Basketball
The evil NCAA
Why is every decent American not railing against this exploitative, vindictive institution that has had such a disastrous effect on higher education?
Murray Sperber makes most sportswriting seem trivial. If a Martian were monitoring Earth sports — or at least American Earth sports — and keeping a century-long file, nearly all the issues would come under the heading “NCAA.” Sperber, in his 1990 classic “College Sports, Inc.” and now in “Beer and Circus: How Big-time College Sports Is Crippling Undergraduate Education,” isn’t just talking about the National Collegiate Athletic Association, he’s doing something about it.
It’s a constant source of wonder to me that every decent American doesn’t get out of bed every day railing at the NCAA. The only conclusion I can reach as to why this doesn’t happen is that the NCAA is too huge, too amorphous and too imperfectly understood for the true power of its evil to be comprehended.
Looked at from our perspective, the NCAA is an organization of a few hundred people with the power to make rules for college athletes and deals for college athletics. Looked at from another perspective, from a distance, the NCAA is a financial institution that dwarfs its competitors — the National Football League, the National Basketball Association and Major League Baseball; in fact, it brings in more money annually than all three combined. The NCAA routinely interferes in the lives of college students, violating their civil rights, dictating to colleges which athletes can attend college on what terms and pursuing rebels and enemies with a vindictiveness unmatched outside of Mario Puzo novels.
The NCAA is sole guardian of the gates through which millions of American high school athletes must pass before they can play NCAA-controlled sports, for which they are milked for all the revenues they’re worth, and after which the overwhelming majority, many with bad knees or even spinal injuries, are thrown into an uncaring world without even the rudiments of a legitimate college education.
The lucky fraction of 1 percent who are talented enough are funneled into the NFL and NBA, to which NCAA sports functions as a glorious, cost-free minor league training ground. And since, as Sperber has proved time and again, nearly 90 percent of American college athletic departments lose money and are forced to depend on some form of public money, an excellent case could be made that the enormous economic booms of the NFL and NBA have been financed by the taxpaying public.
In “Beer and Circus” — the title is a paraphrase from the Roman satirist Juvenal, who exposed emperors for distracting citizens from social injustice with “Panem Et Circenses,” or bread and circuses — Sperber widens the attack. The villain, he argues, is not the NCAA but the irresponsible academicians who continue to allow the NCAA to rule in their name. Simply put, Sperber’s thesis is that colleges are not in the business of education but instead locked in a competition to enroll students and collect tuition fees, and the result is an increasing emphasis during the recruiting process on “lifestyle experience.” Sperber calls the phrase a euphemism for football, basketball, hockey and the year-round party atmosphere that surround them.
“College Sports, Inc.” focused on the NCAA’s grip on American college sports. “Beer and Circus” functions as a companion volume that shows us why colleges don’t dare throw off the irritating and often repressive yoke of the NCAA: because they need the cash from the March basketball tournaments and the NCAA’s dozen other multimillion-dollar institutions to compete with each other for students.
As Sperber writes, the NCAA’s 1979 marriage to ESPN (which ushered in “wall-to-wall coverage of college sports”) “marked a new phenomenon in higher education, one that subsequently became central to student life.” That was an entire generation ago; five classes of college students have now graduated since that deal was made. In 1979, about 12 percent of American college students took no courses in English or American literature; as of last year, it was 40 percent. Try telling yourself there’s no connection next time you send that fat check to your alma mater.
Some of you outside the New York area may have missed Woody Allen’s affectionate and insightful tribute to Patrick Ewing in Sunday’s New York Times sports section. If so, it’s worth reading.
No one has done a better job of summing up Ewing’s achievement with the Knicks: “For years, the Knicks simply played to get the ball to Patrick and for years he didn’t disappoint. He was the whole show, and only Ewing’s play kept the team from languishing near the bottom of the league season after season.” Good work. But then Allen resurrects the argument that Ewing was “one of the 50 greatest players ever” and that his failure to wear a championship ring was “not because of any shortcoming of Patrick’s … the chemistry just wasn’t there [in Ewing's teammates] to go all the way.”
I wish I could agree. I don’t think Ewing was really one of the 50 best players ever; I really don’t think he was one of the dozen best at his position, even. Top 20, perhaps. And I’m not saying you have to win a championship ring to be a Hall of Famer, though there is no denying that this is a much more important qualification than in baseball (where a player is simply one of nine) and football (where players don’t play on both sides of the ball). I mean, it’s hard to think of any truly great center who doesn’t have a ring. Hakeem Olajuwan, who dominated Ewing head-to-head, has two, and were Hakeem’s teammates really that much more talented than Ewing’s?
I don’t buy the “chemistry” argument for Patrick Ewing. A great center isn’t just a dominant player such as Wilt Chamberlain but one who creates winning chemistry in other players, like Bill Russell. Ewing didn’t do that. He was a very good player, at times underappreciated and at all times misunderstood. But he was never great. If he was a baseball player, he’d have been a Gil Hodges; if football, a Phil Simms. They also didn’t miss the Hall of Fame by much. Though, come to think of it, they both had championship rings.
Allen Barra's next book is "Mickey and Willie -- The Parallel Lives of Baseball's Golden Age," from Crown. More Allen Barra.
The futile search for meaning in “Linsanity”
Real fans aren't shocked at the sight of an Asian-American star. The hype is just New York being New York
(Credit: Reuters/Eduardo Munoz) About two weeks ago, my son asked me how a team with an imposing lineup like the New York Knicks could possibly have a losing record. “Because they have no point guard,” I said. They played like strangers. Either nobody wanted the ball or everybody did. Long intervals would pass without the Knicks putting up a decent shot — although being NBA players they often made enough bad ones to stay close.
Well, as the world knows, they have a point guard now. The feel-good story of Jeremy Lin, the underdog Chinese-American player from Harvard, has made NBA fans of millions who scarcely know the 24-second clock from a goaltending call. Here’s hoping they stick around, because it’s a heck of a show. Meanwhile, how about if we dialed down the ethnic sensitivity meter until the kid settles in?
Continue Reading CloseArkansas Times columnist Gene Lyons is a National Magazine Award winner and co-author of "The Hunting of the President" (St. Martin's Press, 2000). You can e-mail Lyons at eugenelyons2@yahoo.com. More Gene Lyons.
What everyone gets wrong about Jeremy Lin
The NBA star does not transcend race. Instead of upending stereotypes, he owns them -- unapologetically
Jeremy Lin (Credit: Reuters/Adam Hunger) Last week, I wrote a Salon essay about my experiences with racial bullying growing up in northern Minnesota; particularly, a pair of girls who decided to sing “ching-ching-a-ling” and pull their eyes into slits when they saw me in seventh-grade gym class. It was painful to write, and — from the responses I received — pretty painful to read, especially by anyone who had experienced bullying. Thus, it felt almost as if counteracting forces in the universe were acting to promote Jeremy Lin’s farm-team-to-bench-to-global-superstar ascent in the basketball world. Finally! Being Asian American was cool, not something to be bullied over.
Continue Reading CloseMarie Myung-Ok Lee’s essays have appeared in The New York Times, The Atlantic, The Guardian, The Washington Post, and she is regular contributor to Slate. She is the author of the novel Somebody’s Daughter and teaches creative writing at Brown University. Find her on Twitter @MarieMyungOkLee and on Facebook. More Marie Myung-Ok Lee.
David Brooks: “I have heard of Jeremy Lin”
Is it an "anomaly" for a professional athlete to be religious? (No)
David Brooks David Brooks had to write a column about something, and his deadline was fast approaching, so he glanced at the sports page and saw something about New York Knicks phenom Jeremy Lin, and he was like, yeah, that works. Next stop, most-emailed list!
Lin is a point guard who rocketed to near-instant celebrity when he came off the bench and had a series of monster games, dragging the Knicks to a .500 record while their two biggest superstars were sitting out games. His celebrity then became a “mania” in part because he’s Asian-American and a Harvard graduate, two rarities in the NBA. It also obviously doesn’t hurt that he plays for the dominant team in the nation’s biggest media market (also it’s the fallow period between football and baseball). That’s basically the whole deal, and if you’d like to learn more read Andrew Leonard’s account of the early social media explosion and Alexander Chee’s take on Lin and Asian-American identity. Whatever you do, don’t read David Brooks’ take on the Lin phenomenon, because David Brooks doesn’t understand basketball or social media or race or religion or American society in general.
Continue Reading Close
Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon and is the author of "The Rude Guide to Mitt." Email him at apareene@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @pareene More Alex Pareene.
Rooting for your own kind
Jeremy Lin shows that we like to cheer for people who look like us -- and there's nothing wrong with that
Why so excited? (Credit: Reuters/Mike Cassese) Lin-sanity has broken out all over the world. The kid nobody in the NBA wanted, from an ethnic group about as associated with the NBA as bullfighters are with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, had just broken Shaquille O’Neal’s league record for the most points in his first five games as a starter. Adoring fans are holding up signs saying “To Lin-finity and beyond.” The Lin-ternet has broken under the strain of millions of tweets, many of them featuring even worse puns than “Lin-ternet.” Sports Illustrated put him on its cover.
Continue Reading CloseGary Kamiya is a Salon contributing writer. More Gary Kamiya.
The Jeremy Lin show
America's conversation about race has been mostly black and white. An amazing Knicks point guard changed that
Fans of Jeremy Lin hold up signs during the second half of the New York Knicks/Toronto Raptors game on Tuesday. (Credit: Reuters/Mike Cassese) I have never cared about basketball, ever. Not once. Yet inside of the last two weeks I have learned what a point guard is, what he does and why it matters. I had a roller-coaster night Saturday, when I wanted to watch a New York Knicks game for the first time, then learned that a squabble between Madison Square Garden and Time Warner has left about 1 million fans without MSG Channel (including me). I didn’t even know how to start finding a bar with the game on — something I’ve previously resented, in fact — so I contented myself by watching the video diaries on Lin’s YouTube channel.
Alexander Chee's essays have appeared at The Paris Review Daily, The Morning News, n+1 and Granta. He is the author of the novel Edinburgh and the forthcoming The Queen of the Night. Find him on Twitter @alexanderchee, on Facebook, or at his blog, Koreanish. More Alexander Chee.
Page 1 of 42 in Basketball
