Thursday, 4/10/97
College athletics must emphasize integrity, not the power of
money
Coaches should stress educational process, be role models
I will always remember sitting in the front row of the Morgan
Center conference room the day after Jim Harrick had been fired. As
we awaited the arrival of athletic director Pete Dalis and
Chancellor Young, an older gentleman seated next to me leaned over
to say something in a hushed voice.
"The problem," he said, "is that college athletics is run by
amateurs."
I gave a polite laugh and nod in agreement. But the truth is
that I didn’t think it was funny.
I was afraid that the implication was that universities with
high-profile athletic programs should be looking to hire
administrators who are first and foremost shrewd business people,
individuals who have the objective of building a winning program at
the top of their agenda.
College sports are characterized now more than ever by fierce
competition, and it seems that there is becoming increasingly
little room for integrity. Unfortunately, it’s true that athletics
at this level are a business, and the money generated by top-notch
programs is the reason that some school administrators and
officials either look the other way or don’t watch too closely when
it comes to running a clean program.
In an interview with the Daily Bruin on the day following the
press conference, Harrick pointed out the fact that a national
championship would reap tremendous financial benefits for the
university. The Bruins were ranked fourth in the nation at the
time, and expectations were high. To Harrick, his departure meant
not only a serious setback for the basketball team, but also
represented a bad business move for UCLA.
As it turned out, the Bruins did well without Harrick. But
giving the axe to an established head coach just two weeks before
the start of a season certainly was not something you will find in
an athletic director’s handbook on how to win a national title.
My point is not to pass judgement on whether or not Harrick
deserved to be fired, nor is it to say that Dalis and Young were
not thinking at all in business terms.
In fact, Young made the statement that it would have been more
detrimental to the program if the move was not made to replace
Harrick. Lying to school administrators in an effort to cover up
recruiting violations was a serious breach of NCAA rules.
Although Young emphasized the point that Harrick had compromised
his position as a role model, the potential sanctions against the
program may have been the primary motivation for UCLA to distance
itself from the coach – after all, a team can’t bring home a
national championship when it is not even allowed to play in the
NCAA tournament.
There was speculation, however, that Young and Dalis had been
looking for a way to get rid of Harrick before the incident even
occurred, and that all they needed was some reason to justify doing
so. Regardless, several months after the fact, I believe there are
a few insights that have been neglected.
First, I am willing to give Harrick the benefit of the doubt
that the only reason he lied to the administration was to keep two
of his players out of trouble. When he asked the waiter at Monty’s
to put Charles O’Bannon and Cameron Dollar on the bill, he
truthfully may not have been aware that it would be a
violation.
He may have felt responsible for any trouble that the two
seniors would have gotten into, and he wanted to protect them. This
absolutely doesn’t justify his lying, but it does help put what
happened into perspective.
Harrick’s loyalty was first and foremost to the team and his
players, and that was commendable.
However, I suspect that Harrick may feel betrayed by the
assistant coaches who wouldn’t follow him into the fire. This is
unfortunate, because I believe the assistants did feel a sense of
loyalty – they were simply caught between a rock and a hard place.
In the end, they did the right thing.
The complexity of this particular issue is a perfect
illustration of why it is so vitally important to have people in
positions of leadership at the collegiate level who are firmly
committed to the educational process. LSU’s long-time coach Dale
Brown stated at the beginning of this season that it would be his
last, claiming that the enormous pressure to win is retarding the
educational process.
The money and the hype have in too many cases turned college
athletes into under-the-table professionals, and have forced
coaches to choose between keeping their job and standing up for
what they believe in.
The athletic directors are in a precarious position as well.
They are depended upon to keep the money coming in from alumni and
endorsements. Having a winning program is currently the best way to
ensure this. But at the same time, when integrity is sacrificed
amidst the process of acquiring this money, the goal of higher
education is stabbed squarely in the back.
Maybe I am foolish to think that a commitment to having a
positive impact on the lives of student athletes could ever
outweigh the power of the almighty dollar. Personally, however, I
would much rather have amateur businessmen who are professional
educators running college athletics than those who are intent
simply upon feeding the money-making machine that it has
become.
Zucker is a former Daily Bruin sports editor and a Daily Bruin
sports columnist.