Many of you have closely followed the unfolding drama known as “Operation Varsity Blues.” It has everything — money, power, access, privilege, and celebrity. I’m sure the movie rights are already being negotiated. Who will play Felicity Huffman? … Felicity Huffman?
So much has been made of the money involved (millions over many years) and the institutions involved (yeah, you’ve heard of all of them). Legal battles are looming for those indicted, as well as important decisions about the futures of the students involved.
Lost in the madcap revelations are two issues athletic administrators should be paying attention to. Many have forgotten the incredible pressure placed on non-revenue coaches to recruit squad sizes large enough to offset football for Title IX compliance purposes. Rowing, water polo and soccer teams can begin the academic year with as many as 200 athletes combined on their rosters. While that number is rarely sustained through the spring competitive seasons, it is an important annual figure for overall department Title IX compliance. Balancing the total number of male and female athletes is mandatory for compliance, and each sport plays an important role.
There were rumblings on chat boards in the years before the scandal became an open secret that USC coaches,who were required to submit their list of “preferred walk-ons” to Donna Heinel, senior associate athletic director and senior woman administrator, were given those same lists back with fewer “accepted” walk-ons. When they asked why their entire list wasn’t accepted, they received pushback from Heinel that didn’t add up. “Her grades weren’t strong enough,” or “the admissions office didn’t see it our way.” They left her office feeling something wasn’t right.
The position that Heinel held in the USC organizational chart was significant — she was the gatekeeper for the admissions office and the overseer of the sports budgets. There are hardly two more important functions in the life of a Division I coach. The indictment alleges that Heinel had funds directed from a consulting firm to a fund she controlled to supplement budgets in women’s sports at USC, giving her more power over the coaching success of those she favored. This was in addition to the $20,000 monthly stipend she received as an independent contractor for the same consulting firm at the center of this scandal.
What should concern collegiate athletic administrators as they review their own organizational vulnerabilities is this issue of power and control. Non-revenue coaches are told they need to win and graduate their athletes. Does one person in the organization have significant authority over multiple teams? If so, can that supervisor influence the fate of how successful a coach might be by determining augmented budget allocations and preferred admissions slots, giving preferential treatment to some and not others?
Peter Lake, a professor of higher education law at Stetson University, described the scandal to the Los Angeles Times this way: “This is like Luke Skywalker finding the hole in the Death Star.” And he’s a little bit right. It is up to those who hold oversight responsibilities to ensure they are supporting (not sabotaging) the success of teams and the livelihoods of the coaching staffs. The hole needs to be closed in the Death Star. While we’d like to ensure every college administrator has a strong moral compass, occasionally we find that’s not the case. An important takeaway in this whole sordid affair is this: Administrative structures must be reviewed to ensure no one person is allowed to usurp the success of the coaches and players.
Now, when does the movie come out?
Karen Weaver, an associate clinical professor at Drexel University, is a former Division I athletics administrator and head coach. She writes frequently about issues in higher education and college sports. She can be reached at kew62@drexel.edu.
Questions about OPED submission guidelines or letters to the editor? Email editor Jake Kyler at jkyler@sportsbusinessjournal.com
