C-Webb, Double Standards, and Teenage Millionaires

Submitted by BeantownBlue on
This started as a reply to that MGoBoard post on Jalen Rose.  You know the one that got everyone debating whether or not we should ever allow Chris Webber back into the Crisler Building?  After writing a few paragraphs, I realized my diatribe might be more appropriate in Diary form.  So here goes...

I understand why everyone gets so emotional when the discussion of Chris Webber comes up. He was the central figure in an investigation that set our basketball program back more than a decade.  He lied to the authorities and has refused to apologize to Michigan fans. Our feelings are hurt and the banners are down.

I understand.

But I'd like to kindly ask you to forget about the RESULT of his actions for a moment. Rather, I would like you to consider his motivation at the time of his actions.

Chris Webber was a kid with a skill.  

He played basketball really well.

There are 14 and 15-year-old tennis players getting paid millions of dollars in endorsements for similar skills. There are teenagers who sign lucrative deals out of high school as top draft picks in the MLB. To a lesser extent, there are teenage kids making big cash as young hockey prospects. Shaun White, the olympic snowboarder, was making millions in endorsements by age 13, when he went pro.  

Why do we not vilify these kids for aspiring to cash in on their athletic success at such a young age? Why do we read about these kids in KidzWorld and Forbes magazine? Shouldn't we discuss their behavior with wagging fingers in the editorial section of the New York Times?  

The answer is simple. Those kids play sports that have systematic ways of providing monetary reward for aspiring talent. The MLB and NHL have spent millions investing in legitimate farm systems that develop talent and pay players modest sums. Tennis and snowboarding allow players to go pro whenever they like, freeing athletes to be sponsored by major corporations.

The NBA, on the other hand, continues to use the NCAA as a free minor league, sorting the best talent from the worst at the expense of universities--and the aspiring athletes.

Chris Webber elected to get paid under the table because the NBA didn't provide (and still doesn't provide) a viable minor league that pays well and invests in star athlete's futures. 

Sure, Webber could have used better judgement. He could've been more honest with federal investigators. And he sure could apologize to UM fans for letting them down.

But I hope we can acknowledge his wrong doings within the context of his circumstances. While other teen athletes were cashing in on their success to the tune of millions, we wanted Webber to simply smile and be thankful for a college scholarship. It was, and is, an unfair expectation, and we have the NBA to thank for it.

To those outraged by Webber's behavior--who don't want to see him back in Crisler under any circumstances-- I hope you hold similar contempt for Sidney Crosby, Maria Sharapova, and Michelle Wie. They were just a bunch of silly, greedy kids, who couldn't wait to cash in on their athletic success.

*****

EDIT/ADDENDUM:  To clear things up, I do not wish to absolve C-Webb for all wrongdoings.  I think he should apologize and acknowledge that he was a stupid kid who got caught up in something bigger than he could've fathomed as a kid.

I bring up the "NBA has no viable minor leauge" thing because I think it makes his actions more understandable given the context.  Teenage MLB draftees don't face the decision C-Webb faced.  They sign with agents and develop while they get paid.  

Lastly-- to those who say he could've gone pro out of high school-- there was NO precedent for this.  NONE.  Shawn Kemp went to UK and was kicked out for stealing.  He went pro because he had no other options (and faced the consequences of entering that world too soon).  Moses Malone was drafted in 1974 by the ABA.  Not an option for C-Webb.  Darryl Dawkins was the poster child for why going pro out of high school is a BAD idea.  C-Webb did what everyone did before Kevin Garnett (who went pro ONLY because he failed to get a 17 on the ACT).

fab five
Jalen Rose
Chris Webber

Comments

maddog5

January 31st, 2010 at 11:29 AM ^

re: Webber I always loved the guy, and while I would love it if he finally came clean and expressed remorse about what happened, I'm probably a little biased in his favor. re: "entitlement" The term became popular during the Reagan era, when first efforts were being made to end welfare. (During the Nixon period, Republicans were still FOR welfare, generally; Nixon RAISED welfare payments during his time in office; then Clinton all but ended it). But the argument became politically popular that poor people had come to feel 'entitled' to welfare benefits. . . . (Sometimes it's applied to black people, sometimes to all poor people.) I grew up among a lot of middle class black people (MIT grads; Bell Labs execs). This argument about entitlement--of course--tends to piss them off pretty good, since a lot of them had to go through more hells than you and I can imagine to get where they got. Reagan used to like to talk about 'welfare queens,' for example; it got pretty ugly. . . More recently, this argument has begun to come from the other side. At a time when the gap between rich and poor is more skewed than it has ever been, liberals have begun to complain that the rich feel 'entitled.' This argument has esp. been made about bankers and their feeling of 'entitlement' to million-dollar bonuses, or the way they refuse--some say unpatriotically- to pay taxes, squirreling their money away offshore. Anyway, it seems like a stretch to me to say that the Webbers felt 'entitled;' it's like stretching the notion about poor (black) people to middle class people. (In my years of teaching, I've come to believe that middle class people of all races are more alike than different.) The idea that there is a pervasive corruption in the sport--ongoing--seems much more convincing to me. Although people like Rush Limbaugh complain about the "thuggery" in the NBA (for ex.), you'll find that a lot of these players have 100s of people who are dependent on them and who they help, along w. sizable charitable giving, etc. (This would be the opposite of 'entitlement,' right?) A lot of people are often waiting on that talented kid to cash in so they can start living better. . . and there are a lot of hangers-on, inevitably, pressuring them further. In the end I don't think you can say much about WHAT the Webber family felt or thought, unless you have some privileged insight about them.

Joined: 11/24/2008

MGoPoints: 428

BeantownBlue

January 31st, 2010 at 1:35 PM ^

EDIT: Meant as a reply to maddog5 "Pervasive corruption" is the key element here. I don't think Webber should get a free pass, but I think we need to acknowledge that star amateur basketball players live in an inherently corrupt world. That's why I bring up the MLB and NHL. Their system for development provides much less temptation for amateur athletes. Look no further than yesterday's front page story from the NY Times about how the MLB grooms teenage prospects: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/us/30rookie.html?ref=us

Joined: 08/25/2008

MGoPoints: 1744

maddog5

January 31st, 2010 at 7:07 PM ^

Not sure why I got a minus; I was trying to show how this word 'entitlement' tends to get used by people, sometimes in a manipulative way on one side, more recently on the other. Not sure I care that much, but there's a certain cowardice in negbanging someone w.o. coming out and stating your gripe--like cold-cocking somebody in a bar fight, then running for the exit.

Joined: 11/24/2008

MGoPoints: 428

remdog

January 31st, 2010 at 9:40 PM ^

He made some poor decisions which ultimately hurt his fellow players. He was guilty of greed, failing to honor an agreement with the University and eventually perjury. On the first point, I can't really blame him - if somebody LEGALLY wants to hand you lots of money, most people will take it. On the second point, he can be faulted since his failure was costly to those around him. BUT, on the other hand, the NCAA uses its monopoly to exploit players and force them into signing an unfair agreement. As for hurting those around him, its really the NCAA which did the dirty work (punishing just about everybody except those responsible) since they had no way to punish him. From that perspective, point two is somewhat excusable. On point three, he is apparently guilty of perjury regarding a LEGAL action - so not exactly a damnable offense. So he is a flawed individual with serious failings but no damnable ones. Now let's look at his merits. Here's a guy who played his heart out in college and the pros - a great college player and pro who would have won championships in both if not for some bad luck. More importantly, he's contributed significant time and money to charitable causes - even starting the TIMEOUT foundation (which is self-deprecatingly named for his infamous timeout). He's been a basically law-abiding citizen when the Feds aren't questioning him in a witchhunt. So I can't hate him. I can't even fault him for not saying "I'm sorry." The University and the NCAA exploited him and then the NCAA punished a bunch of people who were not even involved. Perhaps the NCAA should say they're sorry. Perhaps he should apologize to his fellow players and perhaps he already has. But a public apology? If he wishes to be in the good graces of the University again, it would seem to be a reasonable action. But it's not necessary in my view.

Joined: 05/14/2009

MGoPoints: 3085