I'm not certain what authority will be deciding whether or not college football should be banned. But the issue will be discussed on May 8 in NYC (that hotbed of college football). And Jason Whitlock will be among those opposing Malcolm Gladwell and his utopian vision and Buzz Bissinger, who believe that CFB should be banned.
Or do they? I thought I gleaned somewhere in Gladwell's comments that it would be okay to play CFB as long as the players got paid. And that's exactly what Whitlock is saying. However, as was pointed out on the last thread I posted, the players are compensated with a college education. But Whitlock says that's not enough.
I suspect that the level of discourse--and the intricacies of the subject--will not be explored as carefully and as passionately at this May 8 conference in NYC as they were in the thread here at MGoBlog( http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/malcolm-gladwell-why-college-football-should...).
Although, I must admit, the grammer police in that thread lost control; and it devolved into a grammar war, or, hopefully, a grammar spring. And I was as guilty as anyone.
Nonetheless, here is the link, and, of course, a synopsis of Mr. Whitlock's comments:
To shore up his defense, Whitlock also invokes America’s free principles, which he feels encompass the “right to act dumb” in pursuit of athletic glory or even cash. What he can’t stand is the bad faith of college leagues withholding pay from their risk-taking players. (It’s “embarrassingly hypocritical,” he grumbles.)