Rivalry week of college football has just concluded. After seeing a few of these games and hearing about some of the events that historically have given this week of football it’s name, I am questioning sportsmanship’s place in college football today.
Perhaps one of the best-known rivalries in college football.
In our current collegiate sport environment, where athletic departments are under more and more pressure to win, and win often, there is an ongoing discussion asking “at what costs”. Niccolò Machiavelli, in his famous book, The Prince, outlines many components of successful leadership and power. I believe that college football programs have began to embrace a Machiavellian approach. Although this has led to a more competitive program, it has begun to remove the element of sportsmanship from the game.
Throughout the last decade of college football, we have seen numerous scandals – all relevant to improving a program’s chances of winning. We saw USC punished for multiple recruitment violations in 2005 – the most famous involving their program knowingly allowing their Heisman running back to accept gifts from recruiters and scouts. In 2011, the NCAA investigated the University of Oregon’s recruitment practices.
Strong recruitment is vital to athletic programs having the lasting legacy that is expected from so many schools today.
Questions had arisen over a large payment to recruiting service that had close ties to one of Oregon’s recruits. They were put on probation and stripped of a scholarship. Between 2002 and 2010, it was found that the University of Miami’s athletic program had accepted numerous inappropriate gifts from booster Nevin Shapiro. These gifts went to coaches, student athletes, and recruits. In 2014, Ohio State “self-reported” twenty-two different NCAA recruiting violations – six within their football program. Many of the violations pertained to excessive gifts and amenities for their recruits when they were visiting the school and making their commitment decisions. These are just four of the better-known recruitment scandals – all examples of programs doing what they can to make their program more competitive and more likely to win. I would argue these scandals all center on a very Machiavellian approach to coaching: these programs are winning at any cost. They would argue that the ends justify their means – the history books would probably agree.
During the times of these scandals, all of these programs were doing, or still are doing, extremely well. USC won a national championship in 2004 and went 12-1 in 2005. University of Oregon went to two Rose Bowls and one BCS National Championship game between 2010 and 2012 and is currently ranked second in the country. University of Miami had similar successes. Ohio State, unfortunately, remains a force to be reckoned with in college football: ranked number five in the country. These statistics clearly show successful programs, albeit I can’t say conclusively this is a result of their questionable recruitment practices. I think many would agree, however, that a Machiavellian approach to coaching should yield very successful programs. Unfortunately, I see a rapid breakdown of sportsmanship as a side-effect of this approach.
The handshake: an element of almost any sporting event engraved within us from a very early age – serving only to remind all of us this is still a game.
Just this season, we saw the Maryland football team refuse to shake hands with their opponents before the game. Last week, we saw Kentucky and Louisville get into a shoving match during the game that escalated to even involve some of the coaching staff. Incidents like this happen far too often in college sports. Once again, I am not naïve enough to claim that recruitment violations are directly causing a reduction of sportsmanship in the game. However, I think it is fair to claim that there is a connection between Machiavellian coaching tactics and a reduction in sportsmanship. Machiavelli would tell coaches that winning games is the goal – that’s why we spend so much money on athletics and that’s why so many people come out to support their team: to see a win. He would argue that accomplishing this goal justifies any decisions that might need to be made along the way. Now I think this attitude inherently sacrifices sportsmanship. If a team’s only concern is to win games, they aren’t going to worry about a silly detail like sportsmanship. I see this as a problem.
Many would argue that there has been a gradual decline in sportsmanship and professionalism that started far before this last decade. This is probably fair. In my previous post, I talked about college rivalries and how I felt that we have taken college rivalries too far at times. I think these are related topics. I’m not expecting business professional interaction; but the fact is, these rivalries are centered on a game. At what point do we draw a line and realize that violating our morals and destroying relationships isn’t worth it? I’m not sure how to fix this problem. Many might not even see it as a problem. But I think we can all agree that last Saturday, Devin Gardner’s actions following J. T. Barrett’s injury was a shining point of inspiration in the midst of numerous ethically-questionable decisions by players, coaches, and fans. Gardner left the bench to comfort Barrett after he sustained a season-ending injury – even amidst one of the bitterest college football rivalries today. As a starting quarterback deeply involved with the program, Gardner has clearly not forgotten this is all still a game; I hope fans, coaches, and other players can move away from Machiavellian tactics and follow his example.
Gardner showed last Saturday that he’s not only a competitor in the game, he’s a class-act off the field.
Touchdown Theory 