Highstreet
Heisman
Ohio State Football, ESPN, and the Controversy Over Conduct
By Vern Mangold
February 19, 2005
Ohio State has a long and storied history of playing, and winning, the game of college football Over 100 years of tradition, ritual and success have been logged by the young men who have worn the Scarlet and Gray on the football playing field. Due to the success of the program and the size of the enterprise, Ohio State has been forced to weather both the good and bad that comes from the public scrutiny associated with fame.
But nothing that Ohio State Football has experienced over the past 112 years of competitive play could prepare them for the turmoil that was created by the recruitment of the controversial man-child, Maurice Clarett. Clarett, a running back who finished his high school career as the consensus number one player in the country during the 2001 season, closed out his Ohio State career in 2002 after appearing in only eight games. His career, although brief, will have a long reaching impact on how Ohio State recruits and handles future players. His messy departure from the program after only one season not only soiled his good name but also contributed to the national embarrassment of the University and its athletic administration. What began as an expose piece on the transgressions of Maurice Clarett and OSU, written by former New York Times sportswriter Mike Freeman in the spring of 2003, has now evolved into a public relations specter that continues to bedevil the University and its fan base. The story continues to resonant in the public eye because of circumstances that are unique to the modern collegiate game and to the need of certain private sector media sources to maximize profit, regardless of truth or ethics.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) governs the athletic activities of it’s member schools through the use of rules and procedures that must be closely followed in order for the member institutions to remain eligible for inter-collegiate competition. No sport governed by the NCAA has more rules and regulations than Division 1A football. The 496 pages of single spaced text in the canon of regulations covers all governed sports but the football specific pages are clearly more numerous than other sports. The rules define the conduct that is allowed by students, coaches, staff, administrators, agents, and boosters all in the name of protecting the academic and competitive integrity of the sport.
Clarett was accused of violating a slate of NCAA regulations during his freshman year that ultimately lead to a one year suspension from the Ohio State football team. The violations were not unusual for the sport. They consisted of allegations of lying to an NCAA inspector, academic fraud and receiving improper benefits.
What is unique about Clarett’s transgressions is the way in which the facts and circumstances surrounding the allegations were handled by the institutions involved and by the public’s perceptions of the incident. Public perception can be shaped by the information that is available and, in the event that all of the information is not available, it can be transformed by rumor and gossip. Several recent developments have occurred in the evolution of privacy laws and NCAA regulations that have altered the way that student athlete information can be disseminated. Federal law prohibits colleges from freely divulging information concerning an athlete’s grades, financial status and medical condition. The NCAA maintains strict rules concerning the type of information that a member institution can release to the general public concerning an athlete and the status of any ongoing investigation. Two other major sources of information - information sources that Woody Hayes did not have to deal with - are 24-hour sports entertainment programming outlets and freelance Internet websites. The two latter developments are the proximate source of OSU’s recent spate of negative publicity.
The pioneer and current industry leader in sports entertainment programming is ESPN. ESPN began as a source for satellite and cable game broadcasts that the major over the air networks were not interested in. In 25 years, ESPN has become an institution. It offers a wide variety of programming and channels that cover the full breadth of sports, and very recently, gaming. It has produced original movies and other feature show programming that goes well beyond the routine of broadcasting live sporting events. One of the features offered by ESPN is a program entitled Sportscenter. The show is designed to have the same look and feel of a news program. The set, graphic design and style of production is identical to conventional cable news offerings provided by CNN and Fox. It is understandable that the casual viewer would mistake the content offered by Sportscenter as hard news.
Internet websites, along with the conjoined electronic entity known as e-mail, have proven capable of providing instant information, and paradoxically, misinformation. The reporting of news is no longer in the hands of commercial outlets that are obliged to screen content and to fact check the information delivered. Instant rumors concerning virtually any subject spring from uncontrolled and unsupervised websites, which furthers the confusion between fact and fiction. The Internet chatter has contributed to the staying power of ESPN’s interest in the Clarett story and has helped fuel the interest in the larger subject of general malfeasance within the OSU Athletic department.
ESPN made an apparent business decision to ride the coat tails of the original New York Times story and to broaden the story with the video trailers that were played over and over throughout the summer of 2003. After all, ESPN had previously show cased Clarett in a feature story that baited him into the infamous OSU-jersey- in- the-trash-can photo op.
Clarett’s undeniable immaturity and penchant for controversy played well into what has become the textbook model of the prima donna athlete that ESPN salivates over. The formula is familiar: mix an athlete with obvious talent and a nasty habit of making bad quotes concerning equally bad behavior, add the drama of a national championship season and you have all the juice necessary to attract viewer interest and stimulate ratings.
The difference between the Clarett story and similar story’s associated with professional football players of equal ilk is the penchant for ESPN to attack the institution that the collegian plays for rather than focus on the individual himself. This process of assaulting the organization along with the player is unique to college sports reporting. It is this unique aspect that makes the behavior of ESPN despicable by any measure.
Three bodies of regulations that do not impact professional football govern college football: federal privacy laws, NCAA regulations and university specific codes of conduct. The collective affect of these regulations on student athletes, coaches, and administrators is the creation of a choke on the type of player misconduct information that flows freely in the professional football ranks. Players and coaches simply cannot comment openly on matters of player misconduct. Universities cannot generally release a student athlete’s academic, medical or deportment information to anyone. This policy extends to the parents of student athletes. A parent of a football player cannot receive a copy of the student’s grades without the written permission of the student, provided quarterly. ESPN fully understands these restrictions and use them to their advantage. The football players and their team are at a significant disadvantage because they are unable to defend their actions in the press. ESPN is free to speculate and rumor monger without fear of rebuttal or reprisal. In this regard, ESPN can operate with impunity because they are answerable to no one. They continue to stir the pot of public opinion by accusing the players and coaches of being dishonest due to the lack of their comments concerning matters of discipline. ESPN repeatedly accused Ohio State, throughout the spring and summer of 2003, of stone walling the public and purposely withholding information that should have been, in their estimation, in the public domain.
Into this fray strode the stoic Ohio State athletic director, Andy Geiger. Geiger was clearly becoming frustrated with the process of meeting with the press to discuss a matter that was, by law and regulation, private. So great was his frustration that he posited an idea that he thought would clear the air on the subject of OSU’s alleged academic and athletic indiscretions. He ordered a top down investigation of OSU’s football program. The investigation was conducted with the open and direct support of the NCAA and outside third parties. The investigation was as thorough as it was unprecedented. It lasted for the duration of the fall football season and it involved numerous players and hundreds of man-hours of investigative effort.
Imagine Geiger’s reaction when he presented the results of the investigation to the media in December of 2003. When he announced that the NCAA had found absolutely no fault with the OSU program from an institutional perspective, both the national print and television media howled in disbelief. Even the Ohio news outlets that cover the Buckeyes on a daily basis accused OSU of a white wash job. Reporters were openly dismissive of the OSU athletic department. Collectively, they stopped just short of accusing both Geiger and head football coach Jim Tressel of being liars.
ESPN, armed with a national stage, pummeled the Buckeyes with their negative coverage of the investigation. The talking head editorialists employed by ESPN continued to spew their contempt for Tressel and his program at every chance that arose. This negative press persisted throughout the Fiesta Bowl played against Kansas State and on into the conclusion of the recruiting season.
Time heals all wounds- unless ESPN is controlling the agenda. The following fall campaign should have been a time for the OSU football team to put the Clarett matter behind them and move on. This may have happened in normal circumstances but, as he has proven throughout his entire time in the national spotlight, Maurice was far from normal. He was not ready to end his involvement with the OSU football team. After a failed attempt to stage an apology to OSU, Clarett reverted to form. He rehashed his old, discredited claims from the previous testimony spiced with names of other OSU players who have had problems with the program that he stated would corroborate his story. Once again in light of his “new” charges, OSU was pushed into the negative spotlight.
ESPN aided and abetted the new onslaught by encouraging Clarett to speak out and by providing him with a forum to pursue his agenda. ESPN sought out former OSU players of interest named by Clarett and passed along their tainted remarks, the majority of which were recanted promptly after ESPN unloaded its barrage. Geiger, again, became the lightning rod for the ESPN fury. He was forced to publicly restate his confidence in Coach Tressel and the football program on national television. He was subjected to a withering daily gauntlet of questions concerning matters of procedure and protocol that he believed were satisfied months before.
The pinnacle of the pillorying of OSU football by ESPN was the ensuing coverage of the 2004 Alamo Bowl played against Oklahoma State. Beginning with the opening theme of the broadcast, the incessant negative banter of the broadcasters and the seemingly endless array of graphics casting OSU in a bad light that were flashed at the viewers during the game, created a presentation that was, to many arms length observers, over the top. ESPN could hardly contain itself while repeating all of the sundry charges that OSU players have experienced over the past three years.
Fortunately for the Buckeyes, they took care of business on the field by throttling the Oklahoma State Cowboys in an impressive fashion. The lopsided victory muted much of the national media criticism of the program, at least temporarily.
ESPN still had a ratings card up its sleeve with the treatment of Geiger. When Andy Geiger announced that he would move up his retirement date by one year from June 2006 to June 2005, ESPN was able to cluck that Geiger “was apparently forced out” or “was forced into early retirement”. The reality of the situation is the Mr. Geiger became weary of the job and he decided, at the age of 65, to forgo additional media nonsense and retire to pursue other interests. He simply did not want to remain the center of the storm at OSU.
Even though Geiger chose to stay on for a period of six months to ensure that a smooth transition would occur in the office of AD, and that he further announced that he would remain attached to the University in some unidentified manner during his retirement, ESPN simply could not refrain from stating and restating the lie that Geiger resigned, was forced to resign or was forced out by the school as a punishment for the failures of the football team. ESPN reporters were almost gleeful that they had played a game of gotcha with OSU and they prevailed by bagging the scalp of Andy Geiger.
What is lost over the fascination that ESPN has for ratings and sensational content is the important discussion of individual conduct and the public’s expectations of proper behavior and deportment. The ancillary aspects of the inquirer have muddled the fundamental question of the integrity of an institution, such as Ohio State.
The important distinction in these matters that must be stated is that there is a profound difference between the misbehavior of an individual actor and the misbehavior of an entire organization. This type of distinction is rarely, if ever, a topic of debate in a discussion of professional sports organizations but it is the core of the dilemma associated with the analysis of collegiate operations.
ESPN has successfully attached the bad acts of one individual, in this case Maurice Clarett, to the University as a whole, unfairly coloring the public’s perception of the institution. Clarett’s poor performance in an African American studies class became an immediate indictment of the football program’s dedication to academic excellence. Clarett’s penchant for borrowing vehicles to drive around campus became evidence that the football program was not diligent in its supervision of its players. When Clarett took liberties with the facts associated with a theft report, the conclusion drawn in the media was that, inexplicably, that the football team condoned such nonsense as a matter of course. When Clarett repeatedly lied to the NCAA on a variety of issues, the University was, again, deemed to be, in some undefined way, responsible.
The National Football League, of course, does not have to contend with these issues. The NFL does not have any type of academic requirements imposed upon its players to maintain eligibility. The NFL does not police the private conduct of its players away from football related matters. If a player in the NFL runs afoul of the law and if the conduct is in violation of the standard contract arrangement, then appropriate discipline is meted out in a public and open manner.
ESPN never makes the distinction between professional and amateur athletics in the context of reporting misbehavior. When a college coach refrains from comment on a matter of personal conduct, ESPN can, and often does, accuse the coach of being less than truthful.
Individual acts of improper behavior, both on and off of the field, must be punished firmly, swiftly and fairly. In this regard, OSU has been exemplary in its conduct.
Institutional violations such as enticing recruits with unauthorized benefits, manipulating test scores, changing grades, providing illegal financial assistance, altering police reports and ignoring other improprieties constitute violations by the Athletic department. OSU has been found without fault in this area.
Adding to the difficulty of reining in the irresponsible actions of ESPN is the notion that ESPN is part of the legitimate news media. ESPN is not a news organization. It is a sports entertainment network that sells a product that is used for the amusement of its audience. ESPN is not subject to the Fairness Doctrine. They are not obliged to offer equal time to other stakeholders in the entertainment community. In fact, they would have a hard case to make in matters of First Amendment free speech since they have no more credibility as a news organization than the stock infomercial that runs on late night cable television. Unfortunately, the casual fan typically does not make the distinctions to the average fan; an ESPN news story has same relative weight as similar stories that air on CBS, ABC or NBC.
What damage does the ESPN’s irresponsible behavior cause? The most immediate effect is the loss of recruiting opportunities. There is clear evidence that ESPN’s non-stop animosity toward OSU’s football program has contributed to the loss of several top prospects who decided to decline an offer of a scholarship to attend OSU because of the perceived integrity of the school.
The long-term effect is the continuing decline of support of the general public for scholarship athletics. Succumbing to public pressure, the NCAA is again tightening the rules concerning academic eligibility and the requirements for sustaining eligibility during the course of the school year. Although the NCAA rules governing football are Byzantine in construction, the expectation is that they will become more complicated in the future. Football is also increasingly under fire because it is, in practical terms, a men only activity. Certain nationally recognized women’s groups have expressed the desire to abolish scholarship football from campus on the grounds of fairness. Repeated successful assaults on respected programs such as Ohio State give these groups added ammunition in their fight to abolish football.
ESPN’s successful smear campaign against OSU has infected the way that legitimate news organizations treat OSU related stories. The terms “scandal”, “troubled”, and “under investigation” are routinely attached to the stories involving OSU football. It is difficult to shake the perception that OSU a tainted football program that is suffering from a lack of internal controls and discipline. The irony of this situation is the fact that the NCAA has frequently lauded the quality of the football program at OSU. Of course, these types of stories are not newsworthy.
Until such time that the viewing public has either an alternative to ESPN or access to a watchdog group that provides oversight, college sports fans, with a specific emphasis on football fans, will be required to hold their breath awaiting the next assault by ESPN. It would take a major act of courage for a member of the mainstream news media to step forward and expose ESPN’s irresponsible and mendacious practices. So far, neither the print nor the broadcast media seem interested.
Vern Mangold
President
Football Parents Association at Ohio State
By Vern Mangold
February 19, 2005
Ohio State has a long and storied history of playing, and winning, the game of college football Over 100 years of tradition, ritual and success have been logged by the young men who have worn the Scarlet and Gray on the football playing field. Due to the success of the program and the size of the enterprise, Ohio State has been forced to weather both the good and bad that comes from the public scrutiny associated with fame.
But nothing that Ohio State Football has experienced over the past 112 years of competitive play could prepare them for the turmoil that was created by the recruitment of the controversial man-child, Maurice Clarett. Clarett, a running back who finished his high school career as the consensus number one player in the country during the 2001 season, closed out his Ohio State career in 2002 after appearing in only eight games. His career, although brief, will have a long reaching impact on how Ohio State recruits and handles future players. His messy departure from the program after only one season not only soiled his good name but also contributed to the national embarrassment of the University and its athletic administration. What began as an expose piece on the transgressions of Maurice Clarett and OSU, written by former New York Times sportswriter Mike Freeman in the spring of 2003, has now evolved into a public relations specter that continues to bedevil the University and its fan base. The story continues to resonant in the public eye because of circumstances that are unique to the modern collegiate game and to the need of certain private sector media sources to maximize profit, regardless of truth or ethics.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) governs the athletic activities of it’s member schools through the use of rules and procedures that must be closely followed in order for the member institutions to remain eligible for inter-collegiate competition. No sport governed by the NCAA has more rules and regulations than Division 1A football. The 496 pages of single spaced text in the canon of regulations covers all governed sports but the football specific pages are clearly more numerous than other sports. The rules define the conduct that is allowed by students, coaches, staff, administrators, agents, and boosters all in the name of protecting the academic and competitive integrity of the sport.
Clarett was accused of violating a slate of NCAA regulations during his freshman year that ultimately lead to a one year suspension from the Ohio State football team. The violations were not unusual for the sport. They consisted of allegations of lying to an NCAA inspector, academic fraud and receiving improper benefits.
What is unique about Clarett’s transgressions is the way in which the facts and circumstances surrounding the allegations were handled by the institutions involved and by the public’s perceptions of the incident. Public perception can be shaped by the information that is available and, in the event that all of the information is not available, it can be transformed by rumor and gossip. Several recent developments have occurred in the evolution of privacy laws and NCAA regulations that have altered the way that student athlete information can be disseminated. Federal law prohibits colleges from freely divulging information concerning an athlete’s grades, financial status and medical condition. The NCAA maintains strict rules concerning the type of information that a member institution can release to the general public concerning an athlete and the status of any ongoing investigation. Two other major sources of information - information sources that Woody Hayes did not have to deal with - are 24-hour sports entertainment programming outlets and freelance Internet websites. The two latter developments are the proximate source of OSU’s recent spate of negative publicity.
The pioneer and current industry leader in sports entertainment programming is ESPN. ESPN began as a source for satellite and cable game broadcasts that the major over the air networks were not interested in. In 25 years, ESPN has become an institution. It offers a wide variety of programming and channels that cover the full breadth of sports, and very recently, gaming. It has produced original movies and other feature show programming that goes well beyond the routine of broadcasting live sporting events. One of the features offered by ESPN is a program entitled Sportscenter. The show is designed to have the same look and feel of a news program. The set, graphic design and style of production is identical to conventional cable news offerings provided by CNN and Fox. It is understandable that the casual viewer would mistake the content offered by Sportscenter as hard news.
Internet websites, along with the conjoined electronic entity known as e-mail, have proven capable of providing instant information, and paradoxically, misinformation. The reporting of news is no longer in the hands of commercial outlets that are obliged to screen content and to fact check the information delivered. Instant rumors concerning virtually any subject spring from uncontrolled and unsupervised websites, which furthers the confusion between fact and fiction. The Internet chatter has contributed to the staying power of ESPN’s interest in the Clarett story and has helped fuel the interest in the larger subject of general malfeasance within the OSU Athletic department.
ESPN made an apparent business decision to ride the coat tails of the original New York Times story and to broaden the story with the video trailers that were played over and over throughout the summer of 2003. After all, ESPN had previously show cased Clarett in a feature story that baited him into the infamous OSU-jersey- in- the-trash-can photo op.
Clarett’s undeniable immaturity and penchant for controversy played well into what has become the textbook model of the prima donna athlete that ESPN salivates over. The formula is familiar: mix an athlete with obvious talent and a nasty habit of making bad quotes concerning equally bad behavior, add the drama of a national championship season and you have all the juice necessary to attract viewer interest and stimulate ratings.
The difference between the Clarett story and similar story’s associated with professional football players of equal ilk is the penchant for ESPN to attack the institution that the collegian plays for rather than focus on the individual himself. This process of assaulting the organization along with the player is unique to college sports reporting. It is this unique aspect that makes the behavior of ESPN despicable by any measure.
Three bodies of regulations that do not impact professional football govern college football: federal privacy laws, NCAA regulations and university specific codes of conduct. The collective affect of these regulations on student athletes, coaches, and administrators is the creation of a choke on the type of player misconduct information that flows freely in the professional football ranks. Players and coaches simply cannot comment openly on matters of player misconduct. Universities cannot generally release a student athlete’s academic, medical or deportment information to anyone. This policy extends to the parents of student athletes. A parent of a football player cannot receive a copy of the student’s grades without the written permission of the student, provided quarterly. ESPN fully understands these restrictions and use them to their advantage. The football players and their team are at a significant disadvantage because they are unable to defend their actions in the press. ESPN is free to speculate and rumor monger without fear of rebuttal or reprisal. In this regard, ESPN can operate with impunity because they are answerable to no one. They continue to stir the pot of public opinion by accusing the players and coaches of being dishonest due to the lack of their comments concerning matters of discipline. ESPN repeatedly accused Ohio State, throughout the spring and summer of 2003, of stone walling the public and purposely withholding information that should have been, in their estimation, in the public domain.
Into this fray strode the stoic Ohio State athletic director, Andy Geiger. Geiger was clearly becoming frustrated with the process of meeting with the press to discuss a matter that was, by law and regulation, private. So great was his frustration that he posited an idea that he thought would clear the air on the subject of OSU’s alleged academic and athletic indiscretions. He ordered a top down investigation of OSU’s football program. The investigation was conducted with the open and direct support of the NCAA and outside third parties. The investigation was as thorough as it was unprecedented. It lasted for the duration of the fall football season and it involved numerous players and hundreds of man-hours of investigative effort.
Imagine Geiger’s reaction when he presented the results of the investigation to the media in December of 2003. When he announced that the NCAA had found absolutely no fault with the OSU program from an institutional perspective, both the national print and television media howled in disbelief. Even the Ohio news outlets that cover the Buckeyes on a daily basis accused OSU of a white wash job. Reporters were openly dismissive of the OSU athletic department. Collectively, they stopped just short of accusing both Geiger and head football coach Jim Tressel of being liars.
ESPN, armed with a national stage, pummeled the Buckeyes with their negative coverage of the investigation. The talking head editorialists employed by ESPN continued to spew their contempt for Tressel and his program at every chance that arose. This negative press persisted throughout the Fiesta Bowl played against Kansas State and on into the conclusion of the recruiting season.
Time heals all wounds- unless ESPN is controlling the agenda. The following fall campaign should have been a time for the OSU football team to put the Clarett matter behind them and move on. This may have happened in normal circumstances but, as he has proven throughout his entire time in the national spotlight, Maurice was far from normal. He was not ready to end his involvement with the OSU football team. After a failed attempt to stage an apology to OSU, Clarett reverted to form. He rehashed his old, discredited claims from the previous testimony spiced with names of other OSU players who have had problems with the program that he stated would corroborate his story. Once again in light of his “new” charges, OSU was pushed into the negative spotlight.
ESPN aided and abetted the new onslaught by encouraging Clarett to speak out and by providing him with a forum to pursue his agenda. ESPN sought out former OSU players of interest named by Clarett and passed along their tainted remarks, the majority of which were recanted promptly after ESPN unloaded its barrage. Geiger, again, became the lightning rod for the ESPN fury. He was forced to publicly restate his confidence in Coach Tressel and the football program on national television. He was subjected to a withering daily gauntlet of questions concerning matters of procedure and protocol that he believed were satisfied months before.
The pinnacle of the pillorying of OSU football by ESPN was the ensuing coverage of the 2004 Alamo Bowl played against Oklahoma State. Beginning with the opening theme of the broadcast, the incessant negative banter of the broadcasters and the seemingly endless array of graphics casting OSU in a bad light that were flashed at the viewers during the game, created a presentation that was, to many arms length observers, over the top. ESPN could hardly contain itself while repeating all of the sundry charges that OSU players have experienced over the past three years.
Fortunately for the Buckeyes, they took care of business on the field by throttling the Oklahoma State Cowboys in an impressive fashion. The lopsided victory muted much of the national media criticism of the program, at least temporarily.
ESPN still had a ratings card up its sleeve with the treatment of Geiger. When Andy Geiger announced that he would move up his retirement date by one year from June 2006 to June 2005, ESPN was able to cluck that Geiger “was apparently forced out” or “was forced into early retirement”. The reality of the situation is the Mr. Geiger became weary of the job and he decided, at the age of 65, to forgo additional media nonsense and retire to pursue other interests. He simply did not want to remain the center of the storm at OSU.
Even though Geiger chose to stay on for a period of six months to ensure that a smooth transition would occur in the office of AD, and that he further announced that he would remain attached to the University in some unidentified manner during his retirement, ESPN simply could not refrain from stating and restating the lie that Geiger resigned, was forced to resign or was forced out by the school as a punishment for the failures of the football team. ESPN reporters were almost gleeful that they had played a game of gotcha with OSU and they prevailed by bagging the scalp of Andy Geiger.
What is lost over the fascination that ESPN has for ratings and sensational content is the important discussion of individual conduct and the public’s expectations of proper behavior and deportment. The ancillary aspects of the inquirer have muddled the fundamental question of the integrity of an institution, such as Ohio State.
The important distinction in these matters that must be stated is that there is a profound difference between the misbehavior of an individual actor and the misbehavior of an entire organization. This type of distinction is rarely, if ever, a topic of debate in a discussion of professional sports organizations but it is the core of the dilemma associated with the analysis of collegiate operations.
ESPN has successfully attached the bad acts of one individual, in this case Maurice Clarett, to the University as a whole, unfairly coloring the public’s perception of the institution. Clarett’s poor performance in an African American studies class became an immediate indictment of the football program’s dedication to academic excellence. Clarett’s penchant for borrowing vehicles to drive around campus became evidence that the football program was not diligent in its supervision of its players. When Clarett took liberties with the facts associated with a theft report, the conclusion drawn in the media was that, inexplicably, that the football team condoned such nonsense as a matter of course. When Clarett repeatedly lied to the NCAA on a variety of issues, the University was, again, deemed to be, in some undefined way, responsible.
The National Football League, of course, does not have to contend with these issues. The NFL does not have any type of academic requirements imposed upon its players to maintain eligibility. The NFL does not police the private conduct of its players away from football related matters. If a player in the NFL runs afoul of the law and if the conduct is in violation of the standard contract arrangement, then appropriate discipline is meted out in a public and open manner.
ESPN never makes the distinction between professional and amateur athletics in the context of reporting misbehavior. When a college coach refrains from comment on a matter of personal conduct, ESPN can, and often does, accuse the coach of being less than truthful.
Individual acts of improper behavior, both on and off of the field, must be punished firmly, swiftly and fairly. In this regard, OSU has been exemplary in its conduct.
Institutional violations such as enticing recruits with unauthorized benefits, manipulating test scores, changing grades, providing illegal financial assistance, altering police reports and ignoring other improprieties constitute violations by the Athletic department. OSU has been found without fault in this area.
Adding to the difficulty of reining in the irresponsible actions of ESPN is the notion that ESPN is part of the legitimate news media. ESPN is not a news organization. It is a sports entertainment network that sells a product that is used for the amusement of its audience. ESPN is not subject to the Fairness Doctrine. They are not obliged to offer equal time to other stakeholders in the entertainment community. In fact, they would have a hard case to make in matters of First Amendment free speech since they have no more credibility as a news organization than the stock infomercial that runs on late night cable television. Unfortunately, the casual fan typically does not make the distinctions to the average fan; an ESPN news story has same relative weight as similar stories that air on CBS, ABC or NBC.
What damage does the ESPN’s irresponsible behavior cause? The most immediate effect is the loss of recruiting opportunities. There is clear evidence that ESPN’s non-stop animosity toward OSU’s football program has contributed to the loss of several top prospects who decided to decline an offer of a scholarship to attend OSU because of the perceived integrity of the school.
The long-term effect is the continuing decline of support of the general public for scholarship athletics. Succumbing to public pressure, the NCAA is again tightening the rules concerning academic eligibility and the requirements for sustaining eligibility during the course of the school year. Although the NCAA rules governing football are Byzantine in construction, the expectation is that they will become more complicated in the future. Football is also increasingly under fire because it is, in practical terms, a men only activity. Certain nationally recognized women’s groups have expressed the desire to abolish scholarship football from campus on the grounds of fairness. Repeated successful assaults on respected programs such as Ohio State give these groups added ammunition in their fight to abolish football.
ESPN’s successful smear campaign against OSU has infected the way that legitimate news organizations treat OSU related stories. The terms “scandal”, “troubled”, and “under investigation” are routinely attached to the stories involving OSU football. It is difficult to shake the perception that OSU a tainted football program that is suffering from a lack of internal controls and discipline. The irony of this situation is the fact that the NCAA has frequently lauded the quality of the football program at OSU. Of course, these types of stories are not newsworthy.
Until such time that the viewing public has either an alternative to ESPN or access to a watchdog group that provides oversight, college sports fans, with a specific emphasis on football fans, will be required to hold their breath awaiting the next assault by ESPN. It would take a major act of courage for a member of the mainstream news media to step forward and expose ESPN’s irresponsible and mendacious practices. So far, neither the print nor the broadcast media seem interested.
Vern Mangold
President
Football Parents Association at Ohio State
