OT: Reggie Bush is Kunta Kinte
The funniest part of this article is that it attacks Pete Carroll and Lane Kiffin. Besides that it's a bit of a stretch. IMO
I wonder if he realizes that he makes his living off of these student athletes as well. I'm sure he wouldn't have a $100k+ job without the student athletes. This is uncle tom calling the kettle black.
Boy am I glad I had mediocre athletic skills and had to pay my way through college. I can't believe that schools give free tuition, room, and, board, and have the nerve to require the student athlete to play a sport he loves, while training in facilities most of us only dream of training in. And not just play it where no one can see him, but with the eyes of millions of fans who will praise him 12 - 14 times a year. On top of this, coaches usually require them to go to class to ensure that they get the degree that is supposed to be in exchange for their skills, as well as provide tutors to help them get the degree.
I say no thanks to this. It sounds horrible. Again, luckily I was able to pay for the tuiton, room, and board without the "help" of the University. And the only time I had play the games I loved was when I signed up for every intramural sport I could. Didn't have to worry about adorring fans there thats for sure. I got off easy.
I'm pretty sure his name was Toby... (joking)
Whitlock has a point about amatuerism. Athletes do get a free college education -- and that's quite valuable -- but those in big-money sports (at least those athletes and maybe others) should get bigger spending-money stipends. It's ridiculous for football teams in the Big Ten, for example, to make $22 million or more a year in TV revenue, tens of millions in ticket revenue and pay coaches millions of dollars a year while players have trouble buying a pizza or a new coat. If scholarship football and basketball players received $1,500 monthly stipends, what's that, per school? Let's say 125 scholarship athletes at 12 months per year = $2.25 million/year, per school. Fund it out of TV receipts and make it based on TV revenues. Womens basketball and mens hockey would get much smaller stipends, based on their smaller TV revenues, other sports even less.
But until the amatuerism rules are changed, Bush and those like him are cheaters. And taking free vehicles and housing for your family should always be cheating.
Wow lots of hate for Whitlock on this board.
How about you read all his articles before making a judgement on the Bush piece? His main point was that Bush is the fall guy here, while the NCAA should have more blame.
Not that I agree or disagree with his point completely, but I think a lot of people are getting caught up in the details. He's one of the best sports writers out there IMO. He will reach from time to time (as this piece probably suggests), but typically he's not writing with a slanted viewpoint (hello DFP).
oh yeah, pooooooor reggie.
you know, he only got tons of illegal (by the rules) benefits for himself and his family. and after college, he only made millions of dollars. yeah poor him.
no, really the people who suffered the most here are the guys on those usc teams who followed the rules, didn't get their parents' house paid for, etc. their hard work has been erased by the selfish actions of one player.
yes, the system needs serious fixing. but that doesnt mean that you can go vigilante and take it into your own hands and do whatever you want. this is exactly what bush did. yeah, if some 2nd string kid who had no chance of an nfl career had accepted some benefits and whatnot, id be a lot more sympathetic towards him. but reggie bush couldnt wait three fucking years until he was in the pros, guaranteed to be rolling in money? it was a selfish move imhe.
I never said I agreed or disagreed with Whitlock's point - did I? I stated that I think he's a solid journalist that at the very least provides entertainment (I mean, this is probably one of his worst articles and look at the response it's gotten on this board).
But yeah, I have no problem with people calling these athletes prostitutes (Saban, LeBetard, etc.).
A slave gets nothing, not even guaranteed freedom (such as a player gets after 3 years) - so that's a poor analogy.
But the prostitute one I have a hard time disagreeing with. The pimp (schools, NCAA) holds the money while the bitch (players) do all the "heavy lifting". Clearly the pimps/schools/NCAA serve a purpose - but they get fat off their employees hard work. And the employees get paid - hooker makes a cut, players get a scholly.
Now is this the best analogy? No, it can't be. But you would have a hard time finding my mind NOT in the gutter - so prostitutes it is. But never a slave.
As mentioned above, not all schools get "fat off their employees hard work." Some schools have trouble making a profit with sports programs.
The vast majority, actually.
What a joke.
I have made this point before but I will make it again. It is my story of the 4 P's
Police - call my home nearly everyday looking for money
Politicians - raise millions of dollars and seek donations anywhere and everywhere.
Preachers - on tv 24/7 begging for money
All these things are within the "rules"
Players - Nope no money for you. It's the "rules". Fuck the rules change the goddamn rules. If somebody wants to give these kids "gifts", they should be able to as long as it is all above the table.
I never had a problem with Weber and Ed Martin. If Ed Martin wanted to give 10 grand to a preacher or a politician, Martin would be rewarded with some miracle water or something, but giving money to Weber was forbidden. It so hypocritical that it ain't even funny
I do have a problem with Webber and Martin, because they took the entire program down the shitter and provided Tom Izzo with his golden opportunity to become a "legend" in EL. Thanks to them and their impact, Izzo had carte blanche in instate recruiting for ten years. And before the population shift started, that used to mean that you had access to enough players to stock an NBA team, what alone a college team.
If Ed Martin hadn't paid Webber et al, Tom Izzo would now be just another in a line of very good coaches at MSU and Michigan would still be on their competitive level in basketball.
I agree with you a hundred percent that the players deserve to be paid. I have commented on many occasions that the NCAA needs to throw out 97 percent of the rulebook. But until they do, the current players and coaches have to follow the rules that are in place. Does it suck? Yes. Does probation and a ten-year drought suck even worse? Double-yes.
I won't get too much further into this here, but will cover it on my blog shortly. Suffice to say that for numerous reasons, I think players should be able to get all of the benefits outside of school that they want. Jobs, cars, golden handshakes, "escorts:" whatever they can get. It would keep the schools from having to pay players, thus keeping the revenue from being subject to Title IX. Meanwhile, the players would get something besides aid for which many of them are eligible outside of sports, anyway.
Would this be unfair to the "have-nots?" No more so than the current system is already.
Giving money to recruits is not illegal according to the laws of the United States of America. Nor is it illegal with regard to any state or local laws, so long as it does not break any finance laws (such as the ones that regulate agents in states like Florida). It does, however, break the laws that a private organization, the NCAA, chooses to set out for those who choose to play for teams in its organization.
The NCAA is well within its rights to set the rules it wants to for its member institutions and players. And furthermore, there is no rule stating that if a player wants to play football after high school, then they have to join the NCAA. They could, for instance, join the CFL or a semi-pro league. They choose to join the NCAA because they get the greatest benefit in terms of compensation and future benefits from joining the NCAA. And if they want to take the benefits they get from the NCAA, then they have to follow the NCAA's rules, meaning they don't get to take any money or gifts. If they want to take money, then they cannot be part of the organization.
Saying that the NCAA rules are wrong is legitimate. Breaking them is not. Webber and Ed Martin violated the rules and knew that by violating these rules, they could do significant harm to the university, the basketball program, and those associated with the program, including the future players in the program. They broke these rules anyway. Also, Martin broke a number of gambling and tax laws, the proceeds from which funded the payments to Webber and others, which obviously isn't OK.
Whenever I see arguments like this, I always feel like the journalists are picking the wrong people to use as evidence to support their point. When Whitlock uses Bush as an example, it's easy for the reader to say "Wait a minute, he's making high 7 figures in the NFL, so he probably should have just had a little patience."
Wouldn't it be better to bring up the players who are on the two-deep (therefore are undeniably providing benefit to the university in on-field performance), yet have very little chance of capitalizing on those talents in the pros? I'm talking about your kickers, punters, and 5'10 centers, middle linebackers, and spread-option quarterbacks. For these people, you could easily make the argument of their being undercompensated for a great service that they provide to their schools/fanbases/etc, minus the ability to cash in on it afterwards.
But Reggie Bush as Kunta Kinte? Please. The man just won a Super Bowl.
The thing is, I doubt that a hoard of agents and boosters would be lining up to give them money. That's one of the reasons that the NCAA doesn't allow agents or boosters to give athletes money.
I know the word is used incorrectly a lot, but is there any irony when Jason Whitlock makes money writing about athletes who don't make money? I doubt he ever says he won't take any money for an article he might write on a college athlete cause they aren't paid. No offense, but the media make money off these kids as well.
Yes, and I make money off these kids by reading MGoBlog at work.
OH THE IRONY!
...playing a race card he shouldn't have dealt to himself.
I'm getting sick of black athletes getting compared to slaves lately. It's just a horrible comparison. I would do actual slave labor for a living if I was making the money Reggie Bush is making now. If big time college athletes feel like they're being exploited, they should try paying their way through school, and have to get a real job afterwards like the rest of us.
Also, this article is a steaming pile of horse shit.
/rant
why didn't he use Jews and Nazis? that one always proves relevant in every situation.
... are not slaves. Everybody has a choice.
That being said, the current system that allows university athletic programs to reap such huge benefits from the talents of these players and then does not provide them the tools to succeed in life after football is horrible. So many academic programs are set up to just to make certain the kids have the grades to qualify to play, as opposed to looking out for their long term academic development.
Personally, I think universities should offer free life time education grants to high profile sports athletes that generate significant money to the school. That should also be extended to their families/children. You don't have to give them bling, but give them access to tools that will allow them to succeed after football.
Here are some real numbers:
Scout's 2009 Michigan football roster lists 78 players, 18 of whom are in-staters. Assuming that all the players enroll in LSA and that half of them take lower division classes (i.e., are underclassmen), then the average player receives a $31,382 benefit each year in the form of free tuition. Add in another $12,330 per player in room and board and other living expenses paid for by the university, and that number jumps to $43,712 per year. Now add in the costs of transportation, team meals, sports gear, and Michigan apparel, and the benefit each player receives increases further. When all is said and done, it's not unreasonable to suggest that the average player is conferred with a $50,000 benefit every year they're in school.
Still, that number only accounts for the easily quantifiable benefits. But what about those that are difficult, if not impossible, to put a price on? What is the value of world-class coaching and athletic training? (If he charged for admission, I'd imagine the ticket prices for Barwis Beach would be sky-high.) How much money would you pay to have your name in the media every week during the fall? For the male mgobloggers, how much better would your college sexperience have been if 80% of the undergraduate women knew who you were? What is it worth to be able to say you were part of an institution as venerable as the Michigan football team?
I don't have a precise answer to the last question, but I can offer anecdotal evidence instead. Every recruiter and hiring manager I've talked to salivates at the thought of hiring college athletes; the bigger the program and the more prominent the sport, the better. College athletes, especially football players, are seen much the same way as military veterans: they have exhibited dedication, an above-average work ethic, self-discipline, and maturity beyond their years. In a tough job market (in any job market, really), having "member of the Michigan football team" on one's resume is a huge advantage that should never be discounted.
That education you're getting for free can get you a job if the football training doesn't pan out.
And frankly, any job that pays $50,000 a year sounds pretty good in this economy.
(Though my favorite is still your 80% of undergraduate women know who you are. Though you forgot that 79% of the women will drop panties just because they know who you are, and everyone else does).
Hey Reggie Bush and USC - you're a bunch of cheats. You got caught. Now you're dealing with the consequences.
That is all.
Jason Whitlock writes about the sports world from every angle, including those other writers can't imagine or muster courage to address. His columns are humorous, thought-provoking, agenda free, honest and unpredictable.
I'll let you be the judge.
This article is the biggest pile of shit in the history of piles of shit. Very original thought, the man exploiting black athletes. I would like to apoligize formally on behalf of my entire race for our actions. A free education and the platform to potentially earn millions at the next level wreaks of Jim Crow. Also Mr. Whitlock if you want to get off your fat ass and find the original sin, it is capitalism. That's right the only color that even makes this a debate is green not black and white. Nice try. Fuck off.
Slavery existed long before capitalism was ever developed as an economic concept. It is based upon the brutal, but natural occurring, nature of the strong to dominate the weak.
Slavery, genocide, murder, rape...all of these have occurred in economic and political systems from both sides of the political spectrum. Every civilization has had to deal with the plague of violence and oppression.
As for the article. Whitlock is using sensationalist headlines to make a point. There is validity to what he says, but I'd like to ask him one thing: How about the guys who go to an Eastern Michigan? My Alma Mater can barely afford football as it stands. If we are too pay the players, what happens to the Eastern Michigans?
My answer is that they would disappear and along with it, the scholarships that go with it. That means less scholarships for inner city blacks and less opportunity to escape the ghetto.
The thing is that urban minorities have used sports for decades as a way to escape the ghetto. Italians, Irish, Hispanics, and Blacks have all used a sport as a means to escape the ghetto,
Literally thousands of African American males each year receive scholarships to play football and basketball each year. For many, athletics is the only way they will be able to attend college.
I do sympathize with his point of a stipend, but there has to be some sort of revenue sharing scheme among the schools or you will see schools go to non-scholarship or drop the sport altogether. What then, Mr Whitlock?
He spelled "Saban" as "$aban". His intelligence does not exceed that of the average internet broseph. His opinion no longer counts. QED