Putting the Student Back in Student-Athlete? Managing Tensions in a College Sport Environment

Home , 2018 NBA draft, Jay Bilas, Ja Morant, Rupp Arena, Zion Williamson

Putting the Student back in Student-Athlete? Managing Tensions in a College Sport Environment

A thesis submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts June 2019

In the department of Communication of the McMicken College of Arts & Sciences

Philippe Chauveau

B.A. University of Cincinnati August 2019

Committee Chair: Dr. Gail T. Fairhurst

First Reader: Dr. Stephen Depoe

Second Reader: Dr. Nancy Jennings

Abstract This project explores the realm of college sports through a tensional perspective.

Specifically, this paper analyzes the paradoxical tensions present within the term student-athlete in men’s Division I college basketball. As an FBI probe closed in on corruption in prestigious

NCAA institutions, the Commission on College Basketball (CCB) was formed to assess the state of men’s Division I college basketball. The CCB created a 53-page report detailing the issues with college basketball and recommendations on how to resolve them. Through a grounded iterative method and the framework provided by Putnam, Fairhurst, & Banghart (2016) on paradoxical tensions in organizations, this study examines the paradoxical tensions related to the term student-athlete in the CCB Report. This paper finds a central tension of incentive- disincentive, and three sub-tensions: academics-athletics, tradition-status quo, and sufficient compensation-insufficient compensation. This study then describes the implications, theoretical and practical, derived from the paradoxical tensions and management strategies found.

Key words: NCAA, Commission on College Basketball, student-athlete, paradoxical tensions, incentive, academics, athletics, tradition, status quo, compensation

iii

Table of Contents Page i……………………………………………………………………………………. Abstract Page ii…………………………………………………………………………………. Copyright Page iii………………………………………………………………………… Table of Contents Page 1………………………………………………………………….. Chapter 1: Introduction Page 5…………………………………………………………………….. Chapter 2: Literature Page 17……………………………………………………………………...... Research Questions Page 18…………………………………………………………………...... Chapter 3: Methods Page 22…………………………………………………………. Chapter 4: Results & Analysis Page 43…………………………………………………. Chapter 5: Discussion & Implications Page 54………………………………………………………………………………... Conclusion Page 57………………………………………………………………………………... References

Chapter 1: Introduction

Context & Rationale

March Madness, the premier basketball tournament for colleges and universities, has long been one of the most popular sporting events in the country. Organized by the National

Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), it occurs yearly in the middle of March and the beginning of April. A 68-team field plays single elimination matches for the rights to become

NCAA College Basketball Division I (DI) Champions. March Madness was seen by over 8 million viewers on average throughout the whole tournament of 2018 (Holloway, 2018), with over 9.3 million people watching the opening weekend games in 2016 (“Number of March

Madness Opening Weekend Viewers”, n.d.). The championship game for the 2017-18 season, in which the Villanova Wildcats defeated the Michigan Wolverines, compiled just over 16 million viewers (“NCAA Men’s Final Four Ratings”, n.d.). In comparison, only the Super Bowl, the

National Basketball Association (NBA) Finals, the World Series of Baseball, and the College

Football Playoff (CFP) reached a larger audience (Weinstein, 2018). As one can imagine, an event that draws over 8 million viewers on average can generate quite a large sum of money. In

2006, CBS and then-Time Warner (now Spectrum) signed a 14-year, $10.8 billion deal for the rights to broadcast March Madness, which accounts for roughly $900 million in revenue every year for the NCAA (Berr, 2015).

However, unlike three of the sporting events mentioned earlier (the CFP being the only exception), the players, de facto stars of March Madness, do not receive any actual compensation from TV fees, sponsorship, or merchandise sales. While it may seem unfathomable to think that players do not benefit from the revenue they are generating, there is a simple, if unconvincing, explanation: the NBA, Major League Baseball, and National Football League (NFL) are all 2 professional leagues, and the NCAA is not. Players in these leagues are known for being handsomely compensated for their efforts. For example, the average salary of an NBA player in

2015 was $6.3 million (Gaines, 2016), with the highest paid player, the Golden State Warriors’

Stephen Curry, receiving over $34 million in the 2017-18 season (Gaines, 2018) and expected to make over $37 million in the 2018-19 season (“NBA Player Salaries,” 2018). Since this thesis is concerned with college basketball, NBA salaries are the most appropriate reference point

Athletes who compete in college basketball and March Madness (and the CFP) are under the governance of the NCAA, which means the players must remain amateurs (ergo, not receive a salary or financial compensation of any kind) while enrolled (or prior to enrollment) in a college or university (“Amateurism”, n.d.). The members of college basketball teams and other varsity sports teams are referred to as student-athletes, a term explicitly stating they are “students first, athletes second” (“Amateurism”, n.d.). However, due to the rising revenues associated with college basketball and especially March Madness, a debate as to whether student-athletes should see a cut of the pie, despite being amateurs, has risen to the forefront (Bilas, 2017; Giles, 2017;

Labaton, 2017; Swanson, 2017).

Additionally, the quality of education that some of these students are receiving is questionable. Not long ago, it was confirmed that certain classes offered to students at the

University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill (UNC) were empty classes, where students would receive credit hours for a class that did not physically meet or exist (Tracy, 2017). There have also been multiple reports regarding student-athletes’ grades being changed to benefit an athletic program (New, 2016; Sherman, 2015), and often student-athletes attend college for one year or less - fueled by the potential of receiving astronomical salaries in the NBA - and thus do not graduate or fully benefit from the college education with which they are being provided. 3

The NCAA may turn a blind eye at certain academic infractions (Tracy, 2017), but amateurism is among the NCAA and collegiate athletics’ most prized traditions. The NCAA rules over the amateurism with an iron fist, crashing down on anyone who dares breach the amateurism clause (Dimengo, 2014; Greene, 2015). However, in the past few years, an investigation organized by the FBI has turned the world of college basketball upside down

(Bushnell, 2018; Cato, 2018), as it seems like several violations of amateurism were occurring in some of the most prestigious men’s college basketball programs in the nation. The investigation, initiated in 2015, compiled hundreds of transactions made by coaches, universities, sponsors and other third parties, with concern to college basketball recruits and players (Forde & Thamel,

2018). The investigation permeated all levels of DI college basketball, prompting the creation of a third-party committee by the NCAA to respond to the lack of transparency exposed. The

Commission on College Basketball (CCB), as it became known, drafted a 53-page report filled with recommendations aimed at rescuing college basketball and student-athletes from illegality

(CCB Report, 2018). It is that report that is the subject of this project.

It is important to note that the discussions of this study, like the CCB Report, will be concerned only with DI men’s college basketball players. Student-Athletes of Division II and

Division III universities (the two lower levels of NCAA-sanctioned competition) have very few professional aspirations, and the revenue of DII and DIII athletic departments is not substantial enough to warrant claims that DII and DIII student-athletes should be paid. Despite Division II colleges producing a handful of NBA players throughout the years, including NBA champions

Devean George, Ben Wallace, and Scottie Pippen (“Current Players: Division II and III”, n.d.), the current odds of a Division II player making the NBA are slim to none. No player below DI has been drafted since 2005 (Givony, 2019) and there are no former DII players among the 4

NBA’s 360 active players as of May 2019. In addition, this study also does not consider the stipend received by athletes in some universities as financial incentive. The stipend they receive accompanies their scholarships, and is usually reserved for food and other essentials whilst traveling (CBB Report, 2018). It is a set amount administered by the NCAA, therefore not affected by the revenue of a particular athletic department.

Thesis Overview

The situation experienced by the players, coaches, schools, and the NCAA is fraught with tensions, contradictions, and paradoxes, all clearly stemming from the term student-athlete. It is the original and ongoing tension regarding college basketball and other revenue generating intercollegiate sports. Readings of the CCB report have shown that an array of sub-tensions stem from the term student-athlete. These tensions require active management and are the central focus of this project.

Throughout the course of this study, the competing discourses, tensions, contradictions, and paradoxes that arise between the terms student and athlete in DI college basketball are explored, with an emphasis on how the CCB proposes that these tensions should be managed. In order to do so, Chapter 2 explores organizational communication, tension, contradiction, and paradox literature, and present research questions. Chapter 3 explains the use of the iterative approach as method of inquiry, along with a justification for the use of the CCB Report as the main text of this analysis. Chapter 4 includes a presentation of the results, providing identification and analysis on the paradoxical tensions, and their management strategies. Finally,

Chapter 5 consists of a discussion of the results and implications of the paradoxical tensions and their management strategies, limitations, and future research directions.

Chapter 2 - Literature

Overview

In the following chapter, relevant and extant literature will be reviewed, beginning with a review of organizational communication vis-à-vis tensions and tension management strategies.

This section reiterates the importance of the study of tensions in an organizational setting by discussing the exponential growth of this type of inquiry, defining tensions, contradictions, and paradoxes, and helping inform the ontological perspective of this project. Next, the two main theories guiding this project, Relational Dialectics Theory (RDT) and Constitutive Paradox

Theory (CPT), are reviewed and contextualized within the current situation experienced by student-athletes participating in NCAA men’s DI college basketball. Third, the tension management strategies put forth by Putnam, Fairhurst, and Banghart (2016) are presented and also related to a college basketball context. Fourth, a quick overview of projects that have approached the issue of student-athletes academically and communicatively, but from different perspectives, is provided. Lastly, the research questions that guide this project are presented.

Organizational Communication & Tensions

In the fields of both communication and management studies, the study of organizational tensions, contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes has grown exponentially in the past decade.

Recent reviews demonstrate the popularity of these concepts in management science (Schad,

Lewis, Raisch, & Smith, 2016), organizational studies, and organizational communication research (Putnam et al., 2016). The first review identified 133 articles in management journals that applied a paradox lens or used paradox as a tool for theorizing about organizations (Schad et al., 2016). The second uncovered over 850 publications, on approximately 30 different 6 organizational topics, in 140 different journals that incorporated the key words of tensions, contradictions, dialectics and paradoxes (Putnam et al., 2016).

The ontological basis of this project is grounded on the research provided by Putnam et al. (2016), but the contributions of Schad et al. (2016) are also important and must be addressed.

Schad et al. (2016) provided a review of the extant literature about tensions in organizational settings and supplemented it with a meta-theory of paradox. The authors track the roots of paradox, presenting their research into three key areas: what is paradox, paradox research in the past 25 years, and the future of paradox research. As a concept with deep theoretical roots, Schad et al. (2016) reiterate how paradoxes are pervasive and intense. With paradoxical dynamics ever more present in contemporary organizations, “scholars increasingly explore their nature, approaches, and impact” (2016, p. 7). Finally, Schad et al. (2016) propose paradox as a lens for management science, although their lens tends to be more cognitive and systemic rather than discursive or communicative.

Putnam et al. (2016) approached organizations and organizational tensions, contradictions, and paradoxes through a constitutive lens that focuses on language, communication, and discourse. The authors stipulate that contradiction and paradox have become the “new normal” in organizations (Ashcraft & Trethewey, 2004), and several conditions including the ubiquity of globalization and changing economic conditions ensure that contradictions occur daily in the workplace (Mumby, 2014). Daily contradictions are especially inescapable in the NCAA, as it has seen an immense growth in revenues in the last few decades, leading to higher salaries for all involved except the student-athletes, who must remain amateurs

(and by definition, unpaid). 7

There are several terms used to discuss these oppositions that can be felt by organizational actors in the workplace. This study will refer to these terms largely interchangeably, although it is important to know that there is a distinction between tensions, contradictions, and paradoxes.

Tensions can be defined as stress or anxiety when making choices in organizational settings (Putnam & Fairhurst, 2014). These feelings often result from frustration and uncertainty experienced by individuals when faced with contradictions and paradoxes in organizations

(Lewis, 2000; Putnam et al., 2016; Smith & Berg, 1987; Smith & Lewis, 2011, Vince &

Broussine, 1996), and can foster defensiveness and avoidance (Freud, 1937). It is the fundamental concept with regard to other constructs of this nature (paradox, contradiction, dialectics, etc.). As such, it is often used to describe all paradoxical dynamics, especially when the term “paradoxical tensions” is used (Putnam et al., 2016).

The need for NCAA student-athletes to conflate time spent on the court working on their craft and time in the classroom is a classic example of a workplace tension. Even though the

NCAA places limits on practice time (20 hours per week), student-athletes spend large amounts of time in the training facility watching film or doing other activities related to their respective athletic team (“Countable Athletic Related Activities”, n.d.). The stress in trying to perform as best as possible in both areas is even higher when student-athletes have to factor in time, energy, and effort that will have to be split between the two, or will have to be directed solely to one. It is important to note that these tensions and the stress and anxiety that come with them do not necessarily need to be verbalized. In fact, they are often not and can be ignored (Putnam et al.,

2016), for the detriment of those involved. 8

Unlike tensions, contradictions are polar opposites that are interdependent, define each other, and have the potential to negate one another (Putnam, 1986). Thus, they present diametrically opposed choices (1986). They can be seen in the simultaneous presence of opposites or seeming incompatibilities that characterize the ambiguous nature of daily organizational life (Jones, 2004). Often, it means that contradictions are present in inherent conflicts of interest. Consider the student-athletes vying to receive financial compensation for their athletic prowess, positioned in diametrical opposition to the will of the NCAA or universities to give up a part of their profits and provide student-athletes with financial compensation.

Finally, paradoxes exist when contradictory notions have existed and persisted in an organization through a period of time, creating “seemingly irrational and absurd” (Putnam et al.

2016, p. 11) outcomes (Lewis, 2000; Lewis & Smith, 2014; Smith & Lewis, 2011). The concept of time in the definition of paradox is also imperative for other scholars, such Schad et al. (2016), who define paradox as “persistent contradiction between interdependent elements” (2016, p. 10), and Lewis (2011), defining it as “contradictory yet interrelated elements that exist simultaneously and persist over time” (Lewis, 2011, p. 382). The elements seem “logical in isolation” (Lewis, 2000, p. 760) but are absurd when emerging in conjunction with one another.

Their very existence develops irrational situations, as they implicate each other, making it seem as if the poles are mutually exclusive and a choice between poles difficult. Additionally, irony is often present in organizational paradoxes (Putnam et al., 2016). If one considers the pay gap between NCAA head coaches (Blackistone, 2017; Lauletta, 2018; Ruby, 2010) and student- athletes, one cannot help but see the ironic absurdity in that relationship, reaffirming the paradoxical nature of that particular relationship. 9

With a better understanding of each term, we can analyze how a constitutive view allows scholars to view tensions, contradictions, and paradoxes “in a different relationship” than before

(Putnam et al., 2016, p. 3). For purposes of this project, I will use the term “paradoxical tensions” as the broadest term possible.

Relational Dialectics & The Constitutive Approach

One approach to paradoxical tensions can be traced to Mikhail Bakhtin’s (1981) dialogic perspective of communication, known as dialogism, which later was developed into Relational

Dialectics Theory (RDT) (Baxter, 2011). Baxter analyzes clashing discourses as systems of thought that generate dialectical tensions. In any relationship, according to RDT, there are multiple tensions that exist and must be traversed by the parties involved in said relationship

(Baxter, 2011). In the sometimes challenging process of navigating and managing these tensions, better relationships may or may not develop. Because circumstances in and around relationships are always in flux, new tensions may materialize and old tensions may return (Baxter, 2011). In addition, this assessment of tensions indicates that they are rarely identified in isolation, and usually come in multiples, which can interweave (Baxter, 2011; Baxter & Montgomery, 1996).

Thus, RDT focuses on how organizational actors manage tensions across individual and community levels (Putnam et al., 2016).

While RDT is heavily interpersonal, Constitutive Paradox Theory (CPT) draws from

RDT to move into the organizational context (Putnam et al., 2016). CPT allows us to investigate the “origins of paradoxes, their formation, their development” (Putnam et al., 2016, p. 13) and how they exist and influence organizations. Examining paradoxes from such a standpoint forms the basis of Putnam et al.’s (2016) constitutive approach. It provides a new framework that grounds the origins of contradictions, examines their ongoing development, identifies responses 10 to contradictions in organizational settings, and casts the concepts of tension, contradiction, and paradox in a different light than previous studies. According to Putnam et al. (2016), there are five key dimensions of a constitutive view that must be considered to properly identify paradoxes: discourse, developmental actions, socio-historic conditions, the presence of multiples, and praxis. These dimensions cross metatheoretical traditions and can be applied to this area of study in different ways.

Putnam et al.’s (2016) approach to discourse is heavily Foucauldian. Discourse is approached as essential to the creation of paradoxical tensions within an organization and not as a consequence of it. It is “key to how paradox forms and operates” (Putnam et al., 2016, p. 13).

More specifically, discourse is a system of thought involving ways of thinking, speaking, and behaving that clash with other discourses to generate tensions (Foucault, 1983). Tensions are made salient through the use of language in social interactions. For example, consider the aforementioned ways in which the discourse of “student” (e.g., amateur status) clashes with that of “athlete” (e.g., professional and paid). The discourse dimension also focuses on how members face tensions and contradictions that manifest through spoken and written text. This dimension does not exclude material features of organizations, but rather acknowledges that these features are also manifested through discourse (Putnam et al., 2016).

Second, developmental actions refer to the ways in which tensions and contradictions emerge and evolve. These actions are useful for tracking how tensions transform over time, and how they can amplify and build on one another (Putnam et al., 2016). For example, consider the evolution of a tension pervasive to collegiate basketball, evidenced by the “one and done” rule.

This tension developed as a condition of the 2006 rule (Auerbach & Martin, 2014; “The One and

Done Conundrum”, 2016) stipulating the need for US-based high school basketball players to be 11 at least one year removed from high school and at least 19 years old before being eligible for the

NBA draft. As a result, players with professional aspirations often enroll in a university for one year or even less, in order to fulfill the time requirement established by the NBA.

What began as a strategy exploited by only the most elite prospects has now become common practice. Ten of the first 11 picks in the 2018 NBA Draft were college freshman who left their schools after one year or less (Rapaport, 2017), thus not completing a degree. In fact, nearly 30% (18 of 60) of the total players selected in the 2018 NBA Draft were freshman (“2018

NBA Draft”, 2018), and this trend seems only to be increasing. As of January 2019, several expert sources on NBA Draft predictions put anywhere from 20 to 25 freshmen being selected come June 2019 (“2019 Mock Draft”, 2019; Wasserman, 2018; Woo, 2019). This represents a commitment to athlete over student, apparently in direct contradiction with the NCAA’s commitment to education.

Third, socio-historic conditions are imperative to be able to situate certain tensions and contradictions. Often, contradictions stem from politically charged historic eras, making these conditions an integral part of the constitutive approach (Putnam et al., 2016). Tensions are linked to prior discourses and meaning structures, and these eras can lay the foundation for contradictions, as actors often draw from past actions and systems to make choices (Putnam et al., 2016). In addition, paradoxes can remain latent (Smith & Lewis, 2011) and are often perceived more frequently in turbulent times (Quinn & Cameron, 1988). The NCAA, in its current state, is a perfect example of the importance of socio-historic conditions in understanding paradox origins, as described above. The era of professional athletes and the salaries from television revenues has only heightened the tensions and contradictions between “student” and

“athlete.” What it means to receive financial compensation as a professional athlete has changed, 12 and the current conditions that shape how the tension between student-athletes and the NCAA has evolved accordingly.

Fourth is the presence of multiple tensions or contradictions. This dimension

“encompasses three sub-features of a constitutive view of paradoxes: multiple levels, multiple tensions, and multiple voices” (Putnam et al., 2016, p. 18). Multiplicity, thus, indicates the several competing discourses and contradictions, which originate from conflicting ideas and structures present in organizations. Tensions and contradictions occur in multiples and not as bi- polar opposites. In addition, multiplicity covers how addressing a tension at one level can trigger a new tension at another level, and how these actions can link the local to the global.

The sheer variety of competing discourses in an organization can lead to contradictory actions. The NCAA is a national organization spanning all 50 states, with over 460 thousand student-athletes at any given time (“Student-Athletes”, n.d.). A tension management strategy put in place for only DI male basketball players will most likely give rise to other tensions in other areas of the athletic pyramid and/or other sports. Consider, also, how the term student-athlete generates a family of competing discourses, such as the compensation versus amateurism debate, or the importance of performing well academically whilst maintaining a high level of athletic performance (or vice-versa).

Lastly, praxis focuses on how much actors are aware of the competing views and ideas, and the choices actors make to manage these tensions and contradictions. Actors develop different levels of understanding about tensions, and it influences their tension management choices as well as how to move forward (Putnam et al., 2016). For example, evidence suggests that student-athletes are increasingly aware of compensation inequities due to the rise in accessibility of information regarding both the amount of pay that athletes in professional 13 leagues command from the value they produce in TV revenues and merchandise sales, and the true value of March Madness as a TV product. Student-athletes have the tools to become more conscious with regard to pay inequities, and the ease of accessibility to information may guide their choices in ways never before seen in the collegiate ranks.

Student-Athlete & CPT

When analyzing the term student-athlete through a CPT perspective, a key issue arises with the use of the term student-athlete itself and other terms often used interchangeably - not unlike the terms tensions, contradictions, and paradoxes, described earlier in this chapter. While student-athlete clearly refers to a collegiate level athlete who is also receiving an education at an institution of higher learning, they are colloquially referred to as “players” or “athletes”, without any distinction regarding their amateur/student status. This is an oversight. Student-Athlete generates a number of paradoxical tensions, which other terms such as “athlete” and “player” do not. In a college environment, one cannot be an athlete unless one is a student, but by being a student, one is thus obligated to follow NCAA guidelines, prohibiting one from being compensated for being an athlete (or any reason). In addition, the seven-figure salaries earned by coaches (Lauletta, 2018) exacerbate this tension between paying-or-not-paying student-athletes; they are constantly told there is not enough money to provide them with compensation

(Blackistone, 2017; Ruby, 2010), yet coaches’ salaries continue to increase exponentially

(Gaines, 2014; Johnson, 2018; Lauletta, 2018). This area of study is thus ripe for exploration through the aforementioned paradox approaches.

Tension Management & College Basketball

The presence of paradoxical tensions usually triggers a response and, often, active management by all organizational members. Putnam et al. (2016) describe three categories of tension management approaches, including “either-or,” “both-and,” and “more-than”.

Either-or approaches correspond to management strategies that treat the poles of dialectical tensions as mutually exclusive. There is no coexistence between poles with this approach because the poles are perceived to be independent. Strategies from this approach include defensive reactions and selection (Putnam et al., 2016). Defensive reactions are

“strategies individuals use to deny the existence of contradictions” (Putnam et al., 2016, p. 58) and can often develop into negative vicious reinforcing cycles as well as result in undesired consequences (Bartunek et al., 2000). Selection is to favor one pole to the detriment of the other.

For example, choosing to favor “athlete” over “student” could mean increased levels of performance and success on the court, but lead to total neglect of duties regularly associated with being a student and loss of eligibility (“Division I Progress-Toward-Degree Requirements”, n.d.;

“NCAA GPA Requirements”, n.d.).

Both-and approaches treat opposites as “inseparable and interdependent” (Putnam et al.,

2016, p. 59), and avoid emphasizing one pole over the other. Some management strategies associated with both-and approaches are paradoxical thinking and integration and balance

(Putnam et al., 2016). Paradoxical thinking is a strategy that seeks to expose paradoxes and foster openness to living with paradox, and integration and balance can be described as an attempt to find middle-ground or an equilibrium point. For example, monetary compensation for some athletes, namely only the ones that generate a revenue stream for the school, could allow student- athletes to receive payment without compromising the financial stability of college athletics. 15

Unlike either-or approaches, both-and management strategies look to develop awareness to paradoxes and they offer temporary solutions in times of crisis (Putnam et al., 2016). They are efficient in the short-term, but are “not necessarily an effective long-term strategy for managing organizational paradoxes” (Putnam et al., 2016, p. 64).

Finally, more-than approaches attempt to shift the focus of the dialectic to connect the oppositional pairs. More-than strategies are more complex than both of the other two management strategies. This sophistication is what allows more-than strategies to “preserve the dynamic interplay between opposites” (Putnam et al., 2016, p. 66). Techniques here include reframing and transcendence and reflective practice. Reframing refers to the creation of a new relationship between tensions, one where the poles are no longer in direct opposition to each other. While it is a creative solution and may be a very effective, it can also lead to unintended consequences (2016). Consider, for example, if the NCAA, NBA, and USA Basketball were willing to engage in an open dialogue, in which issues of amateurism could be reframed in terms of “fair” compensation. While this may be extremely helpful for college basketball, it might trigger similar movements from other affiliated NCAA sports, which could give rise to several tensions regarding the NCAA’s revenue stream and the success of student-athletes.

To summarize, CPT and RDT both orient themselves to the study of paradoxical tensions and their management, although CPT is heavily influenced by the organizational context. Such an approach is ideally suited to studying the paradoxical tensions associated with the student- athlete. More details on the conditions faced by student-athletes now follow.

Additional Literature on Student-Athletes

There have been several studies across disciplines that focus on student-athletes. For example, much research has been done on both the mental and physical health of student- 16 athletes, including proper medical care for student-athletes from a younger age (Frye & Gregory,

2015) and concussion symptoms with relation to age, gender, and sport practiced (Mayhan, Van

Valkenburg, Nittoli, Shunk, & Jensen, 2018). Rubin and Moses (2017) sought to understand the concept of athletic subcultures, by examining the difference in the lives of student-athletes and regular students on campus. Dee (2014) and Riciputi and Erdal (2017) studied the stereotypes intrinsic with being an athlete at the collegiate level, both concluding that stereotyping may hinder student-athletes in the classroom.

Currently, much of the literature on student-athletes centers on one of two sides of the debate on whether there should be financial compensation for student-athletes (Bilas; 2017;

Byers & Hammer, 1995; Davis, 2017; Labaton, 2017; Osborne, 2014; Peebles, 2017; Swanson,

2017; Thompson & Burnett, 2017). Most of the news articles cited on this topic throughout this study are opinion-pieces by journalists and analysts seen on national news sources, such as

ESPN, The Washington Post, The Denver Post, etc., who favor either side of said debate - with the overwhelming majority in favor of paying student-athletes. However, Osborne’s (2014) essay is an example of the other side of the debate. The author calls the exploitation of student-athletes a “myth”, and the last lines of her essay are revealing of her point-of-view: “These are the rules.

If you don’t like the rules, don’t play!” (Osborne, 2014, p. 151). While the student-athlete topic has been hotly discussed for decades, it is clear that a more academic look at the paradoxical tensions present in the NCAA is necessary.

Currently, no published work has examined the student-athlete issue from the perspective of paradoxical tensions and contradictions, despite a few publications with titles similar to that of this research study (Hamilton, 2005; Lapchick & Malekoff, 1987). Hamilton’s 2005 article

“Putting the ‘Student’ back in Student-Athlete” presents an overview of new NCAA regulations 17 regarding graduation rates and university accreditations. In their 1987 book titled On the mark:

Putting the student back in student-athlete, Lapchick and Malekoff compile several stories from past and current student-athletes as a guide for future college athletes. The lack of studies of a paradoxical nature in sports environments demonstrate that despite tensions, paradoxes, and contradictions becoming the “order of the day” (Putnam et al., 2016, p. 75) in organizations, they are still a largely unexplored topic in sports organizations.

Research Questions

Using CPT, this study seeks to analyze tensions, contradictions, and paradoxes in the

NCAA, and how they are managed in a major text that challenges the current paradigm of college basketball. Two questions thus guide this thesis:

RQ1: What are the paradoxical tensions associated with being a student-athlete as described in the CCB report?

RQ2: How is the CCB report proposing that student-athlete paradoxical tensions be managed? 18

Chapter 3: Methods

Overview of Methods

Due to the seeming inevitable clash between the inherent meaning of the terms student and athlete, and the potential competing discourses that arise, it is only logical to choose a theoretical framework addressing paradoxical tensions. The most appropriate method to explore the tensions and contradictions within the NCAA and the CCB Report will be an inductive iterative approach, as described by Tracy (2013).

The iterative approach is a method of qualitative inquiry that requires repeated examination of the data, existing theory, and research to construct an in-depth and comprehensive understanding of qualitative data. It overlaps heavily with grounded theory methods and “encourages reflection upon the active interests, current literature, granted priorities and various theories the researcher brings to the data” (Srivastava & Hopwood, 2009, p. 77).

More specifically, the data in this study will be analyzed by a constant comparative method. As a reflexive process, constant comparison aims at building insight through continuous re-visitation of the text and data. As the name suggests, this approach requires constant coding and re-coding, again with the focus of producing deep understanding, ending only once data saturation is reached (Tracy, 2013). Such coding is expected to yield themes in the data that may reflect paradoxical tensions.

Data Collection

As discussed in Chapter 2 of this project, there have been many articles and opinion pieces written about the NCAA’s amateurism regulations, both in support and against. However, for the first time, the NCAA has not only openly addressed their shortcomings in enforcing their own bylaws, but also felt it necessary to create an independent commission to address issues it 19 seemingly cannot. Thus, the CCB Report is a unique 53-page document, created at the behest of the NCAA itself, yet still independent of it. It provides, then, an opportunity to study paradoxical tensions in a type of text that has never before been produced in this context.

Since the CCB report is a potentially paradigm shifting document, with ripples echoing throughout collegiate sports, other anecdotal data indicating further changes instituted by the

NCAA due to its recommendations will also be included. For example, an August 2018 statement by the NCAA has established that student-athletes may now return to school if not selected in the NBA draft (Tracy, 2018).

Data collection for documents that pertain to organizational paradoxical tensions in college basketball took place between April 25th, 2018 (publishing date of the report) to

November 6th, 2018 (date of the first game of the 2018-19 NCAA DI collegiate basketball season). This particular end date was adopted to assess the immediate impact of the CCB Report on the 2018-19 basketball season. However, articles documenting the direct or indirect effect of the report’s recommendations and the original FBI probe were included in this analysis, even if they occurred after the collection end-date. Most recommendations would likely not go into effect until the 2019-20 season, but some of the fallout from the FBI investigation that prompted the creation of the CCB Report is pertinent to this analysis, and was thus included.

In spite of the importance of the effect of the recommendations, most of the data collected came from the CCB Report. It is a public document, available for download in the

NCAA website. To help collect the data from the text analyzed, NVivo for Mac was the primary tool utilized. Its specialized software can house the data, aid in categorizing the multitude of tensions, and provide assistance for further analysis.

The CCB Report

Authors of the report, the Commission on College Basketball, was formed on October

2017, after the corruption scandal at the University of Louisville led to the resignation of long- time head coach Rick Pitino (Greer & Sayers, 2017; “Statement From President Mark Emmert”,

2017). Mark C. Emmert, president of the NCAA, created the CCB in an attempt to “make substantive changes to the way we [the NCAA] operate” (CCB Report, 2018, p. 15). Chaired by

Dr. Condoleeza Rice, the CCB also boasted of other prestigious members, such as General

Martin E. Dempsey, a former chairman of USA Basketball; Gene Smith, athletic director from the Ohio State University; Grant Hill, former Duke and NBA player and current Atlanta Hawks minority owner, among others.

The CCB was tasked with assessing “the state of the enterprise [college basketball] and to recommend transformational changes to address multiple issues and challenges” (CCB Report,

2018, p. 1). Focusing on an academic rebirth, it claimed that “[l]ost in the talk of big money and corruption is colleges’ central mission to provide higher education to students” (CCB Report,

2018, p. 2). Of the nine recommendations proposed by the Commission, two of the most important addressing the immediate issues of student-athletes in school included 1) allowing further freedom for high school and college prospects during recruitment periods, and 2) soliciting the NCAA to make universities commit to paying for degree completion, even if the student-athlete chooses to leave the school prior to the completion of a degree to pursue a professional career.

As an independent committee, the CCB has no physical or political power over any branch of athletics or basketball in the United States, which is why the solutions detailed in its report are referred to as recommendations, and not demands or laws. However, with a number of 21 respected members and the dire condition of the NCAA’s credibility, the CCB’s recommendations may indeed affect college basketball significantly.

Methods Review

This project examines a college sports environment through a tensional perspective.

Tracy’s (2013) iterative method is an ideal approach to study paradoxical tensions, due to the their ever-changing nature. The data set was analyzed through the constant comparison method, which requires repeated re-visitations of the data until saturation is reached. This approach allowed the author to assess the data set in great detail. The data set hails from the CCB Report, a

53-page public document commissioned by the NCAA. The CCB Report is supposed to assess the current state of college basketball and provide recommendations to solve some of the corruption issues that are plaguing men’s college basketball. As the first of its kind, the CCB

Report offers an unprecedented opportunity for the study of tensions in a college sports environment. 22

Chapter 4 - Results and Analysis

Upon collecting the data, a grounded iterative analysis yielded the following results for

RQ1: an incentive-disincentive paradoxical tension seems to be the catalyst for an array of sub- tensions stemming from the term student-athlete. The three main sub-tensions identified were: academics-athletics, tradition-status quo, and sufficient compensation-insufficient compensation.

For RQ2, the tension management strategies proposed by the CCB, as recommendations to address with these sub-tensions, were also identified. As a reminder, the three techniques of discursive management are either-or techniques (selection, separation, privileging of one pole over the other), both-and techniques (where opposites are inseparable and interdependent), and more-than techniques (transcending the current relationship between the poles and reframing the tension altogether (Putnam et al., 2016)). The identification of these paradoxical tensions and their tension management strategies is further explored in this chapter.

Incentive-Disincentive: The Skirted Paradoxical Tension

At first, the main paradoxical tension within the term student-athlete - the one that would generate an entire family of sub-tensions - appeared to be that of academics-athletics. However, upon several re-visitations of the data, it became increasingly clear that the central tension is one of incentive-disincentive; in other words, to pay or not to pay student-athletes. Incentive, in this case, is defined as time-constrained and strictly financial. It is time-constrained to the time period the student-athlete is attending college. Since student-athletes must remain amateurs throughout their enrollment in college, this paradoxical tension refers to the financial incentive (or lack thereof) during that period of forced amateurism:

The NCAA is frequently criticized for not permitting payment to student-athletes, on the ground that these young people are engaged in an activity that generates billions of dollars and yet they do not benefit (CCB Report, 2018, p. 7).

Many stakeholders noted that when the U.S. Attorney’s Office announced the charges that prompted the NCAA to establish this Commission, no one in the relevant community expressed surprise and many stated that “everyone knows” that these kinds of payments occur (CCB Report, 2018, p. 21).

In addition, terms related to financial incentives such as “pay” and “payment” are used 68 times in the CCB text, with other terms such as academics and athletics being used much less (53 and

58 times, respectively (CCB Report, 2018).

The decision by the CCB to not discuss the incentive-disincentive paradoxical tension is best understood as a skirting of the central tension. Skirting is defined as going around an obstacle or object, avoiding it by staying at the edge of it. It may seem like the CCB is actively choosing to discard the incentive-disincentive tension entirely, but seeing as it is pervasive in every part of the modern student-athlete experience, it is practically impossible to completely abandon it. In addition, rejecting the tension altogether could be seen as an either-or defensive mechanism strategy (Putnam et al., 2016). Defensive mechanisms are strategies used by individuals to deny the existence of the paradoxical tension (Smith & Berg, 1987; Vince &

Broussine, 1996). Thus, the distinction between “discarding” and “skirting” the central paradoxical tension is an important one. Discarding the tension is a marker of either-or defensive strategy solutions, while skirting it is a way to discuss other issues without actually approaching or managing the original tension.

The CCB justifies skirting the incentive-disincentive tension on a few grounds. For example, it states that the amount of money that could be provided as a salary to student-athletes would still not stop corruption, claiming that the NCAA would have to “adopt a full-scale professional model” to hamper corruption (CCB Report, 2018, p. 37). Another way college athletes could perhaps profit would be through having their names, image, and likeness (NIL) in advertisements. Yet, since players must remain amateurs, this is also forbidden by the NCAA. 24

The CCB recognizes this could be a solution, but that due to the NCAA’s current litigation with several student-athletes suing the NCAA for their NILs, there is a “lack of legal clarity on the matter” (CCB Report, 2018, p. 38). The current litigation against the NCAA, which apparently prevents the CCB from discussing a solution regarding NIL rights in their report, is a clear example of skirting (instead of discarding) of the incentive-disincentive tension. In recognizing the existence of this tension, but remaining in its periphery, the CCB allows its report to tackle other paradoxical tensions present in NCAA men’s basketball.

An understanding of the financial power of college sports is necessary to fully grasp what incentive could mean for student-athletes, as well as how substantial of a decision it was for the committee to begin their report by skirting the issue of paying student-athletes. Indeed, in one of the first pages of the report, the CCB rejects paying student-athletes by stating that the goal of the report is not to “make the NCAA another professional league” (CCB Report, 2018, p. 2).

Rejecting pay for student-athletes can mean denying them the possibility of receiving a very large amount of money. As described in previous sections, many universities with large athletic programs and the NCAA generate a large profit due to the athletic prowess of student-athletes

(Berr, 2015; Gaines & Nudelman, 2017; Smith, 2018). Some powerful examples of the revenues associated with college athletics come from college football. While student-athletes must adhere to the NCAA’s amateurism clauses, the average yearly revenue of a football program of an FBS school (Football Bowl Subdivision - the elite football division in the NCAA) is $31 million

(Gaines & Nudelman, 2017). Additionally, the most valuable college football team in the nation, the Texas A&M Aggies, reported revenues of $148 million in the 2017-18 season (Smith, 2018).

It is possible to see the effects of these revenues on other aspects of college sports, such as increased expenditure on coaches and facilities. The salary of college basketball coaches is 25 now in the millions of dollars, with Mike Krzyweski of Duke University receiving a near $9 million salary and John Calipari of the University of Kentucky (UK) receiving just under $8 million a year (Hess, 2019). The cost of athletic facilities is even more remarkable. The

University of Maryland approved in 2015 a $155 million renovation project for their basketball arena and training facilities (Hobson & Rich, 2015). Rupp Arena, the home of UK basketball, is currently undergoing a $241 million renovation to be completed in 2021 (Eblen, 2018), and the

University of Oregon has an athletic facility with wooden floors imported from Brazil and chairs from Italy (Hobson & Rich, 2015).

While it is true that the facilities are built for the student-athletes, these lavish athletic facilities are only possible because the athletic departments do not have to compensate the players financially. For example, the University of Florida football team has an indoor training field, and the Jacksonville Jaguars, of the NFL, do not. The Jaguars, however, have to pay their players (NFL average salary is around $3 million per year [Renzulli, 2019]). With around 55 players on an NFL roster, the player salaries result in a substantial expense, one that college athletic departments do not have to cope with, leaving the financial incentive for coaches, their staffs, and the facilities. Despite the large amount of money produced by college athletics, the

CCB skirts this tension, choosing instead to support the college model, seeking to “address the charge of player exploitation in other ways…” (CCB Report, 2018, p. 8). The “other ways” cited by the CCB become the sub-tensions further explored in this chapter.

The management strategy for this skirted paradoxical tension seems quite simple. Paying or not paying student-athletes falls into the either-or category of tension management, with selection or privileging of one pole over the other being a key marker of this type of strategy

(Putnam et al., 2016). For example, the NCAA and schools would either provide financial 26 incentive to student-athletes or not. However, a closer look reveals that more complex management strategies would also need to be considered.

Paying only the student-athletes who make the universities money (largely, men’s basketball and football programs [Gaines & Nudelman, 2017]), and not all student-athletes, is a solution that contains more nuance. This solution would more likely fit into a both-and category, since the poles of incentivizing and not incentivizing would reconcile - some students would be compensated, because of their contribution to school profits, while others would not. This approach may be perceived as fairer for the student-athletes in the men’s basketball and football teams, but it may also lead to decreased funds to the other sports in general, creating a possible conflict with Title IX regulations, and undermining the athletic department as a whole (Demby &

Gutierrez, 2018; Moser, 2015; Thelin, 2018). Providing certain student-athletes with financial incentive could also award certain programs an unfair advantage, since the most lucrative athletic departments would theoretically be able to pay their athletes more (Dosh, 2011).

While there is no way to know for certain what the effect of paying student athletes would be, it is widely regarded as the main issue with college basketball, and the reason for the recent corruption within major athletic departments. By actively choosing not to consider paying student-athletes, the CCB skirts the central paradoxical tension of incentive-disincentive identified in NCAA men’s basketball, denying potential solutions and management strategies that could be identified with it. However, other paradoxical tensions then arise from the decision to avoid the incentive-disincentive paradoxical tension, as I now describe.

Academics-Athletics

The Commission believes that the answer to many of college basketball’s problems lies in a renewed commitment to the college degree as the centerpiece of intercollegiate athletics. (CCB Report, 2018, p. 2)

Despite not being the considered the central paradoxical tension in the CCB report, the academics-athletics sub-tension is still pervasive, and it is deeply affected by the decision to avoid discussing financial incentive. Academics, in this case, is nearly self-explanatory.

Academic success can help propel a college graduate toward a strong professional career in any field of choice. In 2014, the Pew Research Center stated that the median yearly salary for young professionals with a bachelor’s degree was around $45 thousand, with high school graduates of the same age group reporting earnings of only $28 thousand per year (“The Rising Cost of Not

Going to College”, 2014). The unemployment rate for high school graduates is also four times higher than that of college graduates (2014). In addition, student-athletes have to maintain a certain GPA to keep their scholarships and to remain eligible to play for their respective sports teams (“Play Division I Sports”, n.d.). Thus, the value of academics for student-athletes, both while enrolled in a university and in their future careers, cannot be understated. Athletics, in this scenario, is also simple - student-athletes are members of the varsity sports teams in their respective universities and compete in athletic events throughout their college career.

The relationship between the two, however, is quite complex; one pole of the tension is often implicating the other. Academics-Athletics relates to the need for college athletes to be students while performing at a high level athletically. In the college athletics environment, classroom performance is fundamentally tied to on-court performance. Poor classroom performance will prevent a student-athlete from even stepping on the court and fulfilling the

“athletics” side of the paradoxical tension appropriately. On the other hand, poor on-court performance can lead to a scholarship being revoked (Bird, 2011; “Frequently Asked Questions

About the NCAA”, n.d.; Smith, 2017). Since many of these student-athletes would have “little 28 chance” (CCB Report, 2018, p. 1) of attending college if not for the athletic scholarships, losing that aid would thus prevent a student-athlete from performing the “academics” role altogether.

College athletes must be students in order to be student-athletes. Being a student in a

NCAA sanctioned institution means adhering to the amateurism rules. The amateurism rules prohibit, among other things, signing a contract with a professional team, practicing with professionals, accepting prize money, and consulting with a prospective agent (“Amateurism”, n.d.). Consequently, being a student at the same time as being an athlete severely impairs one’s ability to be an athlete in the modern sense of the word. Professional basketball players are compensated handsomely for their skills. The average NBA salary is above $6 million a year

(Gaines, 2016). By constantly having to manage the paradoxical tension between the academics aspect with the athletics aspect of being a student-athlete (both which are imperative to the very existence of their college career in the first place), student-athletes are in a constant state of flux, struggling to dedicate time and effort to one over the other. Prioritize academics excessively, and less practice time may lead to less game time and poor on-court performance. Prioritize athletics too much, and poor classroom performance may impede a student-athlete from practicing and playing games.

As it seems like the two sides of this pole are in an endless conflict with each other, the

CCB questions if “[t]he ideal of college basketball played by student-athletes who are part of the academic community…is still viable” (CCB Report, 2018, p. 2). This paradoxical tension, with poles clearly interdependent and inseparable, cannot be resolved with an either-or strategy.

Selection and separation, or choosing to prioritize a pole over the other, would lead to student- athletes failing either academically or athletically, and defensive mechanisms of denying the 29 existence of this paradoxical tension would lead only to student-athletes feeling like they are trapped, burnt-out, or like their struggles are inconsequential (Putnam et al., 2016).

With that in mind, the CCB provides recommendations to discursively manage this sub- tension that focus on the possibility of the coexistence of the poles, acknowledging their interdependence, and falling into the category of both-and responses. For example, some of the suggestions made by the CCB to manage the academics-athletics paradoxical tension are focused on expanding regulations to allow for more student-athlete freedom vis-à-vis their professional future. The CCB believes that elite basketball prospects need proper advice from agents, and will get it “illicitly” if they must (CCB Report, 2018, p. 6). In order to ensure that student-athletes receive proper advice through legal means, the CCB recommends that the NCAA should allow:

NCAA-certified agents to engage with student-athletes at an appropriate point in their high school careers… (CCB Report, 2018, p. 6).

In addition, it is imperative that student-athletes who seek this advice or are contacted by a

NCAA-certified agent are still be allowed to return to or attend a college (a clear contradiction of the current amateurism rules regarding agent contact):

The NCAA rules should provide that student athletes may meet and contract with NCAA- certified agents and that they will not lose their eligibility by doing so (CCB Report, 2018, p. 6).

Another recommendation refers to the rights of student-athletes regarding the NBA draft.

Currently, student-athletes who declare for the NBA draft but are not selected have professionalized themselves (since they showed intent to do so [“Amateurism”, n.d.]), and cannot return to the basketball team at their former university, or play basketball (or any other sport) at any other NCAA-sanctioned institution (Fominykh, 2019). The CCB states that:

Erroneously entering the NBA draft is not the kind of misjudgment that should deprive student-athletes of the valuable opportunity to enter college or to continue in college while playing basketball (CCB Report, 2018, p. 5). 30

A player chagrined to discover that he lacks an NBA future may grow into his collegiate experience and adopt a different plan for the future (CCB Report, 2018, p. 5)

More specifically, this CCB recommendation is aiming to increase the ability of student-athletes who do not get drafted into the NBA, allowing them to return to their colleges in that case.

In taking the onus of contacting agents away from the student-athlete (and onto the

NCAA and its certified agents), the CCB creates a situation where it would be possible to reconcile the student and athlete poles, by increasing the agency of student-athletes. The type of solution employed in these examples is most likely identified as an integration and balance both- and response, with some influence from paradoxical thinking as well.

Recall that as one the three types of both-and approaches by Putnam et al. (2016), integration and balance focus on compromises and “middle-of-the-road” approaches (Putnam et al., 2016, p. 60). Organizational members “avoid segmenting opposites or privileging one pole”

(2016, p. 59), instead seeking an equilibrium point between the poles. In order to reconcile the role of student with that of athlete, a healthy amount of paradoxical thinking will be required. As another one of the both-and approaches, paradoxical thinking focuses on “increasing cognitive abilities to recognize opposites… and shift mental sets” (2016, p. 60). Yet, paradoxical thinking often refers to more individual abilities, which can be affected by institutional constraints

(Putnam et al., 2016).

With the CCB recommending that student-athletes should have more autonomy regarding their professional and academic future, they are seeking integration between the academics- athletics poles. Achieving a balance between what is expected from (and allowed to) student- athletes, in order to ensure the success of the current NCAA system while still maximizing the agency of student-athletes, is the ultimate goal. Thus, these recommendations command a level 31 of paradoxical thinking, that is accepting of the contradictions and working through the tensions, in order to truly “allow student-athletes to be both students and athletes” (CCB Report, 2018, p.

8). However, the ultimate success of this recommendation will depend on the NCAA officials and student-athletes’ ability to embrace this kind of complexity (Bouchkhi, 1998; Smith &

Graetz, 2006).

Tradition-Status Quo

The second paradoxical tension identified in the CCB report was a tradition-status quo tension. This tension is rooted in several differing but interconnected factors. For example, tradition refers to the historically-rooted purity of college athletics, what college sports should look like habitually, and what they should ideally represent. Status quo signifies the position that the current lucrative model of college athletics has allowed some of the athletic programs, universities, and NCAA to achieve. The Commission states that “the rewards for violating the rules far outweigh the risks” (CCB Report, 2018, p. 10), demonstrating the existence of the tradition pole and status quo poles: tradition is represented by the NCAA rules and regulations, created to maintain the purity of college athletics; status quo is represented by the “rewards” that

“far outweigh the risks”, meaning it is lucrative enough for all parties to take the risk of breaking the rules. In order to maintain the tradition and purity of college athletics, the NCAA may have to make changes that will affect its status quo.

The CCB addresses the changes needed to current recruiting practices, including who can recruit, when, and how, the established high school and youth basketball systems, the third parties who sponsor these youth tournaments, among other things:

The NCAA rules hamstring college coaches and allow non-scholastic coaches and other third parties to become the primary influences over elite high school players. Indeed, Division I coaches complain that they are dependent on non-scholastic coaches, leagues 32

and events for opportunities to view players, giving those third parties even more leverage over high school players (CCB, 2018, p. 24).

The above statement is an example of the paradoxical tension itself and the tension management strategy used to manage it present in the same phrase. According to Schön (1983), when the paradoxical tension and the management strategy are found within the same statement it is called

“conflation”. Organizational members will often “prefigure problems based on preferred management strategies” (Sheep, Fairhurst, & Khazanchi, 2017, p. 12). Here, it is possible to identify the tension by how tradition, represented by the NCAA regulations that “hamstring” scholastic coaches, clashes with the influence of non-scholastic coaches that have helped the

NCAA reach their current lucrative model and status quo. However, by hinting that to manage this tension college coaches should be allotted more time with high school players, the CCB is also hinting at a more-than reframing and transcendence strategy, since the entire system would have to be restructured. This management strategy will be discussed further in the chapter.

First, to fully understand the tradition-status quo paradoxical tension, let us consider what tradition in college athletics means, its importance, and how it influences the maintenance of the current status quo. Due to its amateurism rules, college athletics has long been perceived as pure and earnest competition; some say that because NBA athletes are paid, the players become more interested in “themselves and their paychecks than winning a basketball game as a team”

(Wilcox, 2009). Playing the game “has become way too much about the money” instead of the

“blessing” that it is to play a game “for a living” (Jacksic, 2016). Even the CCB gives credence to this point of view, as it affirms that there is a unique “value” and “appeal” about a game played by student-athletes (CCB Report, 2018, p. 36). According to the opponents of the pay-for- play professional model, unimpaired by money and personal gain, student-athletes compete for nothing other than pride and bringing their schools glory. While this may have been true in the 33 past, with the aforementioned astronomical revenues associated with college sports, the era of

“pure” college sports (at least at the Division I level) is long gone. Yet, some of the biggest rivalries in sports in the United States are still college rivalries (Pumerantz, 2012; Wallenfeldt, n.d.), and the perception that collegiate athletics is better because student-athletes are unpaid remains (Jacksic, 2016; Wilcox, 2009).

The NCAA and athletic departments of large public universities in the US have achieved a level of status because of their athletic competitions. As stated before, the NCAA has seen its profits rise to just under a billion dollars (Berr, 2015). In addition, over thirty individual athletic departments reported revenues of above $100 million in the 2016-17 academic year, with the

University of Texas at Austin leading the way with $214 million in revenue (“NCAA Finances”, n.d.). In addition, 9.7 million people watched the 2018 men’s college basketball final game on television (“NCAA March Madness basketball tournament average TV viewership”, 2018), and

6.4% of American homes watched at least some of the first two weekends of March Madness

(Novy-Williams, 2019).

In light of these figures, it is difficult to argue that the future of college athletics is anything but bright. However, recent scandals, including the one that prompted the CCB report and this analysis, may affect that future. As the original FBI probe leads to more and more coaches accused (it has recently been revealed that the University of Arizona’s head coach was paying $10,000 a month to a student-athlete on his team (Chamberlain, 2019; Gleeson, 2019)) and convictions (Lerner, 2019; Red, 2019), the NCAA may feel the circle closing in on the more prestigious programs. If the current FBI investigation continues to reveal involvement of elite programs and coaches, the NCAA risks the possibility of college athletics losing their perception of purity and becoming tainted. According to the CCB, the state of college basketball is “deeply 34 troubled” and the “very survival” of the college game is now threatened (CCB Report, 2018, p.

1). It could conceivably lose them the viewership of the fans that believe college athletes are more committed and honest than their professional counterparts.

The threat to the status quo created by the FBI investigation begins to paint the picture on why there is a tension between the current status of the NCAA and the tradition it holds so dearly. The CCB argues that the intent of the model of college athletics should be to provide an avenue for high school students to continue their education through athletic scholarship (CCB

Report, 2018). Thus, the recommendations made by the CCB are directed at shifting the emphasis back to academics, traditionally the goal of college athletics.

Some paradoxical thinking is necessary to manage this tension. In order for the NCAA to maintain the tradition of college athletics (and their credibility and viewership), they might have to promote certain changes that could challenge the current status quo. The recommendations provided by the CCB concerned with the tradition-status quo paradoxical tension are perhaps among the most radical found in the 53-page document, with several new and stricter punishments for those who break the recruiting rules:

Increase the penalties for head coach restrictions to allow bans of more than one season; and increase the penalties for recruiting visit violations to allow full-year visit bans (CCB, 2018, p. 8)

Member institutions that employ a coach, athletic director or other administrator under a show cause order for a previous violation of NCAA rules must receive enhanced penalties if that individual’s program reoffends (CCB Report, 2018, p. 42).

Highlight the availability of a five-year ban from the NCAA tournament and the loss of all revenues from the tournament for that same period for member institutions’ programs found to have engaged in systematic, severe and repeated violations of NCAA rules (CCB Report, 2018, p. 42)

By creating harsher punishments, the CCB hopes these recommendations would have a direct impact on illicit activity. In addition, the CCB recognizes how the existing policing of infractions 35 is flawed (CCB Report, 2018). Currently, youth camp sponsors, agents, and universities largely regulate themselves, which is an inherent conflict of interests. There are stories of high school players receiving shoeboxes and duffle bags filled with cash from agents and sponsors (Hobson

& Armstrong, 2018; Witz, 2019). While there is always the possibility that the NCAA will learn of illegal practices, the onus on providing punishment falls to the organization that sponsors the agent. Thus, the CCB recognizes the need for a third-party investigative panel to provide proper regulation enforcement. The “independent panel of adjudicators”, as denoted by the CCB, would mean a shift in the current punitive relationship, reframing completely how the policing of recruitment happens (CCB Report, 2018, p. 40):

The NCAA’s investigative and enforcement processes require a complete overhaul. Complex cases must be thoroughly investigated, and resolved by neutral professional adjudicators, with authority to impose punishment that will have a significant deterrent effect (CCB Report, 2018, p. 9).

The independent panel of adjudicators must have the authority, on a motion to show cause, promptly to impose consequences for failure to cooperate in investigations of complex matters (CCB Report, p. 41).

The panel must be free to calibrate punishment without regard to past practice (CCB Report, 2018, p. 42).

In these recommendations, we can also see the “conflation” phenomenon Schön (1983) identified, where the preferred management strategy (the restructuring of the entire system) is mentioned in the same breath as the tension itself. While the recommendations are of sound logic, enforcing tighter regulations and creating an “independent panel” would also be financially costly for the NCAA. Thus, it is possible to identify the rise of the tradition-status quo paradoxical tension here; in accepting that it needs to police its regulations more actively, the

NCAA will be required to put some of its funds towards that goal, potentially hurting its 36 lucrative status. Yet, by ensuring these regulations are followed more diligently, the NCAA will also maintain the idea of purity that is traditionally associated with college athletics.

The tension management approach seen here, as discussed earlier in the chapter, aligns most closely with the more-than tension management strategies proposed by Putnam et al.

(2016). Recall that more-than approaches seek to reframe the tension entirely, moving outside of the oppositional pairs, and situating them in a new relationship (Putnam et al., 2016). It is possible to see how the suggestions made by the committee regarding recruiting practices and punishment fit with the reframing and transcendence more-than strategy. Reframing occurs when opposites are put into a “novel relationship” where the “poles are no longer pitted against each other” (Putnam et al., 2016, p. 64). Transcendence, as the name implies, requires the organizational members to move beyond the oppositional relationship between poles, and into one with a new level of meaning or expanded boundaries (Putnam et al., 2016; Ford & Backoff,

1988). In transforming the process of how individuals and sponsors would get punished for tampering with high school athletes, the CCB attempts to shift the paradoxical tension entirely and find a solution outside of the realm of what is being considered.

It is interesting to note that while more-than strategies are the best suited for long-term success, the reframing and transcendence approach can cause unintended consequences leading to new contradictions and paradoxical tensions (Jian, 2007). In this case, the creation of a non- partial third-party recruitment regulating committee would be complex. It would be tough to find truly impartial individuals with enough knowledge of the recruitment practices to ensure their ability to accurately investigate and judge transgressions. In addition, this committee would have to be permanent and “appointed for a term of years” (CCB Report, 2018, p. 9). 37

More-than solutions are not easy to implement, but if done properly, can ensure the long- term stability of an organization (Putnam et al., 2016). With the recommendations of altering the entire student-athlete recruitment process, the CCB is attempting to shift the tradition-status-quo paradoxical tension to focus what made the collegiate model successful in the first place. By providing proper penalty for those who break the recruitment rules, the focus could shift from maintaining the status quo to a well organized, profitable, and traditional collegiate model.

Sufficient Compensation-Insufficient Compensation

Finally, the sufficient compensation-insufficient compensation is the sub-tension most closely related to the original incentive-disincentive paradoxical tension. Sufficient compensation-insufficient compensation is specific to the argument that the education student- athletes receive is a worthy reason for the maintenance of the current system. The terms sufficient and insufficient refer to the value of a college education, and the argument that receiving a college education for free (through a scholarship), along with other benefits associated with the college experience (“The value of college sports”, n.d.), is compensation enough such that student-athletes should not receive any extra financial incentive.

Whereas the incentive-disincentive tension focuses on financial compensation, the compensation in the sufficient compensation-insufficient compensation tension is constructed of all other forms of compensation besides monetary that student athletes should receive while in college:

Student-athletes receive significant benefits from their college experiences, including the value of the scholarship (the full cost of a college education), the associated training, coaching and benefits of being on a collegiate team, and the lifelong incremental increase in earning power resulting from a college degree (CCB Report, 2018, p. 22).

The sufficient compensation pole pulls toward the belief that the things described above are enough for student-athletes, while the insufficient compensation pole pulls in the opposite direction – toward further compensation, including financial incentives.

A college education is extremely valuable. As mentioned in the academics-athletics section, high school graduates are four times more likely to be unemployed than college graduates (“The Rising Cost of Not Going to College”, February 2014). Studies have also shown that the median lifetime (based off a 40-year career estimate) earnings of college graduates is

65% higher than that of high school graduates, and 52% percent higher than individuals with some college, but no degree (Bayum, Ma, & Payea, 2013), and can amount to over $1 million in lifetime earnings (“The Economic Value of College Majors”, 2015). There is also evidence that a college education leads to healthier lifestyles (Bayum et al., 2013). As the value of a college education becomes exponentially more important, the question of it being sufficient compensation has never been more pertinent. Given these numbers, it is perhaps possible to say that a college education is indeed sufficient compensation. However, while an education should provide these benefits, both the quality of education for certain student-athletes and issue of just compensation have come into question in recent years.

Several schools have committed academic misconducts in the past to ensure their student- athletes could participate in sporting events. Beyond the North Carolina empty-classes case discussed earlier in the study (Tracy, 2017), an adjunct instructor at the University of Oregon changed a student-athlete’s grade from an F to a B-, allowing her to compete in events and receive her degree (James, 2018); a tutor at the University of Missouri took not only exams, but also entire classes for over a dozen student-athletes on campus (Lederman, 2019; Fornelli, 2019); and in 2016, Georgia Southern was put on probation because assistant coaches were completing 39 assignments and exams for student-athletes (New, 2016). The focus for these student-athletes, either individually or imposed by the athletic department/coaches, is clearly not on earning an education. Since only 1.2% of NCAA DI men’s basketball players are drafted into the NBA every year, a proper education remains important (“Men’s Basketball: Probability”, n.d.).

In addition, the length of the stay of elite-student athletes in college is increasingly shorter than the four years necessary to gain a degree and thus benefit fully from a college education (CCB Report, 2018). Over 20 freshmen are expected to be in the June 2019 NBA

Draft (nbadraft.net, 2019; Wasserman, 2018; Woo, 2019), representing around 30% of all drafted players. The NCAA states that 8 in 10 DI student-athletes receive college degrees, but this number is skewed by student-athletes in other non-revenue driving athletic programs (“Benefits to College Student-Athletes”, n.d.). According to the CCB Report, there is “general agreement that the graduation rate for men’s DI basketball players lags behind that of other student-athletes, perhaps significantly” (2018, p. 2).

The CCB presents an interesting viewpoint into what appears to be a paradoxical tension destined to be managed by an either-or selection strategy. Through the language used in the report, the CCB believes that an education is sufficient compensation for student-athletes, but not in its current state:

Lost in the talk of big money and corruption is colleges’ central mission to provide higher education to students (CCB Report, 2018, p. 2)

The NCAA has often failed to carry out its responsibilities to “maintain intercollegiate athletics as an integral part of the educational program and the athlete as an integral part of the student body.” NCAA Constitution 1.3.1 (CCB Report, 2018, p. 14).

The athletes generating these billions in revenues for NCAA colleges and universities and their coaches and administrators often are not receiving the benefit of the college education that they are promised (CCB Report, 2018, p. 37).

As discussed earlier in this section, a college education is extremely valuable, but the quality of education some student-athletes are receiving is dubious at best. Thus, the CCB recommends a deep restructuring of the academic curriculum for student-athletes, which could fall under both- and and more-than tension management strategies.

One of their recommendations involves allowing student-athletes to keep their scholarships even if they do leave universities early and become professional players. This would encourage athletes to return to school after their professional career is done:

The Commission recommends that the NCAA immediately establish a substantial fund and commit to paying for degree completion for student-athletes with athletic scholarships who leave college after progress of two years towards a degree (CCB Report, 2018, p. 36).

The extended scholarships would not only encourage student-athletes to stay an extra year, but also demonstrate to student-athletes the true importance of a college education, aiding in the reconciliation of the student and athlete roles:

It would require students who choose the collegiate path to understand that they are making a serious commitment to their education, and it would create a context in which athletes are ultimately more likely to receive their degrees (CCB Report, 2018, p. 31).

This recommendation seems to be an example of the integration and balance both-and approach.

In allowing student-athletes to return to college after the conclusion of their professional careers, the NCAA would be raising the importance of student-athlete success beyond the court, integrating the academics and athletics roles, and apparently solving the dilemma of sufficient or insufficient compensation.

In any case, the very fact that the CCB believes the current academic system is faulty hints at a more-than strategy. The CCB’s recommendation of restructuring the academic system for student-athletes through extended scholarships and the more severe regulations for transgressions are markers of the reframing and transcendence more-than approaches. Not unlike 41 their recommendation of overhauling the process of recruitment at a high school level described in the tradition-status quo section, the CCB is again suggesting that the best way to resolve a paradoxical tension would be to transcend the current oppositional poles and reframe them into a novel relationship:

The NCAA [must] revise and clarify its role in addressing academic fraud or misconduct by member institutions and make application of those rules consistent (CCB Report, 2018, p. 11).

Coaches, athletic directors and university presidents must be held accountable for academic fraud about which they knew or should have known. The standards and punishment for academic fraud must be clarified and then enforced consistently (CCB Report, 2018, p. 11).

The rules must be amended to allow the NCAA to address all academic fraud and cheating to the extent it is used to corrupt athletic eligibility (CCB Report, 2018, p. 43).

The central themes of the CCB’s recommendations vis-à-vis the current penalty structure are clarification and consistency. In taking jurisdiction, and providing clarity, the NCAA would be reshaping what the structure for punishment of academic misconduct looks like – which is still left mostly to the universities guilty of such violations.

Through a new and more severe punishment structure, the relationship between sufficient compensation-insufficient compensation would consequently change. The education provided would be revamped (thanks to higher levels of oversight), and would then become sufficient compensation for student-athletes (CCB Report, 2018). Yet, this would be a massive undertaking, and one that similarly to the previous paradoxical tension approached by reframing and transcendence, would yield novel paradoxical tensions and unintended consequences. For example, a system with higher accountability could also expose further transgressions, something that those in power may wish to keep hidden. In addition, the cost of revamping the 42 system would be significant – something the CCB affirms is “necessary” to “provide meaning to the phrase student-athlete” in “today’s world” (CCB Report, 2018, p. 37).

Beginning with the central tension of incentive-disincentive, which is being purposefully avoided or skirted by the CCB report, this chapter discussed the paradoxical tensions identified in the CCB Report. Stemming from the central tension are the academics-athletics, tradition- status quo, and sufficient compensation-insufficient compensation sub-tensions. The management strategies associated with each sub-tension were also identified and discussed. In the next chapter, the implications for the recommendations as tension management strategies and their potential limitations are examined.

Chapter 5: Discussion & Implications

Overview

In this chapter, the implications for the results found through an iterative textual analysis of the data body are explored. If we recall the questions that guided this project, RQ1 sought to identify which paradoxical tensions are associated with being a student-athlete according to the

CCB Report, and RQ2 explored the management strategies, through the lens of Putnam et al.

(2016), associated with the paradoxical tensions identified in RQ1.

In response to RQ1, a paradoxical tension characterized by an incentive-disincentive relationship was identified as the central tension in the CCB Report. However, the decision to skirt the incentive-disincentive paradoxical tension led to the three sub-tensions identified in this analysis: academics-athletics, tradition-status quo, and sufficient compensation-insufficient compensation. In response to RQ2, the CCB provided recommendations for the issues plaguing college athletics, interpreted as tension management strategies. The academics-athletics sub- tension was managed through a both-and response, tradition-status quo through a more-than approach, and sufficient compensation-insufficient compensation through a combination of recommendations that would fall under both-and and more-than styles.

Having identified the main paradoxical tensions in the CCB report in previous chapters, the next sections will focus on the implications of the paradoxical tensions and of the proposed management strategies of the paradoxical tensions identified in the CCB report. Additionally, this chapter provides directions for future research and discusses the limitations of this project.

Implications of Tensions

Regarding the incentive-disincentive paradoxical tensions and the creation of sub- tensions, it is important to recall that while paying or not paying student-athletes seems like a 44 situation with a clear either-or selection resolution, it is a much more complex issue. If the CCB were to recommend student-athletes should be paid, several considerations (and paradoxical tensions) would still arise. Consider what the NCAA and universities would have to contemplate: how much to pay the student-athletes, if it should be a fixed salary or determined by a specific university’s profit margin, which student-athletes should receive this incentive, etc. If universities were allowed to pay based on their profits, this could encourage boosters (supporters of universities who donate money specifically to athletic departments) into an arms race, and provide certain universities with an unfair competitive advantage. Each of these issues would yield similar questions, and require extensive research and compromise between several parties.

Thus, it seems like skirting the incentive-disincentive paradoxical tension was a prudent move by the CCB, but it still sparked other paradoxical tensions, as we have seen throughout this project. By remaining in the periphery of the incentive-disincentive tension, the tensions of academics-athletics, tradition-status quo, and sufficient compensation-insufficient compensation are generated, and intensify. Choosing not to pay student-athletes spawned a number of paradoxical tensions, but deciding to provide financial incentive for student-athletes would create a plethora of paradoxical tensions as well.

Even though incentive-disincentive was found to be the central paradoxical tension in the

CCB report, student-athlete is the root tension of college athletics, since the very nature of the term student-athlete is paradoxical and oppositional. Both are occupations often associated with full-time commitments. However, as long as the collegiate model exists, student-athletes will have to find a way to manage this inherent tension of academics-athletics. Thus, the academics- athletics paradoxical tension may have implications and an underlying influence vis-à-vis all other paradoxical tensions. 45

Consider the current socio-historic conditions that may have allowed incentive- disincentive to become the central tension. Without the exorbitant salaries commanded by NBA players (Gaines, 2016), and the accompanying technological advances (internet, social media, etc.) that allowed that information to be disseminated, the concern with paying student-athletes would not be as pertinent. It can be argued that until the modern era of professional sports, the central paradoxical tension in college athletics was one of academics-athletics. Indeed, even the

CCB recognizes (several times in the CCB Report) that its recommendations are geared to returning NCAA men’s basketball to what it was prior to this era:

The levels of corruption and deception are now at a point that they threaten the very survival of the college game as we know it. It has taken some time to get here, and it will take time to change course (CCB Report, 2018, p. 1).

It is imperative to notice the use of language associated with time, in conjunction with language regarding financial incentives and corruption, in the above quote from the CCB Report. By using language such as “now”, “taken some time to get here”, and “take time to change”, in relation to

“corruption” and “deception”, the CCB indicates a causal relationship between the current era of modern athletics with the existence of the incentive-disincentive paradoxical tension.

The other two sub-tensions can be connected to the academics-athletics sub-tension as well. Tradition-status quo represents a clash between the traditional ideals associated with college athletics and the current status of the NCAA. The tradition of college athletics is rooted in the fact that the athletes are also students, and therefore, compete for their schools out of pride and competitive spirit (CCB Report, 2018; Jacksic, 2016). Hence, academics-athletics is inherently associated with tradition.

Additionally, sufficient compensation-insufficient compensation is also actively connected to academics-athletics. This paradoxical tension stems from the decision not to pay 46 student-athletes, and whether an education can be considered compensation enough. However, as has been demonstrated throughout this report, the student-athletes are promised a level of education that is often not delivered (CCB Report, 2018; James, 2018; Lederman, 2019; Fornelli,

2019; New, 2016; Tracy, 2017). The quality of academics is central to the sufficient compensation-insufficient compensation paradoxical tension, making it closely related to the academics-athletics sub-tension as well.

The corruption in NCAA men’s college basketball is what prompted the CCB Report, but this corruption has only reached its current level due to the amounts of money associated with college athletics (CCB Report, 2018). The academics-athletics tension, or the need to be a student and an athlete at the same time, has existed for much longer. Nonetheless, the current socio-historic conditions dictate that the central tension of the CCB report is incentive- disincentive, despite the seniority academics-athletics.

CCB Recommendations: Themes & Overlap in Management Strategies

Beyond the potential influence of academics-athletics on the other sub-tensions, it is possible to identify common themes and overlaps between the management strategies deployed for two separate sub-tensions. Only two of the three types of management strategies put forth by

Putnam et al. (2016) were recognized in the CCB Report: both-and and more-than. More specifically, all of the tensions seem to be managed with both-and integration and balance strategies or more-than reframing and transcendence strategies. This allows for the examination of common themes in the sub-tension’s management strategies.

Both the academics-athletics and sufficient compensation-insufficient compensation paradoxical tensions were managed with the both-and integration and balance approach. The

CCB recommended that academics-athletics be managed by allowing student-athletes to return 47 to school if not drafted, increasing the value of academics and the probability of student-athletes returning to college after their professional careers end (CCB Report, 2018). According to the

CCB, one of the ways of managing the sufficient compensation-insufficient compensation paradoxical tension would be to allow student-athletes to keep their scholarships even if they do leave universities early and become professional players (CCB Report, 2018). This recommendation would also increase the apparent importance of a college education, and help integrate the roles of student and athlete. While the recommendations and management strategies pertain to different paradoxical tensions, their solutions follow a common theme of providing the student-athletes with more agency and rights regarding their education. They also overlap, and are complementary, in two important ways: first, both seek to reconcile the roles of student and athlete; second, allowing undrafted student-athletes to return to school means very little if their scholarships are revoked. Thus, without the appropriate management of the sufficient compensation-insufficient compensation paradoxical tension, the recommendation and management strategy employed for the academics-athletics paradoxical tension would incomplete, and faulty.

The second recommendation made by the CCB regarding the sufficient compensation- insufficient compensation tension, a more-than reframing and transcendence approach, also complements and is complemented by the academics-athletics sub-tension. In recommending that the NCAA should consider a complete restructure of the academic system, allowing student- athletes certain concessions, the sufficient compensation-insufficient compensation complements again the academics-athletics both-and management strategy of providing student-athletes with more agency. Restructuring the rules of academics for student-athletes would have to occur at an organizational level, but the impact would be felt at a local level – it would grant student-athletes 48 with a safety net in case they went undrafted, increasing, in tandem, the agency of student- athletes regarding their professional prospects and academic careers.

Restructuring the academic system is not the only restructuring the CCB calls for (CCB

Report, 2018). In the recommendations for the tradition-status quo paradoxical tension, the CCB also claims that the best way to manage the tension and maintain the purity of college athletics while ensuring profits remain high is to restructure the current recruitment and penalty system. It is important to note that the restructuring of such large systems would require a considerable amount of dialogue. Dialogue is at the heart of more-than strategies. These restructuring recommendations supported by more-than strategies are large repairs, and it can be presumed that dialogues in which “stakeholders treat opposite poles as equally valued” would have to take place. However, “engaging in dialogue requires time and skill”, something that is often “difficult for organizational members” (Putnam et al., 2016).

In any case, not only is the theme of more-than and restructuring very similar to the sufficient compensation-insufficient compensation paradoxical tension, but the harsher penalties the CCB recommends would have a direct impact in that sub-tension as well. The CCB is specific when discussing the new penalties for recruitment violations, something that it fails to do when discussing academic violations. For example, the CCB demands that the penalties for recruiting violations should include “full-year visit bans” (CCB Report, 2018, p. 8), and “loss of all revenues from the tournament” (2018, p. 42) in case of multiple infractions. These harsher punishments would discourage not only recruitment violations (CCB Report, 2018), but also all other misconducts. If the NCAA or an independent panel had to power to provide such penalties, all infractions would be severely discouraged, and not just the ones pertaining to recruitment or academics. 49

There are overlapping themes vis-à-vis the management of the paradoxical tensions in the

CCB Report. By managing the academics-athletics and sufficient-insufficient compensation tensions with a both-and strategy, the management strategies become complementary and function better in tandem. The same occurs with the more-than strategies utilized for the tradition-status quo and sufficient compensation-insufficient compensation paradoxical tensions.

These sub-tensions are inherently related, as they stem from the same central incentive- disincentive tension, thus it is only logical that the recommendations and management strategies are inherently linked as a result.

Future Research

At the end of the FBI investigation, once all the results, accusations, and convictions have been assessed, it would be extremely interesting to see research of a similar theoretical perspective on the tensions in the NCAA post-CCB Report fallout. Whether the NCAA adopts one, some, or none of the recommendations provided by the CCB, future studies could examine the impact of the CCB on future NCAA regulations. There are five major areas worthy of investigation.

First, in the same category, if the NCAA does indeed chose to allow student-athletes to receive financial incentive (thus not only recognizing the incentive-disincentive tension, but also adopting an either-or selection strategy), an entirely novel study would present itself. If the incentive-disincentive tension is managed, then what would happen to the identified tensions discussed in this project? Would they cease to exist, or manifest themselves in other ways? In addition, new tensions would arise from that decision, as well as probable unintended consequences. Regardless, it seems like a ripe field for potential research. 50

Second, the paradoxical tensions in the CCB are interconnected, as they stem from a central incentive-disincentive tension to form three sub-tensions: academics-athletics, tradition- status quo, and sufficient compensation-insufficient compensation. The management strategies associated with all three have also been shown to be linked, and complementary. Management strategies associated with academics-athletics and sufficient compensation-insufficient compensation provide together more agency and autonomy for student-athletes, while strategies associated with tradition-status quo and sufficient compensation-insufficient compensation provide the NCAA with a proper blueprint on more effective punitive practices. Thus, it is possible that future research in this area might benefit from a perspective that embraces these tensions as interconnected and interdependent, stemming from a central group of tensions, known as a knot (Norton & Sadler, 2006; Sheep, Fairhurst, & Khazanchi, 2017).

Dialectical tensions are increasingly seen as never entirely resolved processes (Ashcraft,

2005; Mumby, 1997, 2005). As such, according to Norton and Sadler (2006), examining tensions as single dialectics is a less effective way to analyze tensions. Norton and Sadler (2006) suggest an embrace of “intertwining, interactive nature of sets of dialectics or a knot of contradictions” in certain scenarios (p. 374). The authors demonstrate a situation in which the poles of a dialectic were not only oppositional, but also complementary in several ways (2006). Through the perspective of a central knot, the authors were then able to identify each of the dialectics, tensions, and contradictions present in the knot, as well as describe how they were managed

(Norton & Sadler, 2006). Additionally, in a study of dialectical tensions in a corporate spin-off,

Sheep et al. (2017) demonstrated how the organizational actors themselves might actually characterize the central knot. A study incorporating these two perspectives could provide further insight into how tensions manifest in college sports environments. 51

Third, the use of the word “skirt” in this project is a purposeful one. As described in the

Incentive-Disincentive: The Skirted Tension section, the CCB report does not discard the central tension, but instead chooses to remain in its periphery. Tensional studies have so far discussed the identification of paradoxes, dialectics, tensions, and contradictions, and their active management (Norton & Sadler, 2006; Putnam et al., 2016; Schad et al., 2016; Sheep et al.,

2017). However, a potential future research direction could involve looking at these phenomena as not being actively managed but being skirted instead, or include skirting as a management strategy. By skirting the central tension, the CCB does not discard or deny its existence, but also does not seek to actively manage it. Skirting could become an interesting term for future research from tensional perspectives.

Fourth, as recent as May 2019, it was revealed that some of the same recruitment violations and corruption experienced in NCAA men’s basketball might have occurred with

NCAA football programs as well (Bieler, 2019; Heim, 2019). NCAA football is the most lucrative sport in the college athletics realm, and a scandal there would mean that both sports that contribute financially in a substantial manner to the NCAA would be under investigation. While a formal investigation into college football has not yet been launched, the football programs mentioned by witness testimony are some of the biggest in the nation, and include Alabama,

Clemson, Michigan, and Notre Dame (Bieler, 2018; Heim, 2019). A potential study analyzing the paradoxical tensions that come with being a student-athlete in a college football team would be interesting in terms of comparison with men’s college basketball, to examine how different or similar the student-athletes’ experiences may be.

Fifth, the CCB Report provided a perspective never before seen in this setting. However, this project was external to the NCAA, the universities, and the student-athletes’ quotidian lives. 52

An ethnographical method could provide an intriguing insider perspective into the reality of student-athletes and the paradoxical tensions cited and examined in this study. Access could be an issue, since DI college athletic departments are notoriously secretive, but the perspective it could produce would be worth the potential hindrances of access. Researchers could begin at smaller institutions and eventually climb into large DI athletic staffs, but the ethnographic findings from smaller institutions could also be meaningful.

Limitations

There are three primary limitations associated with this study. First, this project had only one coder/researcher - the author himself. With this, come issues of positionality in the examination of the data set. The author is a former student-athlete at a DIII level, has experienced the life of DI student-athletes through professional and personal connections, and has been openly critical of NCAA amateurism policies. These personal connections and beliefs do not reduce the significance of the findings and analysis, but do introduce a potential sympathy bias toward student-athletes. However, the author was thorough and worked closely with an advisor that challenged the author’s findings and explanations, minimizing the possibility of the analysis coming from a potentially limited perspective.

Second, although the Commission of College Basketball Report may be a potentially paradigm shifting document, this analysis may still be somewhat limited by using it as the main text. The Commission on College Basketball was formed as a response to the first findings from the 2016 FBI probe regarding the University of Louisville (Greer & Sayers, 2017; “Statement

From President Mark Emmert”, 2017), and while independent, it was still formed by the NCAA.

In addition, the members of the CCB are well respected in their areas, but they are still people with potential agendas and biases. The CCB chose to focus on an academic rebirth (CCB Report, 53

2018) instead of what many perceive to be the NCAA’s key issue: paying student-athletes (a potential indication of their need to still appease the NCAA officials). This study is an analysis of the paradoxical tensions that currently exist in college basketball, but it is constructed through an exploration of the CCB Report. Having only one document as the basis of an analysis can be problematic. However, the author was careful to incorporate other points of view, from pundits and journalists, in order to counter the prevalence of one piece of text and minimize this limitation.

Lastly, as this study is concluded in May 2019, the fallout from the FBI probe is still ongoing. Earlier this month, Christian Dawkins, a so-called “middle-man” for universities and athletic departments looking to provide illegal incentives to players, was found guilty of bribery and conspiracy to commit bribery (Shapiro, 2019; Neumeister, 2019). With him, youth basketball coach Merl Code was also convicted of bribery (Shapiro, 2019; Neumeister, 2019).

Dawkins and Code would take money from coaches and athletic departments, and in turn secure the services of elite high school players to their universities (Witz, 2019). Four assistant coaches linked with Dawkins and Code have pled guilty to bribery charges without trial, and await sentencing (Neumeister, 2019). In addition, Will Wade, head coach of Louisiana State University

(LSU), was caught on a wiretap speaking with Dawkins about payments. Wade has not spoken on the accusations, and has been suspended by LSU. He awaits formal charges (Neumeister,

2019).

Listed above are simply the developments of the past couple of weeks. With over 20 schools cited in the FBI probe, it is difficult to know what to expect next (Schad, 2018). The ongoing nature of the FBI probe is a potential limitation to this project because of its uncertainty.

Conclusion

Organizational tensional studies are increasingly popular (Putnam et al., 2016; Schad et al, 2016), and the collegiate athletic environment is an unexplored context for tensional inquiry.

This project provides a blueprint for future studies of this nature in collegiate sports. Through an analysis of the CCB report, this project was able to answer the research questions by identifying the paradoxical tensions associated with the term student-athlete and the management strategies associated with each paradoxical tension.

However, this project also identified a central, but latent tension that created and exacerbated all three of the other sub-tensions discussed. The term student-athlete represents the two main poles a college athlete must contend with: academics and athletics. As such, the academics-athletics tension was expected to be the central paradoxical tension, and the analysis of this data set began with that assumption. However, through multiple re-visitations of the CCB report, it became clear that the current state of NCAA men’s basketball and the paradoxical tensions that arise from it hail from an incentive-disincentive relationship. Once the central tension was identified, the project was then re-shaped, and the following three sub-tensions were identified and examined, along with their management strategies.

Academics-athletics remained as a pertinent paradoxical tension, and the management strategies associated with it were of the both-and integration and balance type. Tradition-Status

Quo was the second sub-tension identified, describing the relationship between the lucrative present of college athletics with the need to adhere to traditional characteristics associated with the collegiate athletic model. The management strategies associated with this sub-tension were more-than transcendence approaches. The last main sub-tension identified, sufficient compensation-insufficient compensation, arises directly from the decision to not provide student- 55 athletes with financial incentive. One pole represents the notion that a college education is enough compensation, while the other represents the notion that college athletics is too lucrative of a business to not pay student-athletes. This sub-tension was managed through a both-and integration and balance strategy, and also a more-than transcendence approach. It is interesting to note that despite being considered the simpler management strategy, allowing for quick (but not lasting) fixes (Putnam et al., 2016), strategies that follow either-or solution patterns were avoided by the CCB in their recommendations.

Finally, recall that as an independent committee, the CCB has no physical or political power over any branch of athletics or basketball in the United States. Hence, the solutions detailed in its report are referred to as recommendations, and not demands, rules, or laws. With a number of respected members and the dire condition of the NCAA’s credibility, the CCB’s recommendations may indeed affect college basketball significantly (CCB Report, 2018). Some recommendations have already been implemented, such as student-athletes being able to enter the NBA draft and return to school if not selected, while some may even hire agents (Bauer-

Wolf, 2018; Bondy, 2018; Fominykh, 2018).

While there is no definitive way of linking the actual changes in the NCAA’s regulations and the CCB Report, another example of the potential power of the CCB Report and ripple effect caused by it comes from college football. A recent article on the quarterback of the Clemson

Tigers has listed several alternative solutions to providing the players with a fairer level of compensation, very similar to the recommendations from the CCB Report (Armour, 2018). CFB players and experts have taken notice to the prospective paradigm shift in men’s college basketball, and are making similar assessments for football. College athletics is a billion-dollar 56 industry (Berr, 2015; Gaines & Nudelman, 2017; Smith, 2018), and rocking the boat will result in the rise of tensions that need to be identified and navigated.

The implications of this project are both theoretical and practical. Theoretically, it can contribute to existing research in paradoxes in the workplace in a novel context that is rife with contradictions and difficulties managing them. Practically, the NCAA may use the results of this study as a guide to possible management strategies heretofore not considered by them. As such, the results of this study could be significant in shaping the future study of paradoxes in collegiate sports, and how they are managed. 57

References

2018 NBA Draft. (2018, June 21). NBA.com. Retrieved from: http://www.nba.com/draft/2018/

board#/

2019 Mock Draft. (2019, January 11). nbadraft.net. Retrieved from: https://www.nbadraft.net/

2019mock_draft

Amateurism. (n.d.). NCAA. Retrieved from: http://www.ncaa.org/student-athletes/future

/amateurism

Armour, N. (2018, January 8). Opinion: Everybody except Trevor Lawrence making money off

his Clemson career. USA Today. Retrieved from: https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/

columnist/nancy-armour/2019/01/08/everybody-except-trevor-lawrence-making-money-

off-his-clemson-career/2515081002/

Ashcraft, K. L. (2005). Resistance through consent?. Management Communication Quarterly,

19(1), pp. 67–90.

Ashcraft, K. L., & Trethewey, A. (2004). Practicing Disorganization: The Development of

Applied Perspectives on Living with Tension. Journal of Applied Communication

Research, Vol. 32(2), pp. 171-181.

Auerbach, N. & Martin, J. (2014, February 17). One and done, but never as simple as it sounds.

USA Today. Retrieved from: https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2014/

02/17/college-basketball-nba-draft-early-entry-one-and-done-rule/5552163/

Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). Discourse in the novel. In M. Holquist (Ed.), The dialogic imagination:

Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans. Pp. 259-422. Austin,

TX. University of Texas Press. (Original work published in 1975) 58

Bartunek, J. M., Walsh, K, & Lacey, C. A. (2000). Academics and practitioners are alike and

unlike: The paradoxes of academic-practitioner relationships. Journal of Management,

40(5), p. 1181-1201.

Bauer-Wolf, J. (2018, August 9). ‘Committed Change’ for Men’s Basketball. Insider Higher Ed.

Retrieved from: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/08/09/new-ncaa-rules-allow-

mens-basketball-players-have-agents-return-college-if-undrafted

Baxter, L. A. (2011). Voicing relationships a dialogic perspective. Washington, DC: Sage.

Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues & dialectics. New York:

Guildford Press.

Bayum, S., Ma, J., & Payea, K. (2013). Education Pays 2013: The Benefits of Higher Education

for Individuals and Society. College Board. Retrieved from:

https://trends.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/education-pays-2013-full-report.pdf

Benefits to College Student-Athletes. (n.d.). NCAA.org. Retrieved from: http://www.ncaa.org/

student-athletes/benefits-college-student-athletes

Berr, J. (2015, March 20). March Madness: Follow the Money. CBS News. Retrieved from:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/march-madness-follow-the-money/

Bieler, D. (2019, April 24). Courtroom testimony pulls college football into college basketball

bribery scandal. Washington Post. Retrieved from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/

sports/2019/04/24/courtroom-testimony-pulls-college-football-into-college-basketball-

bribery-scandal/?utm_term=.2473dd222f5b

Bilas, J. (2017, September 28). Why the college basketball scandal won’t get fixed until the

NCAA pays athletes. ESPN.com. Retrieved from: http://www.espn.com/mens-college-

basketball/story/_/id/20841877/until-ncaa-solves-money-problem-pays-athletes-problems-

continue

Bird, H. (2011, March 31). NCAA Scholarship Rules Expose Yet Another Hypocrisy in College

Sports. Bleacher Report. Retrieved from: https://bleacherreport.com/articles/650884-ncaa-

scholarship-rules-expose-yet-another-hypocrisy-in-college-sports

Blackistone, K. B. (2017, December 14). Paying athletes would break college sports? Never

before has that been more hypocritical. The Chicago Tribune. Retrieved from:

http://www.chicagotribune.com / sports /college/ct-paying-athletes-college-sports-

20171214-story.html

Bondy, S. (2018, August 8). NCAA will allow players to return to school after declaring for

NBA draft, some players can hire agents. NY Daily News. Retrieved from:

https://www.nydailynews.com/sports/college/ny-sports-ncaa-basketball-20180808-

story.html

Bouchikhi, H. (1998). Living with and building complexity: A constructivist perspective on

organizations. Organization, 5(2), pp. 217-232.

Bushnell, H. (2018, March 9). What to know about the college basketball scandal and its fallout.

Yahoo Sports. Retrieved from: https://sports.yahoo.com/know-college-basketball-scandal-

fallout-195645295.html

Byers, W. & Hammer, C. H. (1995). Unsportsmanlike conduct: exploiting college athletes. Ann

Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. 60

Cato, T. (2018, February 15). College basketball corruption case will “fundamentally alter”

sport, per report. SBNation. Retrieved from: https://www.sbnation.com/college-

basketball/2018/2/15/17018536/college-basketball-corruption-case-fbi-investigation-

fundamentally-alter-sport-report

Chamberlain, S. (2019, May 1). Assistant claimed Arizona hoops coach Sean Miller ‘bought’

star player for $10G per month. Fox News. Retrieved from: https://www.foxnews.com/

sports/sean-miller-deandre-ayton-arizona-basketball-10g-month-book-richardson

Commission on College Basketball (2018). Report and Recommendations To Address The Issues

Facing Collegiate Basketball. NCAA.

Countable Athletic Related Activities (n.d.). NCAA.org. Retrieved from: https://www.ncaa.org/

sites/default/files/20-Hour-Rule-Document.pdf

Current Players: Division II and III. (n.d.). NBA.com. Retrieved from: https://www.nba.com/draft

2004/players_smallschool.html

Davis, S. (2017, March 16). ESPN analyst Jay Bilas says college basketball players have

discussed boycotting the Final Four - and that they have the grounds to do it. Business

Insider. Retrieved from: https://www.businessinsider.com/jay-bilas-college-basketball-

players-discussed-protesting-final-4-2017-3

Dee, T. S. (2014). Stereotype Threat And The Student Athlete. Economic Inquiry, Western

Economic Association International, 52(1), 173-182.

Demby, G., & Gutierrez, M.P. (2018, March 23). Why Shouldn’t We Pay Student-Athletes?

npr.org. Retrieved from: https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2018/03/23/596132113/

why-shouldnt-we-pay-student-athletes 61

Dimengo, N. (2014, September 2014). Dumbest Examples of Rule Violations in Sports.

Bleacher Report. Retrieved from: https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2193344-dumbest-

examples-of-rule-violations-in-sports#slide0

Division I Progress-Toward-Degree Requirements. (n.d.). NCAA. Retrieved from:

http://www.ncaa.org/about/division-i-progress-toward-degree-requirements

Dosh, K. (2011, June 9). The Problems With Paying College Athletes. Forbes. Retrieved from:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sportsmoney/2011/06/09/the-problems-with-paying-college-

athletes/#3a4f5ecc5f7c

Eblen, T. (2018, June 28). Rupp Arena, Lexington Center renovation to cost $241 million, be

finished by late 2021. Lexington Herald Leader. Retrieved from:

https://www.kentucky.com/news/local/counties/fayette-county/article213989 524.html

Fominykh, K. (2018, August 8). NCAA will allow undrafted basketball players to return to their

schools, ‘elite’ players to have agents. Baltimore Sun. Retrieved from:

https://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/college/bs-sp-ncaa-new-rules-20180808-story.html

Ford, J.D., & Backoff, R.H. (1988). Organizational change in and out of dualities and paradox.

In R.E. Quinn & K.S. Cameron (Eds.), Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of

change in organization and management (pp. 81-122). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Forde, P. & Thamel, P. (2018, February 23). Exclusive: Federal documents detail sweeping

potential NCAA violations involving high-profile players, schools. Yahoo Sports.

Retrieved from: https://sports.yahoo.com/exclusive-federal-documents-detail-sweeping-

potential-ncaa-violations-involving-high-profile-players-schools-103338484.html

Fornelli, T. (2019, January 31). NCAA hits Missouri with one-year postseason ban, recruiting

restrictions for academic violations. CBS Sports. Retrieved from:

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/ncaa-hits-missouri-with-one-year-

postseason-ban-recruiting-restrictions-for-academic-violations/

Foucault, M. (1983). The subject and power. In Dreyfus, H. L., Rabinow, P. (Eds.), Michel

Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics. (p. 208-226). Chicago, IL: Chicago

University Press.

Frequently Asked Questions About the NCAA. (n.d.). Retrieved from: http://www.ncaa.org/

about/frequently-asked-questions-about-ncaa

Freud, A. (1937). The ego and the mechanisms of defence (C. Baines, Trans.). London: The

Hogarth Press.

Frye, S., & Gregory, A. J. (2015). Care of the student-athlete. Contemporary Pediatrics, 32(8).

Retrieved from: http://go.galegroup.com.proxy.libraries.uc.edu/ps/i.do?p=EAIM&u=

ucinc_main&id=GALE|A435716831&v=2.1&it=r&sid=summon

Gaines, C. (2014, December 16). The 20 Highest-Paid Coaches in College Basketball. Business

Insider. Retrieved from: https://www.businessinsider.com/highest-paid-coaches-college-

basketball-2014-12

Gaines, C. (2016, November 14). NBA players have the highest-average salaries in the world but

no league spends more on players than the NFL. Business Insider. Retrieved from:

http://www.businessinsider.com/nfl-mlb-nba-nhl-average-sports-salaries-2016-11

Gaines, C. (2018, June 5). The 27 highest-paid players in the NBA for the 2017-18 season.

Business Insider. Retrieved from: http://www.businessinsider.com/nba-highest-paid-

players-2017-10 63

Gaines, C., & Nudelman, M. (2017, October 5). The average college football team makes more

money than the next 35 college sports combined. Business Insider. Retrieved from:

https://www.businessinsider.com/college-sports-football-revenue-2017-10

Giles, M. (2017, November 23). The Case of Jay Bilas vs. the NCAA Will Now Be Heard. The

Atlantic. Retrieved from: https://www.theatlantic.com/ entertainment/archive/ 2017/11/the-

case-of-jay-bilas-vs-the-ncaa-will-now-be-heard/546425/

Givony, J. (2019, March 7). Div. II player Hinton declares for NBA draft. ESPN. Retrieved

from: http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/26170877/div-ii-player-hinton-declares-nba-

draft

Gleeson, S. (2019, May 1). Former Arizona assistant said on wiretap Sean Miller was paying

Deandre Ayton $10,000 a month. USA Today. Retrieved from: https://www.usatoday.com/

story/sports/ncaab/pac12/2019/05/01/sean-miller-paid-deandre-ayton-former-arizona-

assistant-said-recording/3641576002/

Greene, N. (2015, March 20). 9 of the Most Absurd NCAA Violations in Recent Memory.

Mental Floss. Retrieved from: http://mentalfloss.com/article/62221/9-most-absurd-ncaa-

violations-recent-memory

Greer, J. & Sayers, J. (2017, October 16). Rick Pitino fired by University of Louisville athletics

board amid recruiting scandal. Courier Journal. Retrieved from: https://www.courier-

journal.com/story/sports/college/Louisville/ 2017/10/16/rick-pitino-fired-university-of-

louisville-recruiting-scandal/763259001/

Hamilton, K. (2005). Putting the ‘Student’ Back into Student-Athlete. Black Issues in Higher

Education. 22(4), 28-30. 64

Heim, M. (2019, May 6). Dabo Swinney reacts to Clemson football mentioned in FBI’s college

basketball probe. Alabama.com. Retrieved from: https://www.al.com/sports/2019/05/dabo-

swinney-reacts-to-clemson-football-mentioned-in-fbis-college-basketball-probe.html

Hess, A. (2019, March 10). The 10 highest-paid NCAA basketball coaches. CNBC.com.

Retrieved from: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/08/the-10-highest-paid-ncaa-basketball-

coaches.html

Hobson, W., & Armstrong, K. (2018, October 18). A bagman who helped Kansas and Louisville

told all in basketball trial. Or did he?. The Washington Post. Retrieved from:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/a-bag-man-who-helped-kansas-and-

louisville-told-all-in-basketball-trial-or-did-he/2018/10/18/ddf5162c-d24b-11e8-b2d2-

f397227b43f0_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9ea0c08984f2

Hobson, W., & Rich, S. (2015, December 23). Colleges spend fortunes on lavish athletic

facilities. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved from: https://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/

college/ct-athletic-facilities-expenses-20151222-story.html

Holloway, D. (2018, March 16). TV Ratings: NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament Up Slightly

for CBS. Variety Magazine. Retrieved from: https://variety.com/2018/tv/news/tv-ratings-

ncaa-1202728915/

Jacksic, K. (2016, April 11). Why College Sports Are Better Than Professional Sports. The

Odyssey Online. Retrieved from: https://www.theodysseyonline.com/college-sports-vs-

professional-sports

James, E. (2018, December 5). Oregon commits violations in men’s and women’s basketball,

women’s track and field, and football. NCAA.org. Retrieved from: http://www.ncaa.org/

about/resources/media-center/news/oregon-commits-violations-men-s-and-women-s-

basketball-women-s-track-and-field-and-football

Jian, G. (2007). Unpacking unintended consequences in planned organizational change: A

process model. Management Communication Quarterly, 21(1), pp. 5-28.

Jones, C. (2004). Jacques Derrida. In S. Linstead (Ed.), Organization theory and postmodern

thought (p. 34-63). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Johnson, R. (2018, October 4). A history of skyrocketing college football coach salaries, from

Walter Camp to Nick Saban. SBNation. Retrieved from: https://www.sbnation.com/

college-football/2018/6/4/17390394/college-football-coach-salaries-history-highest

Labaton, M. (2017, June 8). The case for paying college athletes. The Duke Chronicle. Retrieved

from: http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/2017/06/the-case-for-paying-college-athletes

Lapchick, R. E., & Malekoff, R. (1987). On the mark: putting the student back in student-athlete.

Lexington, Mass; Lexington Books.

Lauletta, T. (2018, March 31). The 25 highest-paid coaches in college basketball. Business

Insider. Retrieved from: http://www.businessinsider.com/college-basketball-highest-paid-

coaches-2018-3

Lederman, D. (2019, February 1). NCAA Punishes Missouri in Blatant Academic Fraud Case.

Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/02/

01/ncaa-punishes-missouri-blatant-case-academic-fraud

Lerner, D. (2019, March 5). What the FBI college basketball sentences mean for Louisville and

others. Louisville Courier-Journal. Retrieved from: https://www.courier-journal.com/story/

sports/college/louisville/2019/03/05/making-sense-verdicts-college-basketball-recruiting-

investigation/3066174002/

Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of

Management Review, 25(4), pp. 760-776.

Lewis, M. W., & Smith, W. K. (2014). Paradox as a metatheoretical perspective: Sharpening the

focus and widening the scope. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50(2), pp. 127-149.

Mayhan, J. W., Van Valkenburg, C. A., Nittoli, V. C., Shunk, A. W., & Jensen, C. D. (2018). A

Portrait of the Concussed Student-Athlete: Grade and Sex Affect Presentation of

Symptoms. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 50(Supplement 1), 478.

Men’s Basketball: Probability of competing beyond high school. (n.d.). NCAA.org. Retrieved

from: http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/mens-basketball-probability-

competing-beyond-high-school

Moser, W. (2015, February 11). What Would Happen if We Paid College Athletes?. Chicago

Magazine. Retrieved from: https://www.chicagomag.com/city-life/February-2015/What-

Would-Happen-if-We-Paid-College-Athletes/

Mumby, D. K. (1997). The problem of hegemony: Rereading Gramsci for organizational

communication studies. Western Journal of Communication, 61(4), pp. 343–375.

Mumby, D. K. (2005). Theorizing resistance in organization studies. Management

Communication Quarterly, 19(1), pp. 19–44. 67

Mumby, D. K. (2014). Critical Theory and Postmodernism. In L.L. Putnam & D.K. Mumby

(Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Communication: Advances in theory,

research, and methods. 3rd ed., pp. 101-126. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage.

Nathan, A. (2018, February 23). Report: Sean Muller Discussed Paying Deandre Ayton $100K

to Commit to Arizona. Bleacher Report. Retrieved from: https://bleacherreport.com/

articles/2761235-report-sean-miller-discussed-paying-deandre-ayton-100k-to-commit-to-

arizona

NBA Player Salaries. (2018). ESPN.com. Retrieved from: http://www.espn.com/ nba/salaries

NCAA Finances: Top School Revenue. (n.d.). USA Today. Retrieved from:

https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances

NCAA GPA Requirements. (n.d.). Next College Student Athlete (NCSA). Retrieved from:

https://www.ncsasports.org/ncaa-eligibility-center/gpa-requirements

NCAA March Madness basketball tournament average TV viewership from 2013 to 2018 (in

million viewers). Statista. Retrieved from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/251560/ncaa-

basketball-march-madness-average-tv-viewership-per-game/

NCAA Men’s Final Four Ratings Hub. (n.d.). Sports Media Watch. Retrieved from:

https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/ncaa-final-four-ratings-history-most-watched-games-

cbs-tbs-nbc/

New, J. (2016, July 8). An ‘Epidemic’ of Academic Fraud. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from:

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/07/08/more-dozen-athletic-programs-have-

committed-academic-fraud-last-decade-more-likely

Neumeister, L. (2019, May 8). 2 convicted in college basketball corruption trial. Washington

Post. Retrieved from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/2-convicted-in-

college-basketball-corruption-trial/2019/05/08/7d8cb0dc-71c5-11e9-9331-30bc5836f48e_

story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e09654d773bf

Norton, T., & Sadler, C. (2006). Dialectical Hegemony and the Enactment of Contradictory

Definitions in a Rural Community Planning Process. Southern Communication Journal,

71(4), pp. 363-382.

Novy-Williams, E. (2019, March 26). Most-Watched March Madness in Four Years: NCAA

Number of Day. Bloomberg. Retrieved from: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/

2019-03-26/most-watched-march-madness-in-four-years-ncaa-number-of-day

Number of March Madness Opening Weekend Viewers in the United States from 2015 to 2018

(in millions). (n.d.). Statista. Retrieved from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/231850/

nba-events-on-broadcast-tv-usa/

Osborne, B. (2014). The Myth of the Exploited Student-Athlete. Journal of Intercollegiate Sport.

7(2), 143-152.

Peebles, M. (2015, December 3). 7 Common Sense Reasons Why College Athletes Should Be

Paid (According to Jay Bilas). Complex Sports. Retrieved from: https://www.complex.

com/sports/2015/12/jay-bilas-interview/

Play Division I Sports. (n.d.). NCAA. Retrieved from: http://www.ncaa.org/student-athletes/play-

division-i-sports

Pumerantz, Z. (2012, April 4). The 100 Most Heated Rivalries in Sports. Bleacher Report.

Retrieved from: https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1128435-the-100-most-heated-rivalries-

in-sports#slide1 69

Putnam, L. L. (1986). Contradiction and paradoxes in organizations. In L. Thayer (Ed.),

Organizational communication: Emerging perspectives (Vol. I, pp. 151-167). Norwood,

NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Putnam, L. L., Fairhurst, G. T., & Banghart, S. (2016). Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes

in organizations: A constitutive approach. The Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 1-

107.

Putnam, L.L., & Fairhurst, G.T. (2014). Organizational discourse analysis. In L.L. Putnam &

D.K. Mumby (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of organizational communication studies:

Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 78-126). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Quinn, R. E., & Cameron, K. S. (Eds). (1988). Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of

change in organization and management. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Rapaport, D. (2017, November 17). Report: Adam Silver, NCAA Officials Discuss One-and-

Done Rule. Sports Illustrated. Retrieved from: https://www.si.com/nba/2017/11/17/adam-

silver-michele-roberts-ncaa-officials-one-and-done-draft-rule

Red, C. (2019, March 5). Three men sentenced to prison for role in FBI college basketball

corruption case. USA Today. Retrieved from: https://usatodayhss.com/2019/gatto-code-

dawkins-sentenced-fbi-ncaa-basketball-corruption-investigation

Renzulli, K.A. (2019, February 1). Here’s what the average NFL player makes in a season.

CNBC.com. Retrieved from: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/01/heres-what-the-average-

nfl-players-makes-in-a-season.html

Riciputi, S., Erdal, K. (2017). The effect of stereotype threat on student-athlete math

performance. Psychology of Sport & Exercise. 32, 54-57. 70

Rubin, L. M., & Moses, R. A. (2017). Athletic Subculture Within Student-Athlete Academic

Centers. Sociology of Sport Journal. 34(4), 317-328.

Ruby, J. (2010, September 23). Gary Williams Wants To Pay College Athletes. SB Nation DC.

Retrieved from: https://dc.sbnation.com/maryland-terrapins/2010/9/23/1705972/gary-

williams-pay-college-athletes-NCAA

Schad, T. (2018, February 23). Report: Top players, schools part of federal college basketball

probe. Retrieved from: https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2018/02/23/top-

players-schools-federal-college-basketball-probe-ncaa-report/366264002/

Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S., & Smith, W. K. (2016). Paradox Research in Management

Science: Looking Back to Move Forward. The Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 5-

64.

Schön, D.A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York,

NY: Basic Books.

Shapiro, M. (2019, May 8). Christian Dawkins Found Guilty on Two Bribery Charges, Merl

Code of One in NCAA Corruption Trial. Retrieved from: https://www.si.com/2019/05/08/

christian-dawkins-guilty-merl-code-bribery-verdict-ncaa-trial

Sheep, M.L., Fairhurst, G.T., Khazanchi, S. (2016). Knots in the Discourse of Innovation:

Investigating multiple tensions in a reacquired spin-off. Organization Studies, pp. 1-26.

Sherman, T. (2015, September 22). Scoring grades: How schools cheat to keep athletes in the

game. New Jersey.com. Retrieved from: https://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/

index.ssf/2015/09/scoring_grades_how_schools_cheat_to_keep_athletes.html

Smith, A.C.T., & Graetz, F. (2006). Complexity theory and organizing form dualities.

Management Decision, 44(7), pp. 851-877. 71

Smith, C. (2018, September 11). College Football’s Most Valuable Teams: Texas A&M Jumps

To No.1. Forbes. Retrieved from: https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2018/09/11/

college-footballs-most-valuable-teams/#6f91edd06c64

Smith, J. (2017, November 2017). A scholarship offer is not a guarantee, so what is it?. USA

Today High School Sports. Retrieved from: https://usatodayhss.com/2017/a-scholarship-

offer-is-not-a-guarantee-so-what-is-it

Smith, K. K., & Berg, D. N. (1987). Paradoxes of group life: Understanding conflict, paralysis,

and movement in group dynamics. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium

model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), pp. 381-403.

Srivastava, P., & Hopwood, N. (2009). A practical iterative framework for qualitative data

analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 8(1), p. 76-84.

Statement From President Mark Emmert on the Formation of a Commission on College

Basketball. (2017, October 11). NCAA. Retrieved from: http://www.ncaa.org/about/

resources/media-center/news/statement-president-mark-emmert-formation-commission-

college-basketball

Student-Athletes. (n.d.) NCAA. Retrieved from: http://www.ncaa.org/student-athletes

Swanson, R. (2017, October 2). Want to clean up college athletics? Pay the players. The

Washington Post. Retrieved from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-

history/wp/2017/10/02/want-to-clean-up-college-athletics-pay-the-

players/?utm_term=.3646e8ebeafc 72

The Economic Value of College Majors. (2015). Georgetown University Center on Education

and the Workforce. Retrieved from: https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-

reports/valueofcollegemajors/

The Rising Cost of Not Going to College. (2014, February 11). Pew Research Center. Retrieved

from: https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/02/11/the-rising-cost-of-not-going-to-college/

The One and Done Conundrum. (2016, June 16). ESPN.com. Retrieved from:

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/16237629/ten-years-nba-one-done-rule-no-less-

controversial

The value of college sports. (n.d.). NCAA. Retrieved from: http://www.ncaa.org/student-

athletes/value-college-sports

Thelin, J. (2018, February 12). Paying College Athletes. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from:

https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2018/02/12/impact-college-sports-programs-if-

athletes-are-paid-opinion

Thompson, C., & Burnett, T. (2017, September 8). College athletes are students, not employees.

The Denver Post. Retrieved from: https://www.denverpost.com/2017/09/08/college-

athletes-are-students-not-employees/

Tracy, M. (2017, October 13). N.C.A.A.: North Carolina Will Not Be Punished for Academic

Scandal. The New York Times. Retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.com/

2017/10/13/sports/unc-north-carolina-ncaa.html

Tracy, M. (2018, August 8). N.C.A.A. Alters Rules for Agents and Draft in Wake of Basketball

Corruption Scandal. The New York Times. Retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.com/

2018/08/08/sports/ncaa-basketball-agents.html#click=https://t.co/wBX4w1NcIe

Tracy, S. J. (2013). Qualitative Research Methods. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. 73

Vince, R., & Broussine, M. (1996). Paradox, defense and attachment: Accessing and working

with emotions and relations underlying organizational change. Organization Studies, 17(1),

pp. 1-21.

Wallenfeldt, J. (n.d.). 10 Best Sports Rivalries of All Time. Encyclopaedia Brittanica. Retrieved

from: https://www.britannica.com/list/10-best-sports-rivalries-of-all-time

Wasserman, J. (2018, December 26). Final 2019 NBA Mock Draft Before the New Year.

Bleacher Report. Retrieved from: https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2811588-final-2019-

nba-mock-draft-before-the-new-year

Weinstein, A. (2018, February 2). Top 10 Most Watched Sporting Events on U.S. Television.

Listosaur.com. Retrieved from: https://listosaur.com/sports/top-10-most-watched-sporting-

events-on-us-television/

Wilcox, J. (2009, March 12). Which Is More Exciting, College or Pro Sports? A Debate.

Bleacher Report. Retrieved from: https://bleacherreport.com/articles/138117-college-

sports-or-pro-sports-which-is-more-exciting

Witz, B. (2019, April 23). Who’s on Trial in the College Basketball Scandal? Not the Big

Names. The New York Times. Retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/23/

sports/college-basketball-trial-arizona-lsu.html

Witz, B. (2019, April 25). College Basketball Trial Reveals a Shoe Box Full of Cash and Other

Recruiting Secrets. The New York Times. Retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.com/

2019/04/25/sports/college-basketball-trial-dawkins-code.html

Woo, J. (2019, January 3). NBA Draft Big Board 3.0: Zion Williamson Remains on Top, Ja

Morant Moves into Top 3. Sports Illustrated. Retrieved from: https://www.si.com/

nba/2019/01/03/2019-nba-draft-big-board-duke-zion-williamson-rj-barrett-ja-morant-top-

80-rankings