imgreat95
01-21-2003, 01:59 AM
Anderson on the Web: New NCAA head fails to make strong first impression
Friday, January 17, 2003
It seemed like an intriguing choice when the NCAA named Myles Brand its new president.
Brand was the president at Indiana, a university in the Big Ten, where athletics are huge even if the conference itself is overrated. He had never before worked in athletics and wasn't a standout athlete, but he had one gigantic achievement sitting on his resume.
It was Brand who fired basketball coach Bob Knight more than two years ago after deciding that a confrontation with a student violated Knight's zero-tolerance probation.
Regardless of how anyone feels about the firing or about the controversial coach, that move - and naming assistant Mike Davis to replace Knight -- made Brand look like someone who might be able to give the NCAA the kick in the pants it has needed for so long.
Here was a man who had no qualms about taking swift and decisive action. A man who was involved. A man who could come in and address the major issues facing the NCAA and oversee some meaningful changes. A man who could truly govern.
Well, maybe not.
Brand took office Jan. 2 and delivered his first State of the Association address Sunday as the 97th annual NCAA convention opened in Anaheim, Calif.
It was not a strong speech.
Brand talked about the importance of reform and touched on some of the key issues facing college athletics, but he did not go into detail or offer any clear paths toward solution, instead spewing forth philosophy and vague promises.
For example, he said women and minorities should get more opportunities at all levels of college athletics, but he offered no course to make that happen. He said positive and negative reinforcement should be used to forge better academic standards for athletes, but he didn't get specific. He mentioned financial challenges, over-commericialization and problems with postgame celebrations that have turned ugly, but he didn't say how he would like those things resolved.
That's because Brand apparently didn't bring strong opinions to the job beyond the basic ideals that have long been associated with college athletics.
He likened himself to "a newly enrolled student" who will spend the next several months boning up on NCAA matters, although he did say, "Even though I have much to learn, my mind is not a blank slate."
How great it would have been to have a new NCAA president who came roaring into office, taking a definitive stand on issues such as stipends for athletes, the number of athletes who are leaving early to turn pro or skipping college altogether, the student-athlete advocacy groups that are being organized, the gap between revenue and non-revenue sports, and the recent cry for relaxing Title IX.
How refreshing it would have been to hear Brand trash the phone book-sized NCAA rules manuals and promise to simplify things rather than bind the rules in more red tape.
Brand -- the fourth president in the NCAA's history and the first who was a university president - instead focused on the two incredibly broad ideas of reform and promotion.
"Without genuine reform, the future of intercollegiate athletics is in peril. Without vigorous advocacy, the value of intercollegiate athletics will be unrealized," Brand said.
Broken down, Brand's vision has five main principles: stressing academics; giving institutions' presidents strong control; promoting college athletics; and maintaining integrity and ethics.
Most of those ideas are a given and hardly worth major portions of Brand's outline for the future. Of course the NCAA should promote its product and stress academics, integrity and ethics. Duh.
Brand's promise to delegate a large amount of the control and decision-making to university presidents isn't surprising given his background, but it's disturbing.
It seems he's motivated by an interested to protect his old cronies.
"When missteps in athletic programs occur, universities are open to criticism, and the presidents are the ones on the front lines," Brand said. "I know because I have been there. It is presidents who have the ultimate responsibility for setting standards and ensuring that these standards are followed."
Sure, presidents are open to criticism and embarrassment when there are problems. What boss isn't? Brand is being overly sensitive. Presidents or chancellors might get more grief from the academic community when there are problems in athletics, but coaches, athletic directors and students are the ones who face the most shame publicly.
Can you name the president/chancellor at any schools that have gotten into trouble with the NCAA in recent years?
Brand said university presidents should take "into account the perspectives of student-athletes, coaches, fans, faculty members and governing boards," but his overall plan doesn't give enough of a voice to the athletes, coaches and athletic directors. And if he doesn't have strong, informed opinions on specific NCAA issues, why would he think other university presidents do?
He vowed to essentially take a crash course in NCAA 101 and develop a strategic plan within a year. Maybe it will be dynamic and effective, but there was nothing in Brand's I'll-come-in-and-work-hard speech to indicate that it will be.
For now, there's no reason to get our hopes up that this Brand of NCAA leadership will make things better.
Friday, January 17, 2003
It seemed like an intriguing choice when the NCAA named Myles Brand its new president.
Brand was the president at Indiana, a university in the Big Ten, where athletics are huge even if the conference itself is overrated. He had never before worked in athletics and wasn't a standout athlete, but he had one gigantic achievement sitting on his resume.
It was Brand who fired basketball coach Bob Knight more than two years ago after deciding that a confrontation with a student violated Knight's zero-tolerance probation.
Regardless of how anyone feels about the firing or about the controversial coach, that move - and naming assistant Mike Davis to replace Knight -- made Brand look like someone who might be able to give the NCAA the kick in the pants it has needed for so long.
Here was a man who had no qualms about taking swift and decisive action. A man who was involved. A man who could come in and address the major issues facing the NCAA and oversee some meaningful changes. A man who could truly govern.
Well, maybe not.
Brand took office Jan. 2 and delivered his first State of the Association address Sunday as the 97th annual NCAA convention opened in Anaheim, Calif.
It was not a strong speech.
Brand talked about the importance of reform and touched on some of the key issues facing college athletics, but he did not go into detail or offer any clear paths toward solution, instead spewing forth philosophy and vague promises.
For example, he said women and minorities should get more opportunities at all levels of college athletics, but he offered no course to make that happen. He said positive and negative reinforcement should be used to forge better academic standards for athletes, but he didn't get specific. He mentioned financial challenges, over-commericialization and problems with postgame celebrations that have turned ugly, but he didn't say how he would like those things resolved.
That's because Brand apparently didn't bring strong opinions to the job beyond the basic ideals that have long been associated with college athletics.
He likened himself to "a newly enrolled student" who will spend the next several months boning up on NCAA matters, although he did say, "Even though I have much to learn, my mind is not a blank slate."
How great it would have been to have a new NCAA president who came roaring into office, taking a definitive stand on issues such as stipends for athletes, the number of athletes who are leaving early to turn pro or skipping college altogether, the student-athlete advocacy groups that are being organized, the gap between revenue and non-revenue sports, and the recent cry for relaxing Title IX.
How refreshing it would have been to hear Brand trash the phone book-sized NCAA rules manuals and promise to simplify things rather than bind the rules in more red tape.
Brand -- the fourth president in the NCAA's history and the first who was a university president - instead focused on the two incredibly broad ideas of reform and promotion.
"Without genuine reform, the future of intercollegiate athletics is in peril. Without vigorous advocacy, the value of intercollegiate athletics will be unrealized," Brand said.
Broken down, Brand's vision has five main principles: stressing academics; giving institutions' presidents strong control; promoting college athletics; and maintaining integrity and ethics.
Most of those ideas are a given and hardly worth major portions of Brand's outline for the future. Of course the NCAA should promote its product and stress academics, integrity and ethics. Duh.
Brand's promise to delegate a large amount of the control and decision-making to university presidents isn't surprising given his background, but it's disturbing.
It seems he's motivated by an interested to protect his old cronies.
"When missteps in athletic programs occur, universities are open to criticism, and the presidents are the ones on the front lines," Brand said. "I know because I have been there. It is presidents who have the ultimate responsibility for setting standards and ensuring that these standards are followed."
Sure, presidents are open to criticism and embarrassment when there are problems. What boss isn't? Brand is being overly sensitive. Presidents or chancellors might get more grief from the academic community when there are problems in athletics, but coaches, athletic directors and students are the ones who face the most shame publicly.
Can you name the president/chancellor at any schools that have gotten into trouble with the NCAA in recent years?
Brand said university presidents should take "into account the perspectives of student-athletes, coaches, fans, faculty members and governing boards," but his overall plan doesn't give enough of a voice to the athletes, coaches and athletic directors. And if he doesn't have strong, informed opinions on specific NCAA issues, why would he think other university presidents do?
He vowed to essentially take a crash course in NCAA 101 and develop a strategic plan within a year. Maybe it will be dynamic and effective, but there was nothing in Brand's I'll-come-in-and-work-hard speech to indicate that it will be.
For now, there's no reason to get our hopes up that this Brand of NCAA leadership will make things better.