The nets were not even cut when CBS’s Jim Nantz was on the court, microphone in hand, standing in the middle of a horde of University of Florida players after the Gators won the 2007 NCAA basketball championship Monday night.
A little background for those that have not turned on a television for the last week: the win marked Florida’s second basketball championship in as many years, the first time a team completed that feat in 15 seasons.
If you were not among the millions of fans that watched the game live or happened to turn it off as soon as the buzzer sounded, Nantz asked junior Joakim Noah and junior Corey Brewer what it was like to win back-to-back titles.
Noah spoke about “doing it big” in Florida, admitting Nantz had no idea what he was talking about but his boys in Gainsville, Fla., would understand.
“That’s what we do at Florida,” Noah said. “We win championships.”
Wait.
Is that what they do? Of all the great programs they have, which includes a top-notch law school, does Florida now mean winning basketball championships?
O.k. Admittedly, this is a strange way to look at a clearly celebratory comment by a player that just reached the pinnacle in his sport. But look a little deeper. Is that what we want our schools to be known for?
Last week, The New York Times wrote about Mark Egerson, a former Georgetown basketball player who recently decided to transfer. Egerson, The Times uncovered, failed 13 classes in high school and was still admitted to Georgetown. Kevin Broadus, the assistant coach at Georgetown who recruited Egerson and a former GW assistant to Karl Hobbs, stood by his player.
Should someone with 13 F’s in high school gain admission to one of the nation’s top universities for his ability to play basketball? Georgetown is ranked 23rd in the nation. Are there any other non-athletic students that have failed as many classes as Egerson has?
Coaches, often harkening back to fellow coaches like John Thompson Jr. and John Chaney, say giving kids a chance to succeed in college is the right thing to do. Their opponents hold otherwise.
Karl Hobbs often said that he wondered if kids, like Omar Williams, would succeed in college if they were given structure. In Williams’ case, he did. But is it right to allow people into a university who reportedly have far worse grades than the average student at the same school so they could play basketball and earn money for the university? That’s a big question mark.
The answers to these questions exceed the bounds of this column but schools should consider the repercussions of giving people a chance. It may not be wrong; it may be the right thing to do, but look at Georgetown. They made the Final Four, but now Broadus will always have this hanging over his head. Schools should not allow students with such bad grades into universities for the sole purpose of winning basketball games. If they do that, Georgetown and GW should accept great flautists who never graduated high school to bring kudos to the orchestra program.
To the thousands of other students at college, think about this: do you support your university allowing students with sub-par grades for the purpose of boosting an athletic program?
But if universities want to maintain strong academic institution, I hope schools begin to seriously take a look at admission policies, because this thing is spiraling out of control.
