Assorted Thoughts by Phil Whitten

PHOENIX, Arizona, October 18. LAST Sunday, SwimmingWorldMagazine.com sat down with Phil Whitten, the Executive Director of the College Swimming Coaches Association of America (CSCAA), to get his thoughts on a variety of hot topics in college swimming. Here are his observations:

On the USOC's letter to the James Madison administration as we reported here:
"My first reaction is, it's GREAT! And, it's about time.

I think sending the letter is a very good first step. In the past, the USOC has, shortsightedly, taken a hands-off approach towards this whole issue. They haven't seemed to care that Olympic sports, almost exclusively, were those being cut at the college level. It is encouraging that Jim Scherr realizes that we have a major problem that will threaten the quality of U.S. Olympic teams.

Look at what's going on in gymnastics as we speak. Men's gymnastics is down to 19 programs nationwide – 18 if the James Madison athletics director has his way – while women's gymnastics is flourishing. The world championships are being held right now and the U.S. men, who won the team silver medal two years ago in Athens, look as though they'll finish about 13th. In contrast, the women are favored to medal, if not win the gold. This is a glimpse of the future for most Olympic sports in the U.S. unless the current trends are reversed.

It also is encouraging that the heads of a number of National Governing Bodies (NGB) including Chuck Wielgus [Executive Director of USA Swimming] signed on to the USOC letter. Of course, Chuck has been the most proactive and outspoken NGB head on this issue for at least six years.

Look, the Amateur Sports Act of 1978 removed the AAU's control over the Olympic sports, placing each sport in the hands of an NGB specific to the sport. For us, that's USA Swimming. The Act exempted colleges from being controlled by these NGBs as it was felt, justifiably, that they were functioning well as the primary source of national caliber coaches and Olympic caliber athletes. In accepting that exemption, the NCAA and its members also accepted the responsibility to continue training these athletes and coaches.

Much has happened since 1978 — most notably, the obscene and fruitless arms race in college football and the hijacking of Title IX — but the majority of Olympic athletes still come from the college ranks or from those who have recently graduated from college.

I only wonder why the letter was sent just to James Madison and not also to Rutgers, but there may be an explanation for that. In any event, I am hoping that this letter indicates that the USOC finally is going to take a much more active role.

Now what we need is for the NCAA to step up to the plate."

On impending legal developments in the James Madison case:
"A number of groups are looking very seriously at legal challenges because JMU did a lot of things illegally. This includes students, parents and alumni of James Madison as well as other coaching associations such as the National Wrestling Coaches Association.

There is a conference this weekend conducted by the College Sports Council, a multi-sport organization that has been fighting for the retention of men's sports at the college level. Coach Bob Groseth of Northwestern is representing us at that conference. It is probable that there will be a recommendation for legal action coming out of the meeting. I expect there will be several legal challenges in the very near future.

On the use of Title IX by schools as a reason behind program cuts:
"Unethical administrators and athletic directors are using the excuse of Title IX to cut men's programs when that isn't what is really driving their decisions. What's maddening is that there would be no need to cut men's teams, and all of the dissembling, obfuscation and plain old lying would be unnecessary if these guys would only use a little creativity, if they'd think outside the box or invite the participation of their Olympic sports coaches in dealing with budgetary issues. The total lack of imagination is depressing and, frankly, bewildering. Are these guys really such rigid thinkers?

But rigid uncreative and dissembling or not, if these administrators are allowed to continue stumbling down the same path, they will wreak havoc with Olympic sports.

Then there's this to consider. Because of the changing ratio of women and men on college campuses, the emphasis on the first prong of Title IX compliance, proportionality, will lead inevitably to men's programs cuts …followed by women's program cuts. Do the math.

How ironic! A law passed to promote and expand opportunities for women has been used to reduce opportunities for men, and very soon it will be used to reduce opportunities for women.

The direction in which many schools are heading is to concentrate more dollars on fewer and fewer sports. They want to take something like football and put all of their funds in that basket. They, then, will try to match the dollars and scholarships in women's teams, which they don't really care about. Everything else will fall by the wayside with the possible exception of men's basketball.

What is happening with Title IX is that the radical feminists have taken it to the limit and beyond. In conception, Title IX was a good thing – equal opportunity for men and women. Who could be against that? But remove football from the equation and men are now the under-represented sex. It's men who are being discriminated against."

On how member institutions of the NCAA and the presidents of those institutions see the importance of academics in the collegiate sports equation:
"The NCAA, which no doubt is sincere, and a lot of college presidents, many of whom may not be sincere, give lip service to the concept of the student-athlete ideal. In practice, many university administrators don't really care much about it.

Sports such as swimming, tennis, golf and gymnastics that have the best students are the ones that are getting cut. The sports with the worst students are not getting cut.

The president of Tulane, for example, has been among the most outspoken advocates of the student-athlete ideal. Yet last year, Tulane cut four women's teams, including swimming, and they were the four highest-ranked teams, academically, in the school. Not only that, but three of those four teams won conference championships. The retained teams were the lowest ranked teams academically, and also had performed significantly less well on the playing field.

So did the president of Tulane really care about the student-athlete ideal? You tell me!

The same thing is true with Rutgers. Five of the six teams they want to cut are the top five academic performing men's teams, including swimming. Rutgers administrators have been outspoken in promoting the student-athlete ideal. The men's swimming and tennis teams won Academic All-America accolades and have 100-percent graduation rates. Rutgers football's graduation rate is much lower than the average for the student body and the team's GPA is well under that of swimming and tennis. That pattern is generally true in programs across the country.

But it gets even more cynical. Not only do many administrators not care about the student-athlete ideal, but once their football players use up their eligibility, they abandon them. So what if they have only minimal skills to make a living in the real world? It is a terrible situation."

On the pedestal on which football and men's basketball are raised in college sports:
"What bugs me is that football and men's basketball are often referred to as "revenue sports". The distinction the speaker usually is making is that revenue sports not only pay for themselves, but they pay for all the "non- revenue" sports as well.

What they're hoping you won't notice is that there's a difference – a big difference — between "revenue" and "profitable." Rutgers football lost more than $3 million last year. They even lost money on the bowl game they played in, where they were given $1.25 million.

The Rutgers and the James Madisons and all the other schools with ADs who dream of the Big Time, hope to build a team like Southern California's or Ohio State's or Notre Dame's. But, there are only a few teams like these and there are good reasons for it. Everyone can't be at the top.

James Madison hopes to be the next Notre Dame by putting more resources into football and the Olympic sports be damned. Statistically speaking, James Madison will not be the next OSU or Notre Dame, and I'd be willing to wager a lot of money on it."

On potential solutions for out of control football programs:
"I like college football as much as anyone else. My views are not anti-football. The thing that puzzles me, though, is why any team in college football needs 100-200 players when they play a 12-game schedule. The professional teams only need 55 players and they play a 16-game schedule. The level of violence in professional is much greater because they have bigger and faster guys who hit harder, but they get by with just 55 players. Why does college football need 200 players and 88 scholarships?

The answer is: they don't. Studies of college football show that a majority of team members and even many of the scholarship players never set foot on the field during a game. We need to rein in the numbers. Why not cap teams at 70 – 75 players. That's still more than the pros and it speaks to the injury argument. Then cut the number of scholarships down to 44 – that's equal to the entire first and second teams for both offense and defense.

That would help schools meet their commitments to women athletes and to men in the Olympic sports without impacting the football team at all."

On the arms race currently occurring in the college sports realm:
"There are literally dozens of college football coaches making more than a million dollars a year – and a growing number over the two million mark. What does that tell you about the values of the university? It's crazy. A college coach should not make three, four, or five times what the school's president does. Or ten times what a distinguished full professor earns. That subverts the values of the college.

One solution, of course, is to acknowledge that Big-Time college football is really a semi-pro sport. Take it completely out of the athletic department and pay the players while also providing academic scholarships."

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

Welcome to our community. We invite you to join our discussion. Our community guidelines are simple: be respectful and constructive, keep on topic, and support your fellow commenters. Commenting signifies that you agree to our Terms of Use

0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x