As a rowing coach, and a collegiate one at that, my job is to help my athletes to improve their level within the sport and to grow as people. A crucial part of my job is to provide them with challenges. The act of challenging oneself contributes to growth. Lack of challenge leads to stagnation.
To win races, a coach must challenge his athletes. To educate students, a college coach must challenge his athletes. It is that simple. For a program to grow, it must produce a rewarding experience - and that means challenge. Aim (realistically) high and fall short, and the athletes will grow. Aim low and succeed, and the students have niether learned nor accomplished anything in life.
So, at long last, I am posting a letter about pot-hunting. I am afraid this month’s letter has had a somewhat greater lead-up than it probably should, since I was originally going to post something on the subject months ago but had other issues intervene. I do not know if this will live up to anticipation it never should have produced in the first place. But here goes.
Pot-hunting in the U.K. has such benign connotations. During the Summer months, crews go around the country to quiet regattas in the hope of bringing home some nice pewter. Everyone does it, and it is all part of the fun.
For once, the points system in Britain may actually serve some good: as crews win, their members gain points, and the number of points a crew has between its members determines which event it may enter at the next regatta. There are, of course, innumerable flaws with the point system when it comes to serious crews, because it does not promote the concept of like racing against like. It also does not promote the concept of keeping crews together, as Summer crews jockey line-ups to minimize points. It also assumes people do not lie about their identities or the number of points they have. But, assuming no one lies, the system works quite well for the Summer regattas.
Since everyone is playing the same points game, there is an element of challenge anyway. And it is all in good fun. After Henley and the National Championships (mid-July in Britain), it’s just one fun regatta after another in picturesque small towns. For those not serious-minded enough to do Henley or Nat Champs, the pot-hunting season can start as early as mid-June.
But this month I am not writing about the benign British habit, but rather a sinister American collegiate one. Pot-hunting has different connotations in the United States. Here, there is much more of a tradition of like racing against like. Everyone knows where everyone else stands, and should race accordingly. Sometimes people race "up," but that is simply a challenge. Racing "down" is considered low-class.
In previous letters I have discussed the American collegiate racing structure. Where any program is may change over time, but the pecking order at any given time is reasonably clear. Everyone knows who has money and resources and who does not. Some crews may have a particularly strong or an especially weak year, but one (or even two years) alone do not change the level of a crew. Consistent performance at a certain level determines where a crew stands. Sometimes, if a crew has made particular progress on an upward trend, it may move upwards in the scheme of things even before it has put out several years at that higher level. It may be nebulous, but on the whole it works.
Or, at least, it used to work. In May 1998, I wrote about the different levels of championships and the proliferating numbers of championships. Everyone in our politically correct society needs to feel mushy about themselves and finds some way to win a championship where possible. Competition takes a back seat where this is concerned. Coaches think their job is simply to win, and so they enter inappropriate championships so they can claim victory. In doing so, they fail to perform their jobs as coaches - they do nothing for their athletes and nothing for their teams.
In the last two months (well, longer than that, actually, for those who have paid attention to my ramblings over the years) I have said unkind things about the background minders and sometime coaches of the Oxford heavyweights - Steve Royle and Dan Topolski - but even those two have enough class not to pot-hunt. We do not see Oxford turning up to race the little guys. When Oxford does come across the little guys (in various head races, for example), we do not see it celebrating or thinking itself particularly hot because it can beat them. The Oxford heavyweights may be going about training completely wrong, but at least they still aspire to race at an elite level.
Not so with many crews in the USA. It amazes me to see crews pot-hunt in the United States and then think they are special for winning. And each year the situation gets worse. Collegiate rowing in the United States has entered a period of flux, with a good number of teams moving up in the competitive world. As they do this, more feel the need to pot-hunt to prove their worth. And once some places do it, it becomes more acceptable for others to do it. Some perennial offenders deserve a big slap.
I have mentioned various instances in passing during previous letters. In May 1999. Writing about the Dad Vail Regatta, I explained two particular forms of pot-hunting: stacking the JV and stacking a four.
This year we got to witness some places mysteriously enter second varsity (JV) crews without entering varsity crews. This is a variation on the stacking seen in previous years. In the past, I have seen programs put out second boats which are consistently faster than their first boats. While it is not uncommon for a program having a difficult year to end up with the "two second eights" syndrome (where, no matter what the coach does, he ends up with two roughly even crews, one which makes a dreadful first eight and the other which makes a pretty solid second eight which no amount of personnel switching seems to rectify), what I am here describing goes beyond this problem. What we see in this case is a second crew which is clearly faster than the first crew, week in and week out. Thus, if a coach has two mediocre crews, he can enter the faster one in the slower race to guarantee some wins, at the expense of having the slower crew obliterated in the varsity race. But in the US, we rank crews in order to have fair races and race like against like - so this is blatant poor sportsmanship.
In May, I also addressed the problem that some programs stack their small boats. Small boats serve their purpose - mainly for training or to get the leftover rowers into a crew when there are not enough to make up a multiple of eight (or, more precisely, a multiple of nine). Small programs beginning their development may properly race in the small boats, because that’s all there is. But racing in the small boats stunts growth - it leaves only four (or two) seats available and no where for anyone else to sit, and it siphons off the top rowers from the others, stymieing development. Meanwhile, those programs which have legitimately put their bottom crews in small boats are left on an uneven playing field.
This was one of the issues I discussed as an example of one of the many problems with the format of the NCAA women’s championships. I will credit the NCAA for closing off this avenue this year. It does not mean that we have seen the end of the trend, however. Certainly, there are those who argue that the stacking of small boats comes as a trickle-down effect from those who pot-hunt at the upper levels: so, for example, the fact that Temple University (which I will discuss below) enters the Division III championships encourages crews which know they cannot compete in the varsity event to try their luck at the small boats.
Another argument follows the logic the Pittsburgh men’s coach explained to me this past season. He had done a great job this year, and had brought along a strong men’s lightweight eight. As in many crews, however, there was a stern four/bow four dichotomy. The future of his program, though, depended on him bringing the bow four along - and the eight was certainly a good crew even with the dichotomy. At a race early in the season, I complimented his crew, and he told me he was thinking of splitting it up before the season ended. His job, he said, was to win races, and if he stacked a four with his stern, he would indeed win. The other four would cease to matter. He recognized that such a move would cost the program dearly down the road, but he said he could not be bothered with the future. To his credit, he changed his mind and did keep the eight together for the championships - it did not win, but I am sure he will see his program continue to grow and achieve the success it deserves if he plots his course wisely. (he also kept his varsity heavyweight eight together - a young and not particularly good crew, but one which will benefit from the experience and I am sure will become competitive within the next year or two if he carries on properly).
Perhaps the most impressive counter-foil to pot-hunting which I observed this year was the performance of Richard Stockton State University of New Jersey. A very young program - mostly freshmen and sophomores - raced most of the season in the varsity eight events and did quite well, even taking out more seasoned crews. Their coach challenged them, and they rose to the challenge. I look forward to seeing results from them in the next few years.
Upwardly mobile crews look for good races. It was a pleasure to follow the University of Michigan men’s results this season, as they wandered around the country looking for good crews to race, resulting in their best results ever despite (or, more likely, because they were not afraid to take) a few knocks at the hands of higher-level crews. While many coaches understand the value of challenging their athletes, aiming to achieve something noteworthy at the appropriate level, and good sportsmanship, there are indeed some who do not get it. Or, rather, I suspect that they do get it but lack the decency which is otherwise so prevalent in our sport.
Perhaps the program which exemplifies this whole concept, and which produces in many the most emotional ire, is Temple University in Philadelphia. Temple has two marquee sports: basketball and rowing. It is a private (albeit not overly rich, but it does not support that many sports and does have enough graduate schools and hospitals to guarantee a fair amount of income) institution, not limited by state budgets. It has no academic standards whatsoever (ask my father, who taught there once upon a time), so it can take just about any students or athletes it wants without having to worry about their academic abilities. It is an inner-city college in a city with a very developed high school rowing scene (and not all of those schoolkids are bright, so that leaves quite a few who would be willing to attend Temple). Tuition is also not a bar - it is quite cheap, but for those who cannot afford it (and random foreigners who are known to float through), there are rowing scholarships.
Temple regularly puts out nationally-ranked men’s crews (their women are, I am told by several sources, better funded than the men, so I am at a loss to explain why the women do not do as well as the men. Even so, the women also do not belong at this level). At the IRAs in the last two years, it has finished seventh (add in Harvard and Yale who do not attend IRAs, and that makes Temple #9 in the country for two consecutive years). Yet it enters the Dad Vail Regatta - the Division III championship - every year. Not surprisingly, its men’s varsity has won for most of the last two decades. That produces some rather large yawns. It has had less success in the lower boats, because it puts no emphasis on development - all it really needs to stay happy is nine top people. It argues that it is a small program, and thus is not pot-hunting by attending Vails, a regatta designed for small and developing programs. But if Temple is a small program, it is only because it keeps its numbers artificially low. If it wanted to, it could certainly compete two whole divisions higher. Several other programs which attend Vails have developed substancially in recent years, so it is my hope that someone will dethrone Temple soon. But these programs should move along long before they get to that point. Certainly, most of the best Vails-level programs, recognizing that they were out-of-place at that regatta and that the regatta catered to a lower level of crew, decamped to Champion (Div II) when that was founded, or have gone since.
It actually pains me to see Temple do as well as it has at IRAs in the last two years. 1997 was a more realistic result, as Temple failed even to make the petits. Temple’s mercenaries must have clicked in the last two years. On the whole, that program never accomplishes much when it matters - sure they have some impressive results in Fall head races and in some early-season regattas such as San Diego. But when it matters, they are rarely in the picture. No development and no ambition will stunt a program - what keeps them afloat is a steady stream of recruits - enough to at least ensure there is one good crew, which is all they care about - and a reasonably knowledgeable coach.
But while Temple treads water, others are swimming. So many crews have improved their status over the years. And the ones at the head of the pack have looked for new ways to push ahead. I do not see Harry Parker (Harvard heavies), Charley Butt (Harvard lights), Bob Ernst (Washington), Steve Gladstone (California), Curtis Jordan (Princeton heavies), John Murphy (Brown women), or any number of other coaches at the top of the field resting on their laurels.
I will not discuss the plethora of programs which should probably move on from Vails or redefine how they enter events, because I discussed that issue in May. Champion is better than Vails at kicking people along who do not belong. They let a couple of doozies in, but with any luck that will sort itself out. Champion programs, on the whole and almost by definition, are pretty clued-in and classy.
One of the things which distinguishes the Eastern Sprints programs as a league, is that they do not play these games. They put their boats in the right order, and they don’t show up at events beneath their level Scheduling early-season matches with strong Champion-level crews is one thing, especially for the Sprints programs which are inherently weaker - but when it comes down to it, Sprints programs race at Sprints.
Or so we thought. Then there is the inexplicable - the topic of much discussion in the Mid-Atlantic this past Spring: The United States Naval Academy has descended to new lows - or at least its women and lightweight men have. I will start with the light men. When I was in college, this was not the strongest program in the league, but it was also not the weakest. We certainly treated navy with respect. In recent years, it has slouched backwards. In lightweight rowing, the programs which compete at Sprints form such a competitive league that the best of the rest has not traditionally ever made an impression. In the last two years, Navy has suffered the ignominy of seeing its varsity lose to non-Sprints programs. Its solution; race more non-Sprints programs in order to give it a chance to win. This year, it canceled its annual match with Harvard in order to rearrange its schedule to fit the Patriot League Championships in. First of all, Navy is only in the Patriot League in certain sports, and rowing has not traditionally fit the bill - so this is contrived. Second, with all due respect to the fine programs in the Patriot League, those programs are hardly Sprints-caliber. If Navy hopes to do well at Sprints - where it belongs - it needs to push itself against Harvard and not fool itself into thinking it is accomplishing anything by winning the Patriot League championships. Third, for a while it looked as though Holy Cross, the cream of the Patriot League programs, did not itself even want to attend the Patriot League Championships.
As Bob Spousta, the much-respected Head Coach at George Mason, whose crews have never been known to shy away from a challenge, commented to me at a race when we were in the launch discussing people's schedules: "a program is only as good as the crews it races."
As odd as the behavior of the Navy lightweight men was, the Navy women behaved even more oddly. Here is a program which had been making all of the right moves in recent years. Navy does not have many women students, so this was a program which legitimately lagged behind the men. But it had advanced from Vails to Champion to Sprints, it was putting an emphasis on development, and was making rapid improvements. Not only is it a Sprints-level program, but it is competitive at that level and on a pace to become more competitive. In 1998, it showed up at the Mid-Atlantic Championships (a fine event, but not a Sprints-level competition). That was only a foreshadowing: in 1999, its schedule became even less impressive. It opened its season at the Crawford Bay Crew Classic, where (if the event were not canceled due to unsafe conditions) it would have seen such powers as Old Dominion, Mary Washington, and Catholic (the draw for the novice women’s event was especially amusing). For Championships, it was not content with merely attending Sprints, but decided to tune up with trips to the Patriot League Championships (with the men’s lightweights) and the Mid-Atlantic Championships. I will not comment further.
I may add that I, of all people, mean absolutely no disrespect to the many fine programs which race in the Patriot League or at Mid-Atlantics (I coached one such program myself for the last three years). But these are not Sprints programs. A race or so with Sprints-level crews is useful, both for the competitive value for the Div II or III crew and to allow the Div I crew to test itself. But, again, there is a difference between a little competition arranged with that in mind and pot hunting.
We do not see Harvard at the New England Championships. We do not see Cornell or even Columbia at the New York State Championships. We do not need to see Navy at the Mid-Atlantic Championships. If Navy wants to race earlier in the season, so be it. But championships mean something only when they are races among programs at comparable levels. When a pot-hunter wins, what is the point? And what lessons are the students learning? That they are faster than a bunch of programs who lack their resources? If there is no challenge, the students are not learning anything. The win at all costs - even if it means competing beneath yourself - attitude does not make winners in life.
I am told the Navy athletics department has something to do with this lack of ambition. When we see the Navy men’s heavyweights (who, like most, have their on years and their off years - but have never, in my recollection, stooped this low) join the women and lightweight men in downgrading their schedule, we will know that some athletics director has lost his head. Until then: no comment.
Before British readers think I am spending too much time discussing issues of no concern to them, let me point out where this problem does spill over: Henley.
Henley Royal Regatta has tightened up its rules to make pot-hunting more difficult over the last ten years. As I have said numerous times before, I am not a fan of the last major realignment made by the Stewards for the 1996 Regatta, as I find those rules too restrictive and often unfair. But they do indeed block pot-hunters. The old rules, however, seemed to do a good job of it, too. Sometimes, though, an inappropriate crew snuck through.
Women’s Henley is less stringent, even if it pretends to be. The rules are clear enough, though. But while the points system employed in Britain does keep British crews under some control, it is more difficult to put foreigners in their place.
It was indeed at Women’s Henley in 1995 that I witnessed what has to be the most egregious and shameless example of pot-hunting I have ever seen. The University of Wisconsin came to race. Fantastic, I thought, since Women’s Henley does not attract enough big-time American college crews in the way the men’s regatta does. Timing worked out that year, and Wisconsin decided to attend. Wisco is a Division One program which races in the Eastern Sprints (no, it is not geographically challenged; it is aware it is located in the mid-west; however, until recently, there have been no other good programs out there, so it came east in search of good competition - certainly not pot-hunting!). The Eastern Sprints league is overall the top league in the US by a long way. Wisconsin has a large rowing budget, which includes scholarships. The university itself has about 20,000 undergrads, almost half women. In 1995, Wisconsin’s first varsity women took the Bronze at the national championships.
There are four events for eights at Women’s Henley: Open, Club, College, and School/Junior. These are roughly equivalent to Henley Royal’s Grand/Ladies, Ladies/Thames, Temple, and PE (or actually closer in nature to the way those events were run before 1996). A Div. I American university would not be out-of-place in the Open event. An argument could have been made to put it in the club event, depending on which side of the line a men’s crew in the Ladies Plate would fall if HRR had one fewer eights event. But this was not an argument that ended up being made. No, Wisco entered the College Eights.
The rules, as then written, certainly could be interpreted to allow Wisco into that event. So, Wisco was not cheating. But common sense and good sportsmanship should have prevailed. If Wisco were the sort of program for whom the College event was designed, and happened to be having an exceptional year and was that good, then my hat would be off to them. Instead, I think the picture was perfectly clear.
Wisco thought it a big achievement to win Henley. It would have been, except they never stopped to consider whom they were racing. Margins of "easily" piled up. I remember biking alongside one race as they squared up against Wadham College, Oxford (female undergraduates: about 100; rowing budget: nothing special). It came as no surprise that they cleared Wadham in ten strokes and had 2.5 lengths before the top of the island. That was a good Wadham crew, too, but no match for Wisco. Wisco decimated other crews in similar fashion, including Imperial (clearly the best women’s collegiate crew in Britain that year, yet still no match in terms of resources). In the final, Wisco raced Georgetown (currently an Eastern Sprints program, but back then still a Div II program - albeit on the way up but not there yet - which had won Champion - the Div. II championship - that year), and beat them by many lengths, as was predictable. If Wisconsin had entered the appropriate event, we would have witnessed a thrilling Georgetown/Imperial final instead. That would have been fair.
A Wisconsin alum told me how proud she was of her team for winning such a prestigious event. I was not all that impressed. If the Wisconsin men entered their first varsity in the Temple Cup at HRR, would they be so thrilled about themselves? I dare say they would have more class.
Well, there is a new coach at Wisco this year. Wisconsin returned to Henley even though it was not as strong as it was four years ago. But this time, the new coach had the guts to enter the Open event.
Of course, that left the door open for Sacramento State to enter the College event. Sac State did not commit as egregious an offense as Wisco did in 1995 - it is still a relatively developing program and certainly has not yet achieved the level Wisconsin has. But consider this: Sac State has 24,000 students, a rowing budget exclusive of salaries and scholarships of $150,000, a couple handfuls of rowing scholarships, and all of the training and support facilities of a Division One program. If it cannot yet compete at the Div One level, that is its problem which it should not take out on the less fortunate programs by pot-hunting. I would accept an argument saying that as it is still on the way up it would not have to race Open, but Club would have been more appropriate than College. By no stretch of the imagination is Sac State a small college or a limited-resource program.
Most people in the sport are not so stupid. When Navy wins the Patriot League or Mid-Atlantic Championships, when Temple wins Dad Vails, or when Wisco wins College Eights at Henley, they will get greeted with a "so what" at most, but more likely with a yawn. But the fact that people see through this does not make their behavior any less sportsmanlike. And it certainly does their programs no service: they may be able to claim a championship, but where was the challenge?
We are involved in a competitive sport in order to compete. Remove the competition, and we are left with a game. As the saying goes: "Athletes don’t play games."