 |
| |
|
 |
 |
|||||||||||
|
Time for a change Clarett case shows NCAA should make freshmen ineligiblePosted: Friday July 18, 2003 3:15 PM
That was some storm. Anyone who saw the images beamed from southern Texas earlier this week witnessed the wrath of Hurricane Claudette and the devastation she caused to homes, businesses and lives across 15 counties. Her toll is steep: Two dead, thousands homeless. The cleanup bill is expected to surpass $17 million. It's too early to assess the damage caused by the storm that passed through Columbus, Ohio, at about the same time Claudette was doing her thing in Texas. It was never given an official name, perhaps because the storm blew through so quickly that hardly anyone noticed its nastiness. I call it Hurricane Maurice, so named for the young man at the eye of the storm. Maurice Clarett is the gifted sophomore running back for the defending national champion Ohio State Buckeyes. In a story published last Sunday in The New York Times, he was alleged to have been given special treatment by an associate professor of African-American and African studies who administered Clarett two oral exams after he allegedly walked out of the written midterm and did not take the final. The story prompted the usual scurrying about of denials, haranguing and noble pronouncements about the ugly (and too often hidden) side of college sports -- the side where college and sports collide, and college usually ends up on its rear. (The flurry of reaction reminded me of a scene almost every apartment-dwelling New Yorker has experienced: flipping on the light switch in the middle of the night and watching an army of roaches scurry for cover.) But by midweek, the storm had settled into a familiar calm. No heads rolled. No rulings. No nothing. School officials and the NCAA were said to be looking into the allegations -- and making other inquires, some involving the running back's longtime friend LeBron James -- but for now Clarett is unaffected. On Monday he was back pumping iron at the Sports Plant in Euclid, Ohio, preparing for what could be another championship season in Columbus. After his workout, Clarett did not speak with reporters. But his trainer, Eric Lichter, told The Columbus Dispatch, "All I can tell you is his mood hasn't changed here since the day I started working with him [more than a month ago.] Once he comes through that door, he doesn't smile. He doesn't BS. There's no doubt he wants to be great. He wants to be the greatest." But the greatest what? As I read the Times story, I found myself untroubled by the fact that Clarett, who claimed to have a reading disability, was allowed to take an oral exam. Students with learning disabilities, from grade school on up, are often allowed to take their exams orally or without time restrictions. Yet, I was indeed troubled by the fact that Clarett was apparently not certified as having a disability by the university's own disability office. And my hmmm radar bolted upright when I later read a report that Clarett had graduated from high school with a 3.5 GPA and had scored a more-than-respectable 1,220 on his SATs. If he had had a reading disability in high school, don't you think it would have been so noted in his records? What troubled me most about this storm was an assessment from Paul Trina, the athletic director at Clarett's high school. He told the Times, "To be honest, I don't think Maurice was interested in college. His dream is playing in the NFL. It always has been." College is a means to an end for everyone who passes through. So in that vein, Clarett -- and, alas, too many other college football and basketball players -- is no different from the kids sitting next to him in class. But his tale offers a clarion call for the reinstatement of a rule that was dropped by the NCAA 31 years ago: freshman ineligibility. Until 1973, freshman football and basketball players could not play varsity sports until their second season on campus. (Freshman were allowed to compete on the varsity in other sports in 1968.) The thinking behind the rule was that by eliminating the pressure to perform at the varsity level from the freshman experience, new students would have an easier transition to the rigors of college life, specifically the academic requirements. The rule initially was changed because coaches in myriad sports complained of not being able to field complete teams without freshmen. Freshman football and basketball players were later allowed to compete when someone recognized the fundamental unfairness of singling them out. The need for that same thinking is certainly greater today than it was three decades ago, particularly with the deterioration of so many inner-city school systems. Young men who arrive on college campuses with dreams of stardom and riches in the NBA or NFL should be put to the sidelines for one season. Call it a timeout, perhaps their last and best chance to be young, and to gain at least some of the tools they'll need to become better readers, better thinkers. Maybe even real students. Will there continue to be young men who think they should skirt the rules, and academics willing to accommodate them? Of course. But is the inability to eliminate every single law-breaker a reason to eliminate laws that make for a better society? Maurice Clarett had a wonderful freshman season -- on the field. His offered us glimpses of his greatness and helped lead the Buckeyes to their first national title since 1968. Yet he no doubt would have been better served had he been forced to put the student portion of student-athlete ahead of the athlete for at least one season. Maybe then he would not have walked out of that written test and, instead, taken a first step toward different -- and ultimately more vital -- greatness. Roy S. Johnson is an assistant managing editor for Sports Illustrated. His "Pass the Word" column appears on SI.com every Friday. Catch Johnson on CNN Headline News every Thursday at 3:40 p.m. ET. |
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||||
