In the modern world of college basketball, many people and organizations are making a lot of money off young athletes, but the return for those young people far too often is negligible. Experience is the best teacher, and there are a lot of good people at the great institutions of Syracuse, North Carolina, SMU and Louisville that have been involved in the recent headline-grabbing scandals. They are learning lessons the hard way, but that doesn’t have to be the case. Having been in this business the better part of 30 years, I am not naïve to the fact that there are some bad apples. There certainly are, but for far too long we have become numb in our response when we should instead be proactive.
If an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, then it’s time for new measures to be taken. If your team is going to face full-court pressure then you’re going to work on breaking the press as you prepare. The same concept applies off the court. For NCAA schools, it means doing more of what you were put there to do originally: educate. Our institutions of higher education, from the president to administrators, to athletic directors and coaches, must begin to take the responsibility of educating as seriously as “Game Day” and “March Madness.”
The behavior that has riddled the headlines in scandals has infiltrated the pros and trickled down to the high school level, a concerning trend. Assault, domestic violence, shortcutting and cheating — just some of the behaviors behind college athletics’ recent negative publicity — are condemned at every level. Yet, we do not take the time at the lower levels to teach techniques to deal with such things in the same way we teach a press-break offense, although that could be the solution to ridding the problem in the pros.
There must be a plan to account for the development of coaches and support staff who are responsible for educating college basketball players on and off of the court. NCAA rules restrict how “hands on” we can be with young people undergoing such a dramatic lifestyle change. For example, at the beginning of the school year, a strength coach can spend six to eight hours with a student-athlete a week, opposed to two for coaches. Until recently, coaches were limited in how often we could talk on the telephone to a prospect; strict limitations are still in place for in-person conversations as well.
The point is: coaches are not trusted enough to do the right things for our players, yet we feel a sense of responsibility to be there for them. Both coaches and the NCAA have to re-evaluate how we work with young people.
Here is a four-point plan for change:
III. Consult industry experts who have the greatest insight into identifying qualified potential ADs and head coaches. Only recently has the media begun to question the validity of search-firm hires. More important than outside assistance, a school has to really know itself to hire who they need. Good decision makers know that the athletic portion of the program is paramount. The industry has become too much about ascetics, and end results, and not enough about the process of building/maintaining a winner while educating. Having an AD who can coach coaches, lead administrators and teach support staff can be accomplished by putting people in place with industry knowledge and experience. Fundraising and business knowledge does not trump all. The best leaders work at helping their coaches succeed first. Their staff is there for ancillary support. A successful department is run as a franchise, not just a business.
