As I was surfing the web idly early this morning, I came
across a story in the NY TIMES about
the huge increase in the TV money flowing to football-competitive colleges and
universities -- $7.3 billion, according to the headline. My eye
was caught by a quote from the Ohio State quarterback Cardale Jones, who two
years ago tweeted: "Why should we have to go to class if we came here
to play FOOTBALL, we ain’t come to play SCHOOL, classes are POINTLESS.” As readers of this blog may recall, I have
been deeply troubled by the twenty-year scandal at UNC Chapel Hill of phantom courses
and phony grades meted out in roughly equal numbers by the African and
Afro-American Studies Department and a member of the Philosophy Department to
athletes and fraternity members. [See my
blog post of 7 November, 2014, titled "Heartsick."]
As I brooded on
Cardale Jones' tweet during my morning walk, I was reminded of a lesson I
learned from my older son, Patrick, more than thirty years ago. Patrick was a chess prodigy. Some time after observing me following the 1972
Fischer-Spassky world chess championship match on television, then five year
old Patrick asked me to teach him how to play.
He very quickly became totally invested in the game, progressing in his
early years from patzer to Master, to
Senior Master, and then around his twentieth birthday to International Master
and finally International Grandmaster.
Patrick became one of the strongest chess players America ever produced, twice winning the U. S. Chess
Championship and competing successfully on the world stage against the
strongest grandmasters in the world. [He
is famous in chess circles for handing Gary Kasparov his shortest defeat on
record, and although it was in a simultaneous exhibition between Kasparov and a
small group of America's best young players, it was a signal achievement.]
I did not see all that much of Patrick in his teen years,
inasmuch as he spent most of his time, when he was not at school, in his room
studying chess,. I ran into him one day
in the kitchen of our Belmont, Massachusetts home, and eager for any
conversation with him, asked what he was up to.
"I am studying rook-and-pawn endings," he replied. [For those of you who are clueless about
chess, these are endgames in which all the pieces have been removed save for
rooks and pawns and the two kings.
Figuring out how to advance one's own pawn to the eighth rank so that it
can become a queen -- or any other piece -- while stopping one's opponent from
doing the same involves some very complex calculations.] "Oh," I said, looking for some way
to prolong the conversation, "how long have you been doing
that?" "Two weeks,"
Patrick said. "Two weeks!" I
blurted out, unthinking. Patrick
explained patiently, "Bobby Fischer once lived in a cabin in the woods for
three months and did nothing but study rook-and-pawn endings." "He must have been crazy," I
expostulated. Patrick fixed me with a dead
serious gaze, as only a teenager can, and said flatly, "He never lost
another rook-and-pawn ending in his life."
Then he went back upstairs to continue his study.
There is a very deep lesson in that story, if we care to
learn it, and it has direct application to the subject of money in college sports. In virtually every big-time competitive
sport, there are certain skills that it is essential to master, even though
they may not be showy or crowd-pleasing.
In the old days, figure skaters earned much of their total scores in
competitions from so-called "school figures," figure eights and such
whose marks on the ice were measured to the millimeter by judges. In modern basketball, free throws awarded for
fouls often make the difference between winning and losing, even though they
are much less dramatic than slam dunks and alley-oops. Every real football aficionado knows that the game is won or lost on the line where
those nameless behemoths with bulked-up bodies and incredibly quick hands open
up the holes for the flashy halfbacks, or close them down.
If you want to compete in the bigs, you are certain to come
up against someone who has taken the time and had the concentration and
will-power to spend endless hours mastering the skills that separate winners
from losers. Patrick knew this well,
because as a boy, he lost a twelve hour marathon against a Russian grandmaster
that came down to precisely a rook-and-pawn endgame. If a college basketball team wants to go to
the Final Four, along the way it will come up against teams whose players have
spent those extra hours refining the skills needed to get the ball in the
basket.
Now, the mythology of college sports has it that the top
teams consist of "scholar-athletes" who successfully combine their
sport with a full load of serious courses in which they do credibly, or even
outstandingly. But I do not recall a
basketball game between the University of Kentucky and Swarthmore College in
which Kentucky outscored Swarthmore 112 to 7, but the referees awarded the win
to Swarthmore because its students had better grades.
Why is it so difficult for a student athlete on a nationally
competitive team to attend equally to studies and to sport? One reason I have already given -- the
endless hours required to master the skills of the sport at a level that makes
one truly competitive. But there is a
second reason: if you are totally
dedicated to a sport, as you must be to compete successfully on the national
stage, you not only spend many hours each day perfecting your skills; you also spend the rest of the time thinking
about it, going over plays in your head, devising solutions to problems,
preparing mentally for your next opponent -- and, of course, recovering from
the beating you take every time you play a football or basketball game.
What then can a school like UNC Chapel Hill do? Well, the simple answer is, Give up ambitions
for national titles, and return to the original ideal of the scholar-athlete. Fat chance.
The UNC basketball coach is paid four times as much as the Chancellor,
and she is paid rather more than twice as much as the best paid professors in
Arts and Sciences. That tells us
everything we need to know about institutional priorities. The previous Chancellor, Holden Thorpe, lost his
job over this scandal. The present
Chancellor, Carol Folt, was hired to clean things up, and it was she who
brought in the big-time law firm that produced the Kenneth Wainstein Report. But if she were to announce a series of
reforms whose immediate consequence was a dramatic reduction in the Tar Heels'
chances of going to the Final Four, my guess is she would be out on her ear.
All in all, I think Cardale Jones got it about right.
3 comments:
Excellent post. You start with a paradoxical claim (we will all reflexively scoff at Cardale Jones), then through an interesting and illuminating discussion of Rook and Pawn endings (reducible, as I'm sure Patrick would have added had he more time to spare, to the Lucena and Philidor positions), as well of the more general principle which they illustrate, you manage to persuade us of the truth of the claim. Further, you do this without the unthinking and obligatory parrotting of Macolm Gladwell and his 10,000 hour theory. Thanks, Bob! Have a happy new year!
Thank you, Acostos. Blogging is a bit like putting messqages in a bottle and tossing them into the ocean. One never knows whether they will be read and appreciated. :)
It is indeed a nice post. Another solution that won't happen is to be honest about and have schools openly operate as the sponsors of farm teams (which they are, though not tied to a particular "major" league team) and pay the athletes a nice stipend along with an IOU for college education whenever they get around to wanting it. Some will, once they fail to make it to the bigs.
Re chess: Do you know Raymond Smullyan's book of retrograde chess problems?
Post a Comment