Written by Two American universities were caught up in the same crisis over the last few weeks, that itself is unusual. Louisiana State University (LSU) released a report by the law firm Husch Blackwell reviewing shortcomings in LSU’s reporting and management of sexual assaults related to its intercollegiate athletics program. As a result of the Husch Blackwell report, two senior LSU athletic administrators have been suspended and information in the report has led another university, the University of Kansas (Kansas), to part ways with its head football coach Les Miles, who had previously been at LSU in the same capacity. Kansas athletics director Jeff Long then also left his position at Kansas in the wake of these revelations. Miles’ departure was based on his conduct described in the report while he was at LSU. Long departed over issues related to the hiring of Miles at Kansas and questions as to whether the vetting of Miles was appropriate.
The Husch Blackwell report contains a number of conclusions but it essentially reinforces a lesson many already know, but often overlook, that institutions operating a for-profit athletic enterprise can find that enterprise in conflict with the values of university, as a whole, and that institutions struggle to provide adequate control and oversight mechanisms on their athletic enterprises because operating what is essentially a business inside a university can be complicated.
This issue isn’t raised here because I harbor grave doubts about the transformative power intercollegiate athletics hold for students, or that they can have on a university community or society as a whole. Nor is it offered to single out or blame any institution. But this issue is important because the opportunity for young women and men to participate in competitive intercollegiate athletics is fundamental to the American model of higher education and it should be conserved against excess and preserved for future generations.
This was something that became clear to me when I led the Sports Administration Graduate Program at Ohio University. The Ohio University Sports Administration program, established in 1967, was the first university level program in the world to examine sports leadership and administration as academic disciplines. The program counts more than a dozen current NCAA Division I athletic directors among its alumni, by far the largest group produced by any academic institution.
In a real sense, every time I stepped to the front of my classroom, I was educating the next generation of major intercollegiate athletic leaders. It was my hope to help this next generation of leaders have the ability to identify the greatest threats faced by intercollegiate athletics. While most observers would point to a lack of success on the field or court, financial challenges, or NCAA issues, the greatest challenges any athletic leader face come from failures of recognition.
Indulge an old football player turned lawyer a brief football analogy. An NFL defensive coordinator once said that, “a defensive player rarely sacks the opposing quarterback by beating an offensive lineman trying to block him and getting to that quarterback.” Rather, according to the coach, “it is the defensive player the offense fails to account for and who gets a ‘free run’ at the quarterback who does the most damage.” It is this “unblocked blitzer,” whom the offense fails to recognize who creates the most havoc on his collision course with the quarterback.
It is equally true that it is the “unaccounted for issue,” not winning or losing or even budgetary matters, although they are important, that is the greatest threat to the modern university athletic enterprise.
These issues aren’t usually black swan events, impossible to identify or plan to prevent. They almost always pertain to people and culture. Title IX, both in its dimensions mandating gender equity and preventing sexual violence, racial equality and belonging, student-athlete abuse, health, and well-being are all recognizable, if often unaccounted for issues, that have and are creating concerns on many campuses.
They all can be made better, or at very least made less harmful with fewer negative consequences with early recognition. Most athletic leaders sincerely contend that they are about people and sports are at their core, a “people business.” But in reality these same leaders lead multi-million dollar annual businesses and it is often the conflict between business decisions, ones that advantage revenue or winning in the short term, and what is ultimately in university’s long-term ethical interests that create the circumstances that lead to crises.
How then does a leader recognize these unblocked blitzers that have the potential to undo all or much of the good they hope to do?
Perhaps the first challenge in recognizing potentially unaccounted for issues is simply the problem of balance. The business of intercollegiate athletics is exceptionally time and work intensive, and these issues often arise in areas that don’t get full-time focus or enough focus.
At a time when fans fill stadiums and arenas, many campuses struggle to staff and maintain the support and oversight mechanisms that can mitigate some of these harms. Often these units are outside the direct control of the athletic enterprise and should be. But making certain that staffing and autonomy levels in areas that provide meaningful guardrails tin making athletics successful are adequate is a critical step in meeting this challenge. It is, then, an athletics concern that university-based offices: Ethic & Compliance; Title IX;, Affirmative Action; Student Welfare; and Academic Integrity, are all as well staffed and well funded as is the weight room well equipped. Universities are not monoliths and gaps in any of these units that support, provide resources, or offer mitigation to the athletic enterprise can stretch the defenses of any institution and reveal vulnerabilities.
In the analogy of the football blitzer, having a healthy balance of protective measures and quickly recognizing gaps in that protection is critical to help prevent some of the costs, chaos, and harms we have seen and are seeing.