Duke lacrosse has unfair advantage
Column by Patrick Hite
patrick@accnation.com
Duke is one of four teams left standing as the men’s lacrosse semifinals are set for this weekend. It’s probably too late now, but the other three teams should be screaming to anyone who will listen about the unfairness of the situation.
Five Duke players shouldn’t even be playing this season, and yet they are playing and may help their team come away with a national title.
While most of you reading this know the details, for those who don’t here they are briefly. Duke’s lacrosse team was involved in an off-campus party in 2006. A stripper at the party accused some of the players of rape and, eventually, three Duke players were indicted on rape charges. Duke’s administration made a decision – some say it was proactive, others knee-jerk – to cancel the remainder of that season before hearing what the legal system had to say.
In the end, the players were acquitted, prompting the Duke administration to petition the NCAA for an extra season for the underclassmen on that 2006 team. The NCAA approved the request following last season’s national championship game — which Duke lost — and five players that should have used up their eligibility last season are getting an extra shot at the title that has, so far, eluded Duke. Of those players, four are starters, including Matt Danowski, the NCAA’s all-time leading scorer.
At the time the extra year was granted, Virginia’s Dom Strasia – whose team is also in the semifinals this weekend – did tell anyone who would listen that it was a bad decision. He said the problems were “self-inflicted” at Duke. You know what? He was right (although, it should be noted, Peter Lamade is now a member of the UVa. team, but was an underclassmen at Duke on that 2006 team and took advantage of the NCAA’s ruling by transferring to Virginia).
You can argue, and many have, that this is a simple case of the NCAA doing right by players who had their season cancelled through no fault of their own. But nothing about this case – or Duke lacrosse for the past two years – has been simple.
The Duke administration made a bad decision – one I happen to think was knee-jerk – and then asked the NCAA to save them. Keep in mind the NCAA had nothing to do with cancelling the season.
So the NCAA may have been looking out for the players, but what they ended up doing was setting a scary precedent. And Duke, even though its administration botched this beyond belief, is sitting pretty with another chance for a lacrosse title and a team that is more popular now than it ever was before the allegations of rape almost destroyed the program.
Like most issues, this one is neither black nor white. There is plenty of gray involved. But in the end, wrong decisions were made to rectify wrong decisions. A lot of people have suffered, including players on teams that have lost this season and may lose this weekend to Duke. Just keep that in mind if Duke is celebrating Monday afternoon with a national title, one that wouldn’t rightfully belong to them.
Filed under: 05-More Sports, 12-Inside the Nation, Duke | Tagged: ACC, atlantic Coast Conference, Blue Devils, sports, NCAA, Lacrosse, lax
Eh.
You’re right, the Duke admin made a bad situation worse with their rush to judgment. Sometimes people screw up and this was a major one.
I’m willing to say that future programs won’t cancel seasons so quickly because, let’s be honest here, nobody wants their players’ futures to be scrupled (is that even a word?) by the NCAA.
However, given their decision, what would’ve been a better outcome? Not letting them get back their eligibility? That just seems cruel.
That entire team had to go through some serious “stuff” even though many had nothing to do with the incident. If that results in a slight advantage over their opponents, so be it.
Think about it this way, they had their coach forced out for (as far as I can tell) no great reason. Does the disadvantage of having a new coach make up for the advantage of having somewhat older players?
While giving them the extra year seems like the right thing to do, these players will have 4.5 seasons of playing time. Danowski will have had 4.5 years to accumulate his record total, why isn’t the NCAA eliminating statistics from the 2006 season? Well since Duke canceled the season, the NCAA considers them to have played those 8 games.
Essentially 4 superstars are being allowed to play another season, I just don’t see how this is fair to the rest of the teams in lacrosse.
Bryan - I never even considered the statistic angle. Good point.
Ben - I can see both sides of this issue, but, ultimately, I think the Duke administration screwed things up so bad with its decision that they can’t just get a pass from the NCAA. I feel for the players, but it’s the fault of their own school that the 2006 season was cancelled.
As for your comment that it’s cruel, life is cruel. The sooner kids understand that, the better. (Man, that makes me sound cold and harsh).
And I’m not sure having a new coach when he’s the father of your star player is that much of a disadvantage.
[...] freebie year, so I don’t exactly agree with P-Hite on the whole “unfair” part of his analysis. But, that doesn’t mean I disagree with the “advantage” part. Whatever success [...]
[...] this post is more of a column than a feature, preview or game story). For another take on it, read Patrick Hite’s column on ACCNation.com, a piece that earned him a seat on Outside the Lines today to discuss this issue. Also check out [...]