Joe Paterno reflects on
college recruiting ills
By JOE PATERNO
Professor of Physical Education
Head Football Coach
Penn State University
Copyright 1974 by the New York Times
Company. Reprinted by permission.
College football is a great game and I’m
very happy to be a part of it. Recruiting
excesses arid abuses disturb me, as they
do all people committed to sound in
tercollegiate athletics. But rather than
elaborating on what has been written, I
believe we can perform a more useful
service if we first explore the recruiting
syndrome from a coach’s viewpoint to
try to give you a better insight into why we
have the abuses and excesses and then
suggest remedies to cure the disease.
Recruiting performs worthwhile func
tions. It introduces a university as an
opportunity to a student-athlete with an
ambition. It gives the player a chance to
choose and to investigate different
programs. It helps him to find the right
institution for him, and it certainly in
troduces him to the world of mature
decision-making.
He weighs the importance of en
vironment and facilities. He makes value'
decisions on sincerity and personalities.
He has to analyze personal priorities,
sorting but relevant considerations from
irrelevant ones. ;
The proselytizing also forces a young
man to look at himself, especially where
he truly wants his ambitions and abilities
to carry him. He is.being told by college
representatives what is best for him (not
really being asked what he wants). Self
analysis under this pressure is difficult.
How then does recruiting become a
sinister practice that many times con
fuses, frustrates, emotionally disturbs,
psychologically damages and even
corrupts the people to whom it should be a
useful experience.
Almost by .definition, coaches are ex
tremely competitive, and once they get
involved in a recruiting baitly they !are
determined to win. Without even realizing
it, the proselytizing frequently becomes
aniind in itself and not a means of putting
together a successful squad.
Don’t be quick to criticize coaches,
because this sophistry somewhat parallels
I the malady our leaders suffered , in
Vietnam. When you have fiercely com
petitive, personable coaches with great
energy and ambition getting emotionally
involved in the life of the prospect they are
pursuing, you can see how easy it is for |the
recruiters to get carried away. Add to this
the importance the athletic milieu places
on the recruiting ability of a prospective
coach.
Because we are not different from other
segments of our society, often the word is
“Get 'em; I don’t care how, but get ’em.”
Justifying big-time athletics in the university
(continued from page 9)
ments in the academic affairs of its
athletes, lowered admissions standards
for athletes etc., these are all targets for
■needed reform in intercollegiate athletics.
Paterno in the past has commented on
his desire to make a true and lasting
contribution to the football program at
Penn State, and to the university itself.
More than a. national championship in
football, initiating some corrective and
worthwhile policy changes in his program
(Some of the personalities in Watergate
resemble an aggressive head coach and
his staff determined to make their team
undefeated and national champions at any
price.)
It’s all so tremendous for the high-school
athlete a dream fulfilled for him and his
family and everything for which he has
worked hard. The college coaches descend
on him, his school and his home.
At first the attention is wonderful. And
then it starts to snowball. If one of our
opponents drops around the school once a
week, our staff is competitive. We aren’t
going to get outworked; we are going to
get in there twice a week. A third school is
just as determined and a fourth, etc., and
the vicious cycle has begun.
the strain of the big decision starts
wwear on the family and they may begin
to sides. Advisers pop out of the
woodwork. Each college makes it tougher
and tougher to say no. Everybody is so
nice (say what you want about college
coaches, but we are good salesmen).
As the boy’s indecisiveness mounts, the
more resources we expend. After all, we
have spent all this time, money, and
energy on him and he hasn’t told us no;
maybe one more pitch will do it for us (the
same mentality we saw with our in
volvement in Vietnam).
Finally, a school appears to be losing
out. Accordingly, a coach whose job is on
the line or who has been hired by a college
president and told to win not teach well,
but win may do what he believes the
college president, the athletic director, the
alumni, and friends of the institution want
him to do.
He arranges for the prospect to be of
fered extra money, clothes or other illegal
inducements. He isn’t really concerned
about getting caught because the N.C.A.A.
(National Collegiate Athletic Association)
has ineffective investigation and en
forcement apparatus.
The coach may directly make the illegal
overture or he may have a friend or
alumnus contact the player, appearing to
do so without the knowledge of the coach.
In some cases an overzealous supporter
will take it upon himself to secure a
prospect for his school.
Although there are such covert
propositions, the present-day high-school
athlete has generally resisted the temp
tation and is turned off by this hypocrisy.
Furthermore, I believe the coaches who
do get involved in these activities are
usually doing what their president and
athletic coterie want done.
Through air this we build up the athlete?
We exaggerate his ability; we flatter
him; we idolize him; we kneel at his feet
and tell him how great he is and how much
we need him. We almost lead him to
believe that if he doesn’t come to our in-
would do far more to contribute to the
welfare of the Penn State University
community, his football program, and
college football in general.
Three recommendations would do
much:
1) Keep the Athletic Department totally
out of the private affairs of its athletes,
specifically adademic affairs. The
department should only be notified of an
athlete’s performance if he or she
becomes ineligible.
stitution the entire university is going to
collapse. We barely discuss what efforts
he must make in his academic life.
These mendacious promises start a new
vicious cycle. The youngster now develops
distorted values about himself. We create
imaginary utopias and don’t prepare him
for the realities of college life.
We compound our errors when we allow
athletes to make unlimited expense-paid
visits to campuses all oVer the country.-
Often, they are not really interested in all
these schools, but they like the idea of
traveling and being entertained.
The .recruiting rat race is finally over.
The youngster has been lionized, wined
and dined. He has been told how great he
is and how much he is needed.
And, after the big buildup, he finds out
he’s just another player, just another
student. He is not the star anymore. He
has to make the team and study like
everybody else. It’s a tremendous let
down, and not every youngster can adjust
to it. But many athletes do have the
resilience and stability to bounce back.
How can we cure! this syndrome?
First, the leaders of the N.C.A.A.,
college presidents and athletic directors
must realize their college coaches are
under tremendous pressure to win and
that there are no miracle coaches and no
miraculous recruiters. These leaders
cannot abrogate their responsibility to the
2) Since it is impossible to end the
scholarship program and remain com
petitive, drop one football scholarship
each year. Scholarships were designed as
an aid to education, but when they are
used to buy the services of athletes, the
educational system is perverted. This v/as
recognized in 1929. Forty-five years have
not altered that fact.
3) Institute a new policy for allotting
remaining scholarships. Withhold
scholarships from all athletes who are not
coaches too many administrators have
ostrich tendencies. Coaches should not be
fired arbitrarily and should not have their
tenure based on won-lost record only.
Second, the N.C.A.A. must protect the
coach and athlete by having strong and.
efficient investigation, enforcement and
punitive capabilities. N.C.A.A. in
vestigators should make unannounced
appearances oh campuses. There is no
sense having rules you can’t'enforce, and
we can’t beginj to solve the problems of
recruiting without a new approach to
N.C.A.A. meetings. |
Third, more good highschool players
must be available to more schools. The
N.C.A.A. took a giant step in this direction
when It recently passed a national(limit of
30 grants-in-aid a year for football. This
will help, but 25!a year would be better.
Fourth, reduce the vicious cycle pat
teFns of recruiting. Do not allow the
athlete to make paid visits to more than
five campuses. Shorten the recruiting
season. Make j all university represen
tatives: refrain from contact with a
prospect for one week prior to the date for
signing the national letter of intent.
It is impossible to present these
thoughts without appearing to cast oneself
in the role of “holier than thou.” That is
not our purpose. Instead, we want to give
insight and views on a major problem in
intercollegiate athletics.
adCepi;ed to the university through the
regular admissions procedure, without
Athletic Department pull or interference.
Penln State is respected enough to really
make waves in the NCAA. Instituting any
of the labove plans would only enhance that
respect. j
College athletics are a legitimate part of
the university! but the big-time athletic
program is still blemished.
The Athletic bepartment at least owes it
to the university to try and end this.