Accreditors As Referees
AAUP Committee on Accreditation
To the Editor:
The AAUP Committee on Accreditation read with interest the article in the September-October issue written by Robert Appleson of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. Appleson proposes a set of referee signals in accreditation matters. But why stop there? Why not have the accreditation agencies themselves provide referees for actual football games? Given the recent tendency of the regional agencies to extend accreditation to such institutions as the University of Phoenix and Jones International, we imagine that their oversight of our national obsession could bring new life to the game, just as they have changed the face of accreditation. Just imagine the possibilities.
The first thing the new referees would probably do is change the rules of football to "suggested practices." No need for any teams to actually follow the rules, nor is there any reason to pay the players a living wage: the reservoir of talent is deep, and pure market forces of supply and demand will determine compensation (and, as an added benefit, no need for signing bonuses). And the following penalties would never be enforced, under any conditions: (a) Illegal substitution. Such restrictions as the necessity of a roster and a complement of full-time players unduly restricts the flexibility of management. Why not have an unlimited roster of part-time players, who can be brought into the game at any time? (b) Offside. This penalty has always placed a restriction on movement and innovative formations. If a team wishes to place a few wide receivers in the end zone before the ball is snapped, that will just be considered a "satellite formation" and will be fully supported, no matter how it operates. (c) Illegal equipment. This Paleolithic penalty discourages just the sort of high-tech emphasis football needs. Why not allow efficient stun guns to replace the outmoded practice of tackling?
Better yet, why not replace the archaic "place kicker" with a new, high-tech howitzer brought onto the field when necessary? Stuff a football in one of those babies, and you've got a guaranteed field goal from anywhere. It might not be kicked by a foot, and by the time it splits the uprights, it's probably not a ball anymore, but football has always been a misnomer. Besides, this new position represents an "alternative service delivery mode," in keeping with our need to add technology to the game.
And while we're on this subject, why not allow a few servo-robots onto the field? They're modern, they're high-tech, and they don't whine about "governance" or other outmoded concepts. Best of all, doing so would put control of the game where it belongs—in the hands of the owners. It would also correct the misapprehension that football players are essential to the game.
Traditionalists have always looked to the final score of a football game to determine the "bottom line." That demonstrates a woeful ignorance of the science of outcomes assessment. Replace the old-fashioned scoreboard with a set of twenty performance indicators, and evaluate a team on its ability to reach these goals relative to its mission statement.
Finally, we could stop insisting that football games be played on a football field. It's time to loosen the restraints that "brick and mortar" dinosaurs have placed on the game. It could be played entirely on a computer, or perhaps in a location where there is adequate access to turf or turf-like substances. A football game needs a stadium about as much as a university needs a library.
This type of flexibility might also allow football to make other needed changes to its structure, to allow it to compete in the twenty-first century. We can do for football what the accrediting agencies are doing to education.
AAUP Committee on Accreditation
|