What do Affirmative Action and the Recent College Football Playoff Selection Have in Common?

Three days ago, the college football selection committee finalized its final four choices to take part in the first annual playoff to determine the sports national champion.  The University of Oregon and and the University of Alabama were certain to make it, but the other two choices were a bit more controversial.  Critics of Florida State University argued that, though undefeated, FSU played a soft schedule and escaped from defeat myriad times this season.  The fourth choice, Ohio State University, was even more surprising.  Never in the time I have watched college football do I remember a time when a team jumps those above it in any type of ranking, whether traditional polls or BCS rankings, after all the relevant teams win their final games.  Ohio State destroyed Wisconsin, to be sure, but Baylor and TCU similarly won their games.  And yet Ohio State made it into the playoffs.  And the debates began.

I watched these developments with great amusement.  I wondered whether anybody else could see the connection between this so very public debate and the use of race in employment, college admissions, and elsewhere.

The similarities are astounding. And it makes clear that the affirmative action debate should be more like the college football selection process.  But there is no chance of that.  When it comes to race, reason and judgment leave us, and stupid sets in.

Jim Tressel's Nifty New Mural

A scant few weeks after Ohio State threw Jim Tressel under the bus and blamed their current problems on the coach, the University unveiled a mural honoring their old coach

This is a bit tricky, even controversial.  Without question, the coach had a great run as coach of the Buckeyes, winning 6 Big Ten titles and a national championship, going 8-1 against hated Michigan, and sporting a nifty 94-21 overall record.  No question that Tressel is a terrific coach.  There is also no question that his stint at OSU is deserving of a mural.

On the other hand, what kind of a message does this send not only to the NCAA, but also to fans of college football, to high school students, and to the people of Ohio?  How in the world do we consistently profess derision at Tressel's actions yet turn around a few weeks later and unveil a mural in his honor?

I don't think there is any question that coach Tressel's actions on the field are deserving of a mural.  But so soon?

This is like a poke in the eye to all the reformist talk of recent months. it is as if Ohio State does not care.  This is particularly hubristic for a school that is currently awaiting the result of an NCAA investigation and whether that body will add to the schools self-sanctions in the wake of the Tressel scandal.

NCAA and university presidents everywhere: your move.

The New Recruiting Battlefield for College Football

On Sunday's New York Times, we read about the new trend in college football recruiting.  This is seven-on-seven football, a game played without helmets, pads, or linemen and which showcases only the skill players.  According to the Times, this is the "new face" of college recruiting, rapidly growing in the last three years and soon to rival the AAU circuit that now heavily influences college basketball.  In the words of a high school coach, "[t]he sport of football is slowly turning into the basketball, from the street agents to A.A.U.-type football."

College coaches are none too happy about it. From the Times article, we find that University of Texas coach Mack Brown and former University of Florida coach Urban Meyer are worried about this new trend. “College football is doing great, and it’s the second-most-popular sport in the country," according to Meyer, "but there’s some things we have to get our arms around.” The proliferation of seven-on-seven football is taking the game to the grassroots, which in turn will take power and control away from these high-profile coaches and pass it over to what the article calls "street agents" and other third parties.

I hate to be cynical about this, I really do, but something about the reaction from the coaching community feels funny.  Here are coaches who make three and four million dollars a year worried that college recruiting will no longer consist in showing up at high school football games and flashing their credentials. So when they tell us that they worry about the game of college football as we know it, it is hard to take their concerns to heart.  The conflict of interest is obvious.

In the meantime, Yahoo! Sports is reporting that Jim Tressell, head coach at Ohio State and paragon of ethics, might have known that his players had broken NCAA rules last April yet did not disclose it and might have even lied about it when asked. According to Stewart Mandel, "few coaches in America have maintained a more pristine image than the so-called Senator." And yet even the so-called senator might have gone a bit farther than he should have.  Could it be that Tressel kept the violations quiet in the hopes that it would all go away?  Could it be that he put a winning season ahead of playing by the rules?

It really is hard to be cynical about this, but when you put these two stories together, it is hard to buy what Meyer and Brown are selling.  In saying this, I am not at all suggesting that AAU ball is a good thing for high school athletes, nor do I think that AAU coaches have the best interests of high school players at heart.  Far from it.  (If you have any doubts about this, look no further than George Dohrmann's terrific account of AAU ball, Play Their Hearts Out.) But it is also quite clear that college coaches are not the voice of these student athletes either.  

There is no easy answer.  But let us not pretend that the very coaches who over-sign players with impunity and often treat them as disposable commodities will be the ones speaking on their behalf.

College coaches live by one creed: in the words of the inimitable Al Davis, "Just win, baby." Please don't insult our intelligence by pretending otherwise.