The improper benefits issue is a covertly systematic form of racism. I am NOT just rabble rousing, and I am NOT calling those people who are offended by improper benefits 'racist'. However, we need to consider the young men whom are frequently at the epicenters of the biggest scandals. Because they are in fact just that, young men with eyes set on a golden ticket and a chance to deliver their families from poverty. Conventional wisdom might tell some of us that if the golden ticket were there at a young age, then it would still be there when a person were officially eligible to receive money.
While it would be hard to put yourself in those shoes, try to think about how far away that payday must seem to a teenage boy with the weight of saving his family on his shoulders. Mike Golic thinks that age has nothing to do with this. He thinks these kids all know what they're doing when they take money and other expensive gifts from questionable characters. Perhaps they do Golic, and perhaps immediate relief for their families with a slightly tarnished name is more important than struggling to get by for another year or three just to keep a squeaky clean reputation.
Yadda yadda yadda, how do you solve the problem?
First off, let's stop pretending that improper benefits don't happen. The sooner we can accept that reality, the sooner we can begin weighing realistic solutions. Improper benefits have happened in the past (this we know), they are happening now (this we pretend to not know until someone rats someone else out), and they will continue to happen (this I think we refuse to accept), so why not legalize the process and establish sanctions therein?
The solution is really that easy, but the NCAA will never even consider it, because college athletes are amateurs (!), and to allow them to receive money or other items of value would compromise the integrity of college athletics(!!!). But to allow the kids to take money with a promise to eventually sign with that company allows these kids to legally and prematurely access the money that would otherwise lure them out of college abruptly. If the money is promised independent of the university that the athlete chooses, the fairness of recruiting competition would probably increase to boot, as smaller schools with smaller boosters wouldn't be edged out by Jerry Tarkanian-like gentlemen with specific universities' interests in mind. These stipulations solve the problem of who is getting money, who is giving the money, how much money is changing hands, and what is promised in return.
Secondly, if a business wants to roll the dice on a 17-year-old kid, why should any one care to stop them? There are no guarantees, and an Agency could easily back a kid like Terrelle Pryor, and watch him turn into an "Xavier Lee". Likewise, a company could become financially tied to a kid that they thought would Carmelo-ize a situation, but he instead took a very Malik Hairston-like 4 year path to mediocrity. These kids are calculated investments for potential agents, agents who eventually will be leaching off of the success of these kids. So why shouldn't the athletes be allowed to capitalize on their own talent when they have the opportunity? If a student athlete with wealthy parents, and a student athlete with poorer parents both want to continue playing and studying in college, but the student with the poorer family has a greater sense of urgency tied to his professional pay day, then he CAN'T stay in school as long as the other kid can.
Yes, that's right, some of these student athletes want to be in college. A chance to begin and possibly complete a 4-year degree while learning from a college level coach, and preparing their body against college competition for the pounding it will take against men twice their age. Hard theory to swallow? That's fine, join the crowd of people ready to assign these young people a mentality that is completely self-serving, that cares only for money.
Analysts, On-Air personalities, old people stuck in old ways. They'll all tell you that improper benefits are destroying college sports. Writers at FOX Sports, writers at Yahoo!, writers as Si.com, and writers at the World Wide Leader is using this case to put the NBA's age limit on blast, question the integrity of the kids, the agents, the coaches, the universities. Some that fall in line with this type of thinking suggest that if these kids feel like they are ready to make the jump to the professional ranks, then they should be allowed to make the jump to the professional ranks. Then these universities would not be put into such a tenuous situation with 1-and-done players potentially flirting with the line of what is proper and what is an improper benefit.
Really? Is that the place that we've come to? When all of the sudden it is better to say:
"to hell with college, higher education, and the opportunity to better prepare these young men before sending them diving head long into the biggest stage in professional sports,"
than it is to say:
"perhaps the rules need amending in order to preserve the integrity and quality of both the college and professional games, and to encourage all young athletes to go to school"?
STOP LOOKING AT THE PAST! Here is today: different. All the bright lights of the big stage are even brighter. Rims are bigger. Bling twinkles more. The allure of riches and a life free of poverty is more alluring. But poor is still poor, and the difference between rich and poor is that much bigger. Call it greed if you have to, but it's time to start accommodating these young men that are going to take the money anyway, AND stop ignoring them and then slandering them after they get caught doing what we already know they're doing.
If the NCAA could pull its head out of the sand, it would see that this is a situation that cannot be monitored in its current state: underneath the table. Despite the recent whistle blowing, it is important to know that these events have unearthed but a small fraction of the extra aid that many college stars get. It happens at every school. A car lot wants to up its image with the college kids, so they "help" get a couple high profile players into a shiny set of wheels. A club wants to be the new hot spot so it lets the star athletes have VIP status, free drinks, no cover, etc., what-have-you. A booster wants to be the cool guy with the city's most famous crowd, so he/she pads the pockets of some hungry college kids.
Listen folks, the NCAA can continue being like the US Government in its battle against marijuana, or it can set the standard for accepting change. Recognize when a situation is inevitable and unmanageable. This is not like the MLB trying to monitor steroids. These are sports agents and agencies that are trying to grease the door to slide in, and they can be held accountable if they are given a set of rules to play by. Right now there are just some yet to be established agents taking advantage of the fact that they have nothing to lose. If the big boys were allowed to play in the game too, then the guys in the shadows would not have that same leverage. If the NCAA, NBA and NFL required that any agents engaging in Good Trust deals with young athletes enter into a binding contract that is necessarily independent of Universities, then they could monitor the flow of monies.
Assumptions:
- Money and gifts are reported and taxable.
- Money and gifts are good faith contributions. (i.e. if the athlete does not sign a pro contract, the athlete is not required to pay the full amount)
- Contracts are binding, and neither the athlete, nor the agency can exit the contract prior to the end of the athletes' eligibility.
- Contracts will not contain stipulations regarding choice of school, staying in or at a particular school, performance based incentives, academic based incentives.
- Athletes will still maintain amateur status regarding endorsements.
I know this is tough to wrap the head around, and I'm sure I didn't nail all the kinks. But if improper benefits won't ever stop (and they won't), and neither the athletes nor the agents can be held accountable after the fact, then we can all keep playing dumb and then acting shocked, or we can begin looking for ways to have control over the situation, and find a way of making someone accountable.
Original Story:
http://properbloggery.com/2008/05/13/qui....
While it would be hard to put yourself in those shoes, try to think about how far away that payday must seem to a teenage boy with the weight of saving his family on his shoulders. Mike Golic thinks that age has nothing to do with this. He thinks these kids all know what they're doing when they take money and other expensive gifts from questionable characters. Perhaps they do Golic, and perhaps immediate relief for their families with a slightly tarnished name is more important than struggling to get by for another year or three just to keep a squeaky clean reputation.
Yadda yadda yadda, how do you solve the problem?
First off, let's stop pretending that improper benefits don't happen. The sooner we can accept that reality, the sooner we can begin weighing realistic solutions. Improper benefits have happened in the past (this we know), they are happening now (this we pretend to not know until someone rats someone else out), and they will continue to happen (this I think we refuse to accept), so why not legalize the process and establish sanctions therein?
The solution is really that easy, but the NCAA will never even consider it, because college athletes are amateurs (!), and to allow them to receive money or other items of value would compromise the integrity of college athletics(!!!). But to allow the kids to take money with a promise to eventually sign with that company allows these kids to legally and prematurely access the money that would otherwise lure them out of college abruptly. If the money is promised independent of the university that the athlete chooses, the fairness of recruiting competition would probably increase to boot, as smaller schools with smaller boosters wouldn't be edged out by Jerry Tarkanian-like gentlemen with specific universities' interests in mind. These stipulations solve the problem of who is getting money, who is giving the money, how much money is changing hands, and what is promised in return.
Secondly, if a business wants to roll the dice on a 17-year-old kid, why should any one care to stop them? There are no guarantees, and an Agency could easily back a kid like Terrelle Pryor, and watch him turn into an "Xavier Lee". Likewise, a company could become financially tied to a kid that they thought would Carmelo-ize a situation, but he instead took a very Malik Hairston-like 4 year path to mediocrity. These kids are calculated investments for potential agents, agents who eventually will be leaching off of the success of these kids. So why shouldn't the athletes be allowed to capitalize on their own talent when they have the opportunity? If a student athlete with wealthy parents, and a student athlete with poorer parents both want to continue playing and studying in college, but the student with the poorer family has a greater sense of urgency tied to his professional pay day, then he CAN'T stay in school as long as the other kid can.
Yes, that's right, some of these student athletes want to be in college. A chance to begin and possibly complete a 4-year degree while learning from a college level coach, and preparing their body against college competition for the pounding it will take against men twice their age. Hard theory to swallow? That's fine, join the crowd of people ready to assign these young people a mentality that is completely self-serving, that cares only for money.
Analysts, On-Air personalities, old people stuck in old ways. They'll all tell you that improper benefits are destroying college sports. Writers at FOX Sports, writers at Yahoo!, writers as Si.com, and writers at the World Wide Leader is using this case to put the NBA's age limit on blast, question the integrity of the kids, the agents, the coaches, the universities. Some that fall in line with this type of thinking suggest that if these kids feel like they are ready to make the jump to the professional ranks, then they should be allowed to make the jump to the professional ranks. Then these universities would not be put into such a tenuous situation with 1-and-done players potentially flirting with the line of what is proper and what is an improper benefit.
Really? Is that the place that we've come to? When all of the sudden it is better to say:
"to hell with college, higher education, and the opportunity to better prepare these young men before sending them diving head long into the biggest stage in professional sports,"
than it is to say:
"perhaps the rules need amending in order to preserve the integrity and quality of both the college and professional games, and to encourage all young athletes to go to school"?
STOP LOOKING AT THE PAST! Here is today: different. All the bright lights of the big stage are even brighter. Rims are bigger. Bling twinkles more. The allure of riches and a life free of poverty is more alluring. But poor is still poor, and the difference between rich and poor is that much bigger. Call it greed if you have to, but it's time to start accommodating these young men that are going to take the money anyway, AND stop ignoring them and then slandering them after they get caught doing what we already know they're doing.
If the NCAA could pull its head out of the sand, it would see that this is a situation that cannot be monitored in its current state: underneath the table. Despite the recent whistle blowing, it is important to know that these events have unearthed but a small fraction of the extra aid that many college stars get. It happens at every school. A car lot wants to up its image with the college kids, so they "help" get a couple high profile players into a shiny set of wheels. A club wants to be the new hot spot so it lets the star athletes have VIP status, free drinks, no cover, etc., what-have-you. A booster wants to be the cool guy with the city's most famous crowd, so he/she pads the pockets of some hungry college kids.
Listen folks, the NCAA can continue being like the US Government in its battle against marijuana, or it can set the standard for accepting change. Recognize when a situation is inevitable and unmanageable. This is not like the MLB trying to monitor steroids. These are sports agents and agencies that are trying to grease the door to slide in, and they can be held accountable if they are given a set of rules to play by. Right now there are just some yet to be established agents taking advantage of the fact that they have nothing to lose. If the big boys were allowed to play in the game too, then the guys in the shadows would not have that same leverage. If the NCAA, NBA and NFL required that any agents engaging in Good Trust deals with young athletes enter into a binding contract that is necessarily independent of Universities, then they could monitor the flow of monies.
Assumptions:
- Money and gifts are reported and taxable.
- Money and gifts are good faith contributions. (i.e. if the athlete does not sign a pro contract, the athlete is not required to pay the full amount)
- Contracts are binding, and neither the athlete, nor the agency can exit the contract prior to the end of the athletes' eligibility.
- Contracts will not contain stipulations regarding choice of school, staying in or at a particular school, performance based incentives, academic based incentives.
- Athletes will still maintain amateur status regarding endorsements.
I know this is tough to wrap the head around, and I'm sure I didn't nail all the kinks. But if improper benefits won't ever stop (and they won't), and neither the athletes nor the agents can be held accountable after the fact, then we can all keep playing dumb and then acting shocked, or we can begin looking for ways to have control over the situation, and find a way of making someone accountable.
Original Story:
http://properbloggery.com/2008/05/13/qui....
Vote this post up or down:
