1. Who were your role models growing up and who were your role models as you transitioned into television?My dad was my role model, and there has never been a day when I have felt I was even half the man my dad is. As a player growing up in Los Angeles, I was a big admirer of David Meyers of UCLA when I was younger. I was also a big fan of Bill Walton. Once I got to high school, I loved Magic Johnson because he was my size and could do anything on a basketball court. I, clearly, could not. As a broadcaster, my role models have been people like Bill Raftery, Doug Collins, Robin Roberts, Hubie Brown, Doris Burke, and Dick Vitale. I see them as the gold standards in the game.
2. Do you classify yourself as a journalist, and who are some of your favorite journalists and writers?
No, I am a basketball guy that got a job talking on television. Of the many basketball writers I admire, I would put guys like Frank Burlison, Mitch Chortkoff, Dick Weiss, Jim O’Connell, Jackie MacMullen, Michael Wilbon, Bob Ryan and Mike DeCourcy at the top of the list of my contemporaries. As a kid, I read Jim Murray everyday with the Los Angeles Times. He was marvelous.
3. You’re a proponent of the NCAA adopting the Olympic Model where student athletes could realize their fair market value as opposed to getting paid by their individual universities. Are you a proponent because this helps solve a certain problem or problems in college athletics or is more about fairness?
I believe it would solve some problems, but that’s not why I advocate it. It is an issue of fundamental fairness. There is no legitimate reason or policy justification to restrict only one segment of college sports, the athletes, from benefitting beyond a scholarship in a multi-billion dollar business. Amateurism provides nothing of value to the athlete or to the educational process. It is an antiquated remnant of a time when the elite did not want to compete against the common man. No college athlete is a better student, athlete or person because of his or her amateurism. Amateurism does not make one love the game more, or care about the game more. Amateurs do not have integrity in greater measure than do pros. And, money has no negative effect on the educational process or the value of an athlete’s education. We can tell that from the number of professional baseball players that also play college football, some of them millionaires. The fact that they are professional does not separate them from their teammates or make them lesser students. It is all a well preserved myth.
I am not saying and never have advocated that colleges must pay athletes. However, I do not believe it is fair or right for the NCAA to restrict any athlete or any person to expenses only, especially when every other person in the system is allowed to benefit at market rates. There is no legitimate reason to restrict any athlete from profiting from his or her name, likeness or ability level outside of the university. These players have value in the marketplace, and it is being improperly and unfairly impacted by amateurism restrictions. No other student is so restricted. In fact, no other person in a university setting is so restricted. Athletes are restricted while the NCAA says that athletes are to be treated just like any other student, and that athletes are students that just happen to be athletes. Clearly, that is absurd.
The only amateurs in major American sport are college athletes and amateur golfers. The difference is that amateur golfers choose whether and when they play, and whether and when they practice. In addition, amateur golf does not make any money. In contrast, college sports are a multi-billion dollar industry with lucrative media rights deals, merchandising, ticket sales, licensing revenues and the like. College athletes are told when and where they will play, and there is no choice in the matter. College athletes are like employees in the conditions under which they are expected to perform, yet are restricted to “expenses only.” The USGA does not pay the high salaries the NCAA does. College sport is a professional enterprise that simply doesn’t allow its “labor” any benefit beyond expenses. For the athlete to be restricted in that way, and only the athlete, while others in the system are free to accept whatever compensation the market will allow, is profoundly immoral.
4. Let me propose a slightly different theory. What about a University Office of Commercialism at each institution or conference where student athletes can actually be taught how to be entrepreneurs, run a business, grow their brand, make money on themselves, etc.? Sort of an in-house agency if you will. In other words, use making money a teaching tool as opposed to believing that it’s corruptive or corrosive?
Clearly, there are a lot of things that can be done. Of course, it would also provide another layer of athletic administration that would be high cost for very little benefit to the athlete. However, I don’t believe there needs to be a central authority overseeing what is taught to athletes and how. The NCAA is an association of institutions of higher learning. They know, as some of their core functions, how to evaluate, admit and educate their students. There is no need to regulate how they educate their students. Each school can be trusted to handle their business, just as they are trusted to hand out degrees and admit students in any other category. I don’t believe the NCAA needs to over-regulate this area, too. The NCAA should concern itself with the administration of athletic competition, not police eligibility, education and the individual autonomy of institutions. The NCAA has proven that it is not very good at those things, while it is quite good at putting on events and making money.
5. It appears to me that you are not a huge fan of the NCAA. If you had to boil down your reasoning to a few key points, what are they?
I can understand where you get that idea, but it isn’t accurate. I am a fan of the NCAA when it stays within its lane, and I am a huge fan of the NCAA’s people, who are great people with noble intentions. I served as a member of the NCAA Long Range Planning Committee while I was in college, and I believe in certain aspects of the stated mission. I believe I have demonstrated that I value athletics, and I value education. I certainly believe in the autonomy of each institution.
However, the educational value of athletics does not begin when one enters college, and it does not end when one leaves college. The NCAA would have us all believe otherwise. The educational value of sports comes not from the collegiate component, but from athletics competition itself. The same valuable lessons of athletics can be and are learned on the little league level, the high school level, the college level and the pro level. The educational value of sports has nothing to do with college, and has nothing to do with money, either the presence or absence of money.
I believe the NCAA has too many bad policies that simply cannot be justified. There are far too many contradictions, and too many presidents and NCAA personnel do far too much moralizing. I am critical of certain NCAA policies with which I differ, from amateurism to the NCAA judicial process, but that is in large measure because I love the game so much, and I believe the NCAA should be held to the same high standards it moralizes for its schools, players and coaches. If I didn’t care, I wouldn’t waste my breath. I don’t complain too much about the BCS (except for the lack of a true playoff) because the BCS usually stays within its lane, and simply deals with the administration of athletic competition.
It sounds cynical at times, but the truth is, the NCAA has earned every ounce of skepticism it has garnered over the years. And, many within the gigantic structure agree with me. Not that I had anything to do with it, but several of the changes that are being implemented right now have been the subject of my criticism and ridicule for years now. Now, clearly, many people within college sports now “share my concerns” on those issues. It is also interesting that these issues are the subject of discussion within the NCAA offices, as made clear by internal communications made public recently in the O’Bannon case. Reasonable minds can differ on such matters, but many of the NCAA’s bedrock principles are difficult if not impossible to justify.
6. What do you like about the NCAA?
I like the people that work for the NCAA, and I respect the job they do. I think the NCAA does a marvelous job of putting on championship events, and maximizing revenues from those events. But, I believe the NCAA spends way too much time getting in the way of its member institutions, and its regulatory structure has created a gigantic compliance structure that costs millions upon millions of dollars annually. Remember, we are not transporting heavy explosives, manufacturing pharmaceuticals, or performing surgical procedures here. We are just playing ball. These schools can make their own decisions according to their own standards and policies and then we can play ball on Saturday. The fact that the Ivy League and the SEC operate differently doesn’t mean that those schools cannot play on Saturday and have a great athletic competition. The results on the field do not determine the quality of education at either institution. That is a separate issue, but the NCAA is constantly linking those two things together.
7. Let’s pretend it’s the turn of the century and you get the call from President Roosevelt to start a new association to govern college athletics. Knowing what we know now, what’s your model for the association? You can choose an existing entity or make up a fictional description.
I would have an one national governing body to administer national championship events, and then have sport specific entities formed to administer each particular sport, including a commissioner for each sport. There is no reason that football, basketball, field hockey, bowling and crew should operate out of the same rule book and be governed by the same regulatory structure. Smaller entities that are responsible only for that sport can move faster and more efficiently, and be more proactive to the changing landscape in each game. I see that as being pretty simple. While we have the United States Olympic Committee, we also have USA Basketball, USA Swimming, USA Track and Field and the like. I would also have separate and smaller divisions, especially for basketball and football. There is no justification for the size of Division I basketball. It is ridiculous.
8. What was your initial reaction to the NCAA sanctions on Penn State, and how do you feel about it now?
Like everyone else, I was sickened by the crimes and heartbroken for the victims. I was outraged by the inaction of the leadership at Penn State. I still feel that way. However, I did not particularly care for the manner in which the NCAA handled the matter, which was a heavy-handed “cramdown” of penalties on Penn State in what I consider to be a “nation building” exercise. Penn State was threatened with the death penalty in no uncertain terms, and if it did not consent to the findings and sanctions, it would almost certainly have faced worse that it accepted under threat from Mark Emmert. I did not think that was right. Penn State deserved a hearing and the normal process. For those that liken this to a plea bargain, that is after formal charges. There were no formal charges or an opportunity to be heard in this matter. That was simply wrong.
The NCAA is a rules-based organization. Although I differ with its rules, it is simply wrong to preach rules, and then circumvent your own rules and procedures when it suits you. The only rush for the NCAA was to hit Penn State with sanctions before the Nittany Lions took the field again this Fall. That is not a good enough reason, in my judgment.
The haste with which the NCAA acted was unfortunate, and has unintended consequences. To take the Freeh Report, the commissioning of which by Penn State should have been encouraged, and use it as a weapon against Penn State was simply wrong. It serves now as a clear disincentive to investigating yourself, because if you do, you will simply provide the NCAA with a roadmap to sanction your school without going through its normal channels and procedures, and without the thoughtful deliberation this particular case demands.
Lastly, I was quite disappointed that the NCAA would determine institutional culpability while letting the individuals essentially skate. Institutional culpability derives from individual culpability, and it was a failure for the NCAA not to individually sanction Graham Spanier, Tim Curley, Gary Schultz and Joe Paterno. When coaches or athletes run afoul of NCAA rules, they are often “disassociated” and slapped with “show cause” orders, or at least public reprimand and censure. That should have been done in this case if the university was to be treated in that fashion. None of that was done, and the NCAA stayed silent on the individuals, most of whom were administrators.
I differed with the NCAA narrative and Freeh conclusion that the ”culture of football” was to blame for these crimes and the lack of an acceptable response by those in charge at Penn State. Football was no more to blame in this case than religion was in the Catholic church scandals, or scouting was in the Boy Scouts scandal. This was about individuals, not the culture of athletics. But, if we really believe that the culture of football was to blame, should we send the National Guard into Tuscaloosa, Columbus, Gainesville, Baton Rouge and Eugene? As horrible as the underling offenses were at Penn State, it is a reach to blame it on football. I thought that was wrong.
9. What’s your reaction to seeing institutions like Kansas, Georgetown and other traditional basketball schools appear to be less “valuable” in the conference realignment discussions?
I don’t think any of those basketball brands is less valuable, but their football teams do not provide media markets that are coveted right now. I hated to see the Big East diminished, but change is inevitable in anything. The Big East was created for basketball, but got left behind as the landscape changed. That was really sad in a way, but the college game will continue to thrive as long as the people administering the game don’t screw it up. From some of the decisions that are made, they appear to be trying! I am confident that all of these schools will still be able to compete, even though the Big East will likely never be the same.
10. Is it possible we are in the “New Coke” era of college athletics? Meaning, there is such a big push to grow and expand that we have forgotten what got us here – strong regional rivalries. Or, are the changes we are seeing part of a healthy evolution?
That is a great question. These decisions have not been about the game or what is best for the game. These decisions have been made for money, markets and media rights deals. When NCAA administrators moralize about integrity and academic fit, it is all boilerplate talking points. This is about money. And, to an extent, there is nothing wrong with that. The problem is that nobody seems to want to admit it, and the tension between the commercialism of the game and the requirement that the players remain amateur is growing, and the chasm between the two is getting wider. That cannot continue and still work, in my judgment.
11. You’re an avid Twitter user. What has the impact of Twitter and other social media been on college athletics?
I think it is all good, and all positive. Can some thoughts, if Tweeted out too quickly or without enough deliberation, give one pause? Sure. But, the positives far outweigh the negatives. I have had a wonderful experience with Twitter. Of the thousands of Tweets I have sent out, there were a few I would like to have back. With my biting sense of humor, you can make mistakes, and I have made a couple. I learned from them, and moved on. My wife was the one that encouraged me to use Twitter. She thought that most people probably saw me as some X and O wonk that was without humor and serious all the time. She thought Twitter would allow me to show more of my personality, that I have other interests, and I can have a laugh, especially at my own expense. She was right. It is a great communication tool, and a lot of fun. Overall, I have really enjoyed Twitter and the interaction with other people that have ideas, but don’t take themselves or things too seriously.
12. Who wins in a swag-off you or Jay-Z?
Please. As much swag as Jay-Z has, it would be a 1-seed versus a 16-seed. My swag and trilliciousness would prevail. My seats are suede and my luggage is Louie.
LOOK FOR PART II OF OUR Q&A NEXT MONTH!