My Post Tournament NCAA Rant, or, Why I Have Started to Hate College Sports.

If you are the kind of person who likes to sit around on a fall Saturday, drink a case of  Miller/Coors/Bud Lite/Light and watch college football, do not read this.  I implore you, don’t do it.  You won’t like it and it will probably make you mad.  OK, fine, read away, but consider yourself warned. 

As we have just concluded March Madness and we bask in the glow of another UConn Huskie dual-championship, I have been struggling with issues surrounding college sports.  Within the last few years, my attitudes have changed about college sports.  I used to be a major college sports fan.  As a proud Nittany Lion, I bled blue and white right up until the Sandusky Debacle.  I will also freely admit that I am getting back on that bandwagon, hence my dilemma.   There has been a remarkable amount of coverage lately regarding he state of amateurism in college athletics.  I have recently watched a few documentaries on the issue, which I would greatly recommend; Schooled: the Price of College Sports and Youngstown Boys.  Both of these address, from different perspectives, the dichotomy which arises in college athletics.  You have the institutions, both the NCAA and its member Universities, who generate billions in revenue annually from broadcasting, merchandizing, licensing, and ticket sales, and you have the student athletes, who get a scholarship.  I appreciate that a scholarship, depending on which school a student – athlete attends can be worth up to and above $250,000 over 4 years of a college career, and for the majority of students, the vast majority, it is a remarkable benefit that can, and should, make their outlooks much brighter than they might have been otherwise.  But, however, there are examples of how this model is being corrupted and those models are becoming much more frequent and much more obvious.   

A confession; I used to watch the NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament like it was a catechism.  March was my Christmas for a long time.  I had a standing tradition with one of my best friends.  We would take the first Friday of the tournament as a day off from work, go into Philadelphia and take in WXPN’s Free at Noon concert, regardless of who was playing.  We would then go to our local sports bar, Quotation’s in Media, PA, and watch the second day of the tournament.  All.  Day.  Long…   I would then spend the remainder of the month’s weekends watching the drama unfold.  Cinderella stories every year.  Heroes and Villains.  Buzzer beaters. Inviduals who willed their teams to win.  Teams who would not give up on each other.  But this changed for me.  Slowly but surely, I have come to hold the NCAA in contempt.  I’m not sure what changed more, me or the NCAA, but I suspect it was me. 

Recently, at least in overt appearance, college sports, primarily basketball, has shifted from a program where “student athletes” would play for the school that provided them a scholarship for 4 years and then, if possible, pursue a professional career in their specific sport .  Now I am completely aware that there has always been those individuals who have left their schools early to become pros.  Believe it or not, that is not the problem that I have with the system.  The problems that I have tend to be involving the restriction of players from making their livings as they can, based upon their ability, and the overwhelming difference between the money generated by the NCAA and the treatment of the players.  All of these things contribute to an environment which is absolutely ripe with corruption.  Here’s and example. Shabazz Napier, the senior guard for the Huskies, after winning the NCAA Tournament, mentioned having to go hungry while at UCONN because he had no points left on his cafeteria card.  (CBS Sports, April 7) Meanwhile, head coach Kevin Ollie will pull down $1.4 million in salary, endorsements, and fees.  How many points did Ollie score in this tournament?  And I LIKE KEVIN OLLIE.   And to be fair, Coach Ollie isn’t even in the same zip code as some other, more prominent coaches, like Tom Izzo, John Calipari, Rick Pitino and a few others who make more than twice as much…  All that being said, Napier could have gone pro last year or the year before, had he thought he was ready.   But still, how much did his individual performance benefit Coach Ollie and the University of Connecticut financially?  And he couldn’t even afford to eat at times. 

I know some folks will shake their heads and say “his choice. He could have gone pro last year and not had this problem.”  But what about the other, less talented players on bench?  That is not an available option for them.  You may also say “get a job”.  Well, they can’t.   NCAA rules dictate that scholarship athletes can only earn up to $2000 above their grant level.  $2000 doesn’t go very far.  If you are a scholarship athlete who comes from a poor background, you’re kinda screwed for the time being.  You can’t eat lectures.   Textbooks can’t keep you warm in the winter.

Watching a talking head program on a recent Sunday morning, one of the pundits stated that education was the reward, the payment for the athletes’ efforts.  I have an objection to that.  Education is a subjective reward.  It does not have the same value to some as it would to others.  You cannot take a kid, whose family, friends and neighbors have never provided any positive feedback or support for education, plop him or her into an Econ 101 session and expect that kid to have a light turned on.   It just doesn’t work that way.  If education is meaningless to an individual, or is contrary to their plan, the value does not exist. 

I will couch my overall statements by saying that the vast majority of college athletes will never play pro sports and that this experience, for that majority, is a huge benefit.  I have zero issues with the kids at all.  They are beholden to a broken system that they have to make sacrifices for in order to be a part of.  It's the adults that make me angry.   

The biggest issue that I have is that this entire model is supported by the NFL and the NBA, at least indirectly.  What other sports require college attendance or graduation age?  Name one.  Not hockey.  It has a system of minor leagues for young players to develop.  Not baseball.  Also has minor leagues and players are routinely drafted out of high schools or Latin American sports academies.  Not tennis, where some of the best women pro’s are still high school aged.  Not soccer, where players are routinely signed to pro contracts in their mid-teens, both in the US and abroad.  Only the NFL and NBA follow these exclusionary models.  The NFL states that all draftees must be at least 3 years removed from high school.  If you do not have the academic chops to be a student athlete, what happens to you?  Well, we know that many colleges are willing to let these big fellas fake it until they make it.  Take a look at the recent information coming out of the University of North Carolina for support of this point.  Recent documentation shows that Tarheel players either took fake classes or were not held to the same standards as other students in orders to maintain eligibility.  And UNC is universally seen as a great school.  Way to go, ‘heels!  And for what reason does the NFL employ these rules but not these players?  One of the things you will hear is “physical maturity.”  I call shenanigans on this.  I’ll ask one clarifying question; is the NFL more physically demanding than the NHL?  Is getting sacked worse than getting checked?  Doesn’t seem so to me… 

I would go so far as to say the NBA is even worse, because the rules are not applied universally.  The NBA rules around eligibility for the draft state: “All drafted players must be at least 19 years old during the calendar year of the draft.  To determine whether a player is eligible for a given year's draft, subtract 19 from the year of the draft. If the player was born during or before that year, he is eligible.”  That, to me, is blatant age discrimination.  But it gets better.  “Any player who is not an "international player", as defined in the CBA, must be at least one year removed from the graduation of his high school class.”  International player?  So, by benefit of which country you were born in, you either may or may not decide to go professional when you feel like you’re ready to do so.  This means that there is a period of time where an American athlete cannot ply his trade, as dictated by the major employers within that trade.  Somehow, mind-bogglingly, this is legal for these organizations.

You want to hate the Calipari’s and Pitino’s of the world, but it isn’t their fault.  They are just master of the program, winning within the format in which they have been instructed to play.  Please understand that doesn’t mean that I am not disappointed in schools like the University of Kentucky who have subscribed to this style of recruitment, which I equate to making a deal with the devil.  For years this system has benefited and promoted those programs and schools who have given up on academic integrity in order to have an elite athletic product.  In basketball, specifically, we have entered the era of “one and done” athletes who compete in the NCAA for one year, because they have to, and then declare for the NBA as soon as their season is over, never even completing their valuable freshman year of education.  And I don’t blame the athlete.  Some of the signing bonuses that these kids receive will pay for their grandkids to go to school…

Mark Emmert, the current president of the NCAA, is quoted in the April, 2012 edition of the Atlantic as saying, “"I happened to dislike the one-and-done rule enormously and wish it didn't exist. I think it forces young men to go to college who have little or no interest in going to college."  But why has it not changed?  I have an answer.  A team of talented freshman is more economically viable than a team of workmanlike upper classmen.  In short, money.  John Calipari is not the devil, Mark Emmert is the devil.   Coach Cal did not invent the system, he just has the moral ambiguity to exploit it and exploit it well.

I freely admit that I don’t have a overall solution, but I do have some suggestions.   I don’t think paying the athletes is the answer, as it opens up another whole bag of cats.  Primarily, how much would you pay the players?  Would the starting quarterback make the same as the goalkeeper on the water polo team?  If not, why not?  

The first thing I would do is eliminate the obvious collusion between the NCAA and the NBA and NFL.  Their random and selective age restrictions consistently confuse me as to their legality.  (If any of my lawyer friends can explain to me how this works within the confines of labor law, I will be in your debt.)  

And to make you feel a little worse about it, the NCAA just signed a contract with CBS and TNT for $11 billion, (with a “B”) for the broadcast rights to the NCAA Tournament through 2024, and the Huskies don’t get any extra points on their meal cards.

Managing Conflict in an Organizational Setting

For this post, I will focus on interpersonal and intragroup conflict.  There is a remarkable amount of work focused on conflict between an organization and the individual that I will look into later.  That is based much more heavily in psychology, and does have a significant effect on conflict within organizations, but that is a conversation for a different day. 

How does your organization recognize and manage conflict? Regardless of how your organization is designed, you will run into some form of it.  If your team is a high performing one, you probably experience conflict quite frequently.  Conflict can, and will stem from any issue; lack of resources, lack of shared goals, resistance to change, lack of understanding, conflict of interests, personality, or even processes, to name a few.  But it can also stem from team members promoting and defending what they see as opportunities for improvement, or identifying and calling out organizational challenges.  Can you think of a time when you were in a meeting where there was no conflict?  Where everyone was on the same page?  Neither can I. 

Intra-organizational conflict is not always a sign of dysfunction, although it can be.  It can be the result of driven parties working to make the organization, the product, or the process better.  This type of conflict is often referred to as task, or functional conflict.  Task conflict, which I wrote about, but did not name as such in my last post, is the conflict that arises when team members clash regarding ideas specific to the task at hand; it part of that creative forge to which I referred back in December.  The conflict could also be a sign of those things listed in the paragraph above, like a fever indicating an infection. If not recognized, addressed and managed effectively, conflict can result in frustration, anger, increased stress, disrupted communication, late deliverables or worse.   Obviously, the role of leadership is to foster the former and curtail the latter as much as possible.

When an organization effectively manages and promotes task conflict, it can be harnessed like the potential energy in a catapult for innovation, growth, and new ways to see the business.  A conflict literate team can understand and encourage different points of view and discourse to defend them.  Consider how the task conflict between the customer facing part of the business and the design or architecture teams can often result in improved products and services.  Also consider how when there is no conflict, often the end product is not useful to the business or rife with functional errors.  Any of my friends in the project management and IT worlds can speak to that, right?

More than likely, you have been part of teams where conflict is solved in terms of organizational rank.   An “I have VP in my title, so I win” scenario.   The rationale is often that the leader has that role for a reason and, as such, has the best perspective or experience to make a final decision.   There may also be an environment where the leader sees conflict as a challenge to his or her authority that cannot be tolerated.  This is not an effective conflict management technique.   Subordinates in these kinds of “conflict controlled” environments, if they are motivated by anything other than a paycheck, will often begin to feel diminished or disenfranchised.  Their attitudes regarding both their superior and the organization can turn for the worse and they could be lost, either literally, in terms of looking for other employment, or emotionally, not bringing their “A-Game” to the table due either a perceived lack of value in fighting for their ideas or a fear of retribution if they do.  Either way, the team loses. 

Inversely, there are leaders that seem to live to incite conflict.  I previously worked as part of an organization where our leader was referred to as “Patches O’Houlihan”.  (For reference, please see the guilty pleasure comedy Dodgeball, with Vince Vaughn).   This VP would tell anyone, very candidly, that he believed that there should be almost constant conflict within his organization. That conflict, to him, was a sign that things were getting done and that people were being passionate about what they were doing.  Sometimes, he would throw a monkey wrench into a process, seemingly in order to create some conflict when he thought folks might be getting too complacent, regardless of how progress was being made, ergo, the nickname.  The challenge with this VP is that he could not, or refused to, recognize the difference between task conflict and detrimental conflict, which would often bubble up in his group.  Conflict was conflict and it was a sign to him that that things were getting done.  Until they weren’t...and people started leaving.

Sometimes, it’s the actual design of the organization that can foster conflict, both kinds.  I expect that most of us have been part of organizations where the goals, and rewards structure, of different teams or departments are not in synch.  This lack of coordination can also be a large driver of conflict.   How familiar is this scenario? Sales people often get rewarded for filling the pipeline.  Members of the production staff get bonuses for maintaining high quality numbers.  Customer care staff are compensated and recognized for effectively and efficiently solving customer problems and keeping customer satisfaction numbers up.  See where I’m going with this?  Once you start to look at it, you will be able to see the cracks in the design.   By rewarding individuals or specific teams for their specific successes, organizations can be exacerbating their own conflicts.   When sales is compensated for getting more customers to commit to a purchase, which will increase production.  Increases in production will often cause the quality of the process to suffer, resulting in lower bonuses for the production staff.   This will, in turn, cause conflict between sales and production.   These challenges can manifest in slower delivery times, or missed quality numbers, which then affect the customer, creating increased call volume for customer care.   The customer care team will then start circling the wagons and blaming their challenges on production, which then blames sales for overtaxing their ability to produce.  When these conflict conditions are present, they often have a negative effect on the overall organization.  Communications can break down, limiting opportunities for collaboration and innovation.  The working environment can become hostile or negative, causing overall performance to suffer. A collaborative approach to incentivisation, looking at an overall scorecard for the organization, and letting those interdependent teams know where and how they fulfill holistic success will create a more synchronous work environment.   Far too few organizations take a holistic approach to incentivisation.  

All this then begs the question, “How can an organization foster creative, task conflict?“  There are a few opportunities available.  

·      First, make sure that organizational leadership makes the team members feel safe in disagreeing.   When a leader shuts down discourse, it tends to stay shut down. 

·      Encourage dialog, especially when a team member sees an opportunity for improvement. 

·      Educate the team on the difference between task and detrimental conflict. 

o   Focus on the idea or strategy at hand, not on any person or group.

o   Make sure the discussion is geared towards positive change, not passive-aggressive posturing.

·      Hire folks who are cut from different cloth.  A team of folks who all think the same way will be handicapped as far as innovative thinking, or if the team is already brimming with innovators, it can be important to have a rational, grounded voice in the room.

·      Incentivize devil’s advocacy, if necessary.  Identify and reward those members who have forced the team to think differently about the direction it’s going. 

By being thoughtful regarding the role of conflict on your team, and accepting the fact that it will happen, regardless of what you do, you can identify and harness task conflict to make your organization one which is innovative and engaged.  The members of such a team will feel valued and safe.  Manage conflict, don’t stop it. 

What are some of your stories regarding how you or your organizations have managed conflict on your teams?  I would love to hear them. 

On Interpersonal Conflict

Difficulties are meant to rouse, not discourage. The human spirit is to grow strong by conflict.

William Ellery Channing

What do you feel when you hear the word conflict?  Does it bring a sense of angst?  Exhilaration?  Do you think about winners and losers, with one clothed in glory and the other crawling away to lick their wounds, or worse?  Do you envision the Battle of Iwo Jima?  Jeanne d’Arc at Orleans?  Batman and the Joker?

I was recently working towards a certificate in mediation, and during the initial phases of the course, the instructor initiated a discussion on the basis and context of conflict.  When question came up regarding the nature of conflict, it was asked whether conflict is negative or positive.  Most of the participants in the course identified the concept of conflict as a negative.  I was virtually alone among my classmates; there may have been one other hand up along side mine in our group of 10, in my belief that conflict had no nature other than its own existence.  I have always seen conflict as emotionless; it is neither detrimental nor beneficial, like heat or cold.  It just is.  I’ve been wrong.

I have grown into the opinion that absolutely nothing of any value comes without some level of conflict.  Conflict is the anvil of progress where ideas are honed and tempered.  It is the inspiration for every great piece of art.  It is the start of every great commercial advance.  Without conflict, we would never be filtered.  We would be consistently acting on horrible ideas, or worse, be unmotivated to perform any function at all.

In my experience, most individuals perceive conflict as something to be avoided with all available resources, like an illness. We refer to this as conflict aversion.  But, conflict is normal.  It is a facet of being part of a group of individuals.   Conflict occurs based upon relationships, whether it is among family, lovers, neighbors, colleagues, or constituents.  Many people associate conflict with combat, not with a rational discourse on positions and ideas. I believe that to be a conditioned response based upon a number of factors, possibly because authority figures, most usually their parents, never learned how to deal with conflict effectively and when it arose, conversations became heated, argumentative, and possibly violent.   These are difficult conditionings to overcome.

Through my readings and experience, I would submit that most interpersonal conflict is based on eight things:

1.     Perceptions.  Perceptions are beliefs that may or may not be correct, often regarding sex, race, religion, or political affiliation.   Conflict surrounding perceptions can often be verbalized with statements such as  “I have a problem with you because you’re a dirty communist!” or “People like you are all alike.”  They tend to be based on a preconceived notion held by one of the parties that prohibits cooperation or communication and often leads to animosity.  This type of conflict is always unhelpful and unproductive.  It is however, often times, one of the easiest to overcome as it tends to be based on false stereotypes that can be talked through.

2.     Expectations.  Individuals who are involved in a relationship often expect certain things from others in the relationship and conflict can arise when those expectations are unmet, or believed to be unreasonable.  The distinction can is based upon your role in the relationship.  As a student, you might turn in an assignment that did not meet the expectations of the instructor.  As a manager, you might set goals that one of your direct reports might see as unattainable or out of line with their job description.    These types of catalysts often stem from poor, or no, communication, or can be caused by an unwillingness to ask questions.

3.     Behavioral differences.  These differences can be based on communications style, process orientation (how the parties like to perform tasks), problem solving style, and general behavior.   Basically, we are talking about how you do what you do, including communicate and act.    Conflict of this style can often be one-sided, as a simple behavior can be seen as offensive, rude, or antagonistic to someone who is predisposed to reacting to it.  Something as simple as not acknowledging someone as you walk past, or not holding the door can incentivize someone to hold a negative opinion, but also these could refer to more overt behaviors such as being untidy or being inconsiderate of others. 

4.     Personal differences.  These are frictions based upon personal values and interests, religious affiliation and belief structure, social leanings or political affiliation belief structure, or general attitudes.  These are the things that make you what you are, and can be the most deeply rooted source of conflict, often informing or creating the rationale for other types of conflict.   It is easy, far too easy in fact, to glom on to some difference, whether it is religion or politics, and utilize it as a rationale, or crutch, to justify negative attitudes towards another. 

5.     Interference.  Conflict can be based upon a perceived hindrance on you obtaining your goals, or something that you have done hindering someone else attaining theirs.  In a highly competitive environment, like school or business, this is almost impossible to avoid, as we tend to work towards often competing results. 

6.     Power and status differences.  These rudiments of conflict are wealth, professional position, social status, or influence.   We can often bear animosity towards others, and conflict can take hold, because we perceive that they have an advantage over us.  This advantage can take the form of interference, whether real or not, or jealousy, depending upon your perceived position in the relationship.   Ask anyone in a position of responsibility whether their success has increased or decreased the amount of conflict that they have encountered. 

7.    Lack of cooperation.  Sometimes, we are not inclined to cooperate with others, even if we know we should.  If we see that cooperation may create an unequal advantage to someone else, we will sometimes decline the opportunity.    How many times have we seen collaborative projects go unfinished because we or someone else has deemed their time or energy spent better elsewhere?

8.     Competition.  We operate in an economy based on scarcity.  We are groomed to compete in order to gain what we need to survive and thrive. When resources or opportunities are scarce, we will often put our best interests in front of the best interests in others.  This is not a bad thing!  Conflict emerges when someone else positions themselves gain the same scarce benefit that we are working for, whether it be money, a piece of property, a position at work, recognition, or, romantically, the attention and affection of someone we love, to name a few things.  

Personal style can have an affect on conflict, whether it is how a person communicates or how they manage their environment.  For instance, I am not very comfortable talking about my emotions.  If I say something to you, I want something from you in return; a suggestion for resolution or an offer to help.  It’s very transactional.  Others approach this differently; sometimes my wife only needs to be heard.  Talking about her emotions can be cathartic.  The conflict comes into play because I am, by nature, a fixer.  When Nicole comes to me with something, my first reaction is to break whatever it is down to its base components and address them.  That is not what she wants.  She just wants me to listen to her and let her know that I have heard her. 

Your personal style, and the style of the person or persons that you are in conflict with can also have an effect on the conflict itself, including its intensity, longevity, and potential resolution.  When dealing with conflict, people tend to fall into one of three categories: Competitor / Collaborator / Avoider.

1.     The Competitor.  This person tends to look at the conflict as a contest up for the winning.  They can be energized by the conflict and even quick to create it.  The competitor can sometimes, but not always take the conflict personally and will often be very assertive in trying to “win” the conflict.   They will not always look for mutual benefit…at least if they believe that they are not getting the favorable side of the compromise.   I am afraid that I live in this world occasionally.   When in conflict with a competitor, it is necessary to understand that although they do not always hate conflict, they probably hate losing.  You may need to appeal to this aspect of their personality in order to resolve the issue.  Show them what they stand to walk away with, or what they stand to lose.  Help them see the “win” in a mutually beneficial solution.   You might not always be able to sway them to your perspective as sometimes the competitor believes “being right” and “losing” is better than conceding to your competition.

2.     The Collaborator.  If you are a collaborator, you will look to see if there is a win/win scenario available and will try to be an open communicator with the other people in the conflict.   You will try to work for an agreeable solution.  Sometimes, however, the collaborator is too willing to give up personal benefit in order to see the conflict resolved.  Although being a collaborator is a great position to start from when dealing with conflict, it can get messy as well.  Collaborators can often be so engaged with coming to a resolution that they might not work for their own best interest, and as such not reach an ultimately satisfactory conclusion for themselves, which in turn could lead to additional conflict in time. 

3.     The Avoider.  Avoiders are those folks, like I mentioned above, who would rather have a molar extracted than find themselves in a conflict.  An avoider will sometimes ignore the issues, or just concede the point in order to not have to engage another person in what they often see as a negative or harmful interaction.  They see conflict as stressful.  Very stressful.  Pull your hair out, can’t sleep stressful.    It is important when in conflict with an avoider that you do not consider their reticence to engage as a concession.  This will not resolve the situation at hand, only kick it down the road.   If you are in conflict with an avoider, and want to get it resolved, you will need to make sure that the avoider does not feel threatened and that they are being heard.  Only then will the avoider feel comfortable enough to engage in the resolution. 

Conflict is not, in and of itself, destructive.  It’s how we, as those in conflict, choose to acquit ourselves that defines it.  I read an article recently, where the author used the phrase, “When the wheels spin, on the edges is where the sparks fly.”  I thought this was a great analogy for conflict.  When you visualize the wheels as us, and the grinding of the wheels as conflict, it becomes easy to see the sparks as the results of that conflict.   You can take that analogy further by thinking of the sparks as catalysts for an infinite number of ideas and opportunities.  How we address and participate in the conflict is what makes the concept constructive or destructive.  If you see these sparks as setting a fire that will consume and destroy our relationships that will create a real reticence and fear of conflict.  If you approach it from the perspective of those sparks being the impetus for personal, emotional, or professional enrichment, the ignition of new and revolutionary ideas, you can begin to have a healthy respect for the idea of conflict.   When you recognize conflict for what it is, generally a disagreement between two individuals who care about something specific, there is an opportunity afforded to both parties to address the issue and communicate with each other, to improve and deepen your relationships, and to potentially create new ideas and opportunities that will benefit both parties. 

The last of human freedoms - the ability to chose one's attitude in a given set of circumstances. 

Viktor E. Frankl 

Quotations via brainyquote.com