Jack’s Blog

C. Vivian Stringer, one of the winningest and arguably the classiest coaches who ever led an athletics team, was suspended for a game by the NCAA.  Many people look at the governing body with disdain because of the manner in which they operate.  Coach Stringer’s transgression?  Improper use of managers during practice.

For years, I had been a proponent of the NCAA because, having served as assistant chairman of the NABC (National Association of Basketball Coaches) Recruiting Committee for 17 years, I had a greater insight into not only the rules the NCAA passed, but the reasons behind those decisions.  All too often, however, the NCAA would pass legislation that was the equivalent to killing a mosquito with an elephant gun.

Its problems stem from trying to “level the playing field.”  While an admirable goal, it’s like attempting to legislate both equality and morality.  Therein lies the problem.  If rules are going to be enacted to prevent cheating, the major hurdle the organization faces is, if they try to stop cheaters from cheating, they’re starting with a false premise.  Cheaters are going to cheat.  That’s why they’re called “cheaters.”  By passing much of the legislation they do, the ones who do get caught are, often, innocent victims.

C. Vivian Stringer is a Hall-of-Fame coach because of her integrity as much as her record.  Let’s break down exactly why the “managers’ rule” was adopted.  As previously mentioned, rules are passed in an attempt to keep one school from obtaining a competitive advantage over their counterparts.  The adoption of the “managers’ rule,” as told to me by a member (at the time) of the NCAA legislative staff, came about because of, believe it or not, wrestling.

Oklahoma State, long a power in the sport, found a way to improve their team members by enrolling as student managers, their former wrestlers, many of whom returned to school to finish their degree work.  This afforded their current team members to have a past All-American, or even an Olympian, as a wrestling partner to practice against on a daily basis.  Talk about a competitive advantage!  Team members were bound to improve by wrestling guys who were far superior to anyone they might face in dual meet competition.  These guys were forced to improve simply to survive!

Most new rules are adopted because of member institutions complaining to the NCAA about “advantages” their competitors are using (that they didn’t think of or, worse, couldn’t duplicate for their own programs).  The NCAA would then step in and enact laws to curb such practices.  In an attempt to close all loopholes (an impossibility), the governing body would pass rules that, quite simply, cannot be followed to the letter. 

When I was associate head coach at the University of Toledo, Jamie McCloskey, then associate commissioner of the Mid-American Conference (coincidentally, based in Toledo) became a friend of mine.  Most coaches, whether the general fan base knows it or not, reside in the “gray area” when it comes to abiding by the NCAA rules.  I am on record (and am by no means alone in this thought) as stating it is virtually impossible to run a program completely within the letter of every NCAA rule. 

I had known Jamie from our two previous jobs - mine as assistant basketball coach at the University of Tennessee and his as Director of Legislative Services of the NCAA.  On numerous occasions, I’d call Jamie - while at UT and, later at TU, to ask him about a particularly vague rule (which most of them are because there exist so many “what if” scenarios that complicate compliance).  I’d give him the “what if” situation and he’d respond with one of two answers - “I have no problem with that,” meaning “What you’re asking is within the spirit of the rule” or “No, that’s an end run,” meaning “While it may not violate the letter of the law, what you’re describing is clearly trying to circumvent why the rule was passed.”

The managers’ rule stated that a “manager” was only allowed to perform certain duties, examples of which were listed in the rule book, e.g. in basketball, to retrieve shots and return passes to players while shooting.  What the NCAA didn’t want was an Oklahoma State situation in other sports - maybe, a former professional baseball pitcher throwing BP to a college team.  How much the skills of the average basketball manager helped in the development of players, i.e. giving the institution a competitive advantage, was seldom, if ever, in question.  Many were used due to injuries or, pure and simple, lack of bodies at practice.

Rutgers may have been using male students - a ploy, I believe, begun by Pat Summitt at UT, who just wanted her players to play against bigger and stronger competition (there was even a story done in Sports Illustrated about the “team” of guys who were the Lady Vols’ practice fodder - and what an honor it was to be selected).  This is what probably led to the rule against such practices by women’s teams.  Competitive advantage?  Maybe, but “I have no problem with that” should have taken precedence over “No, that’s an end run” in this case. 

The fan base of college athletics has long accused the NCAA of wielding heavenly powers and, as I’ve said no many occasions:

“Like the Lord, the NCAA acts in strange and mysterious ways.” Â