Even if he were not 6 feet 10 and close to 300 pounds, JohnThompson would make enormous waves any time and anywhere that seemedappropriate. Rarely on major issues is he without strong,well-reasoned and, frequently, against-the-grain opinions; untilyesterday, the Georgetown basketball coach never had become enragedto the point of sporting disobedience.
So offensive to Thompson is a piece of legislation the NCAApassed this week that he will not coach the Hoyas during games untilsome sort of attitude reversal seems evident. So as the ball isbeing tipped off tonight against Boston College, Thompson insists hewill be on his way off the Capital Centre floor.
Good for him.
Thompson is walking because of a rule that even the executivedirector of the NCAA suggests was passed hastily. What it amountsto, in Georgetown's view, is denying a high school player who failsto meet specific academic standards a chance at any scholarship aidhis freshman year. To the already confusing and controversialProposition 48 comes a tag-along brother, Proposal 42.
Proposition 48 says that anyone who fails to score 700 on hisScholastic Aptitude Test or achieve a 2.0 in a core curriculum can begiven an athletic scholarship but not practice or play his freshmanseason. Proposal 42 eliminates what some call a 'loophole' inProposition 48 and, perhaps coincidently, saves the schools a bundleof money. Perhaps as much as $6 million a year.
Before Thompson's reaction, Proposal 42 was odious because itseemed to elevate big-time college athletics to unexplored heights ofhypocrisy. It was okay for anyone who did not meet Proposition 48standards to receive aid; that money would have to come fromnon-athletic funds. Which meant that Johnny Jock's scholarshipalmost surely would be at the expense of someone perhaps moreacademically suited for college.
It appears now that collegiate hypocrisy remains onlystratospheric. The non-athletic money stays intact. The realessence of Proposal 42, according to Georgetown, is to eliminategifted athletes who do not meet Proposition 48 standards from gettingthat aid.
Maybe this ain't a bad idea. Maybe the colleges ought to comeout and fess up, admit they're professional by saying anyone whocan't turn a buck immediately shouldn't be getting a free ride.It's cost efficient, and certainly no colder than coaches who try torun nonproductive athletes off the team to save a scholarship forsomeone better. Maybe a youngster who cannot meet what seem fairlylow standards ought to be in a junior college.
Georgetown has been furious over Proposition 48 all along,believing the SAT is culturally biased and no measure of how well astudent will perform in college. The school for years has beenadmitting non-athletes with less than 700 on their SATs. Thegraduation rate is 94 percent, President Timothy Healy saidyesterday. Still, Georgetown never has taken a Proposition 48athlete.
Thompson's fury over Proposal 42 is that it will deny anestimated 600 or so high school athletes any immediate scholarshipchance at a four-year school. Why? The word 'recruited.' The NCAAsays recruited athletes are not eligible for institutional aid of anysort. If Thompson bothers watching any high school player not worthrecruiting, it's a waste of his time.
This non-aid business could create all manner of possibilitiesfor cheating. Boosters might well intrude even more than they donow. Besides, Proposal 42 was defeated one day and passed the next.To Thompson, it was not a bolt of wisdom that struck voters whosuddenly switched their position, but lobbying of the mostsophisticated order by the Southeastern Conference.
Thompson seems to have an ally, NCAA Executive Director DickSchultz, who told USA Today: 'I was a little bit surprised that{proposal} passed. It's not very often that a conference makes adecision {to sponsor legislation} and then is able to take thedecision they make and impose it on the rest of the membership.'
Does Schultz expect the proposal to be challenged next year? ' .. . I can see without a doubt probably a group of schools putting anamendment in {that would eliminate the distinction between recruitedand nonrecruited athletes}.'
All of this begs the question: what will it take to get Thompsonback on the bench? Nothing with any bite can happen for a year. Andin NCAAspeak Schultz has pretty much said the idea at least needsmore work.
His detractors will argue that Thompson is being showy, throwinghis considerable weight around in a grand way again. Of course heis. And who has a better right than the U.S. Olympic coach and aformer president of the basketball coaches association? Isn't aleader supposed to be forceful? Shouldn't he be a step ahead therest?
On Feb. 21, 1981, Thompson was involved in a protest of anothersort. Sitting in his hotel room in Philadelphia, he saw agrandmother saying she intended to wear a green ribbon to remindpeople that little black children were being killed in Atlanta.
When the Hoyas came onto the court to play Villanova that night,they wore green ribbons. Soon the officials also had green ribbonsattached to their belts.
'Basketball is my whole life,' Thompson said a few weeks later.'My happiness and my sorrow and my protests. People use what theyhave, and what I have is basketball.' To him, tonight is anotherfine time to use it.@Slug: D01GRE
