policy proposal, which will be introduced at the NCAA convention in January. As it stands now, NCAA doctrine calls for disclosure of total graduation rates for Division I scholarship athletes, which is fine if you want a muddled and misleading representation of academic standing.

Under Bradley and McMillen’s plan, as well as--surprise!--this similar proposal by the Commission, NCAA member schools would have to reveal how many athletes ever march to the tune of “Pomp and Circumstance.”

Here’s a wild guess: graduation rates for football and basketball, which happen to be the two main revenue-producing sports at most schools, will be disturbingly poor. And here’s an unlikely hope: offending athletic programs will try everything in their power to markedly improve the numbers.

At Cal State Fullerton, Athletic Director Ed Carroll said he is doing his part.

“As far as making the graduation rates public, we are completely supportive of that,” he said. “Since a year ago, we’ve put out that data. I think it’s a good move. I think it will put the pressure on all the institutions to get their graduation rates up.”

Carroll would know. He had to explain the miserable graduation numbers of past Titan men’s basketball teams, especially those of former coach George McQuarn. Even worse were the graduation rates of past Fullerton baseball teams.

Those days are over, Carroll said.

“The key benefit (of the disclosure rule) is the public pressure that would be created on an institution,” he said. “A number of schools are certainly going to be embarrassed. We were embarrassed. Now we’re trying to make it better. We’ve made a strong stand.”

But will simple disclosure of such numbers prompt a school to make meaningful adjustments and improvements? And do you honestly think that a top recruit will turn down Basketball U., factory to the National Basketball Assn., because its graduation rates were on the low side? Or that given the choice between a national championship and a high graduation rate, fans and financial supporters of a school will choose an increase in diplomas?

“I think it will affect a group of parents and student-athletes who are into academics,” said Mike Bokosky, assistant basketball coach at UC Irvine. “I don’t think it will affect schools with a terrible graduation rate. Players will go there because they know it’s easier. Prestige-wise, it might hurt (schools) when their college president is sitting around with another college president. But I don’t think it will hurt the recruiting, even if the graduation rate is poor.”

This is sad--but not altogether surprising--news. In fact, if anyone should know about the inequities of the current system, it is Bokosky, who does a lot of the recruiting for Irvine. Bookworms want to know graduation rates. Basketball players want to know if they’ll start.

Still, every time Bokosky enters a recruit’s home, he has in his briefcase an updated list of graduation rates for Irvine basketball players. In the 10 seasons that Bokosky and Coach Bill Mulligan have been at Irvine, 24 of the 31 seniors have earned degrees. Three more seniors will graduate this year.

The rates are based on a five-year plan, which is the length of allowed eligibility (with a redshirt season).

“Right now, a lot of schools come in and say, ‘We graduate 78%,’ but they don’t put it on paper,” Bokosky said.

Not so if the Commission or Bradley and McMillen have their way. At last, every recruit, every faculty member, every booster with a conscience, every conference president and every newspaper will have access to reliable and accurate graduation numbers. Even if it improves the graduation rate by a measly 1% then it was worth the trouble.

“I think it’s a good idea,” said Bokosky.

So do we. But why did it take so long? And why did it take two congressmen with jump shots, not the NCAA, to care first?