C-Webb, Double Standards, and Teenage Millionaires
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).
January 28th, 2010 at 1:08 PM ^
You're chipping at irrelevacies in his argument rather than addressing it. The undisputed facts are these:
1. Martin ran an illegal gambling ring.
2. Martin paid Webber from the proceeds of this ring from the age of about 12 through his time at Michigan.
3. What Webber did, knowingly or unknowingly, was illegal, as was what Martin did.
4. Webber, though his own volition, violated NCAA regulations.
January 28th, 2010 at 1:32 PM ^
Look. I'm sitting here waiting on a meeting that's late. What's your excuse for continuing to dig into something useless?
Webb did wrong. His "crime" was perjury; not money laundering (not even close...drop it...that crime requires knowledge and intent). Armchair Matlockism doesn't help your case.
Webb should be welcomed back despite past actions. A lifetime ban benefits neither the person nor the program. That's it.
January 28th, 2010 at 1:52 PM ^
Ah yes, the "posting on the internet to call someone a nerd for posting on the internet" attack. Well played.
January 28th, 2010 at 3:26 PM ^
No, actually I was making fun of myself (being one to continue posting) as much as you.
The attack was on your terminally flawed interpretation of the law.
January 28th, 2010 at 4:48 PM ^
You said how could his parents have know a criminal was giving him money. Martin was a criminal. If you say that they knew Martin, they should have had even MORE chance to know he was giving them money (a stranger giving him money could be on the sly...someone they know giving him money, and they don't know it?). And if you don't think he was a known criminal, your argument is with the Department of Justice, not me. But if an auto worker can afford to slide my son tens of thousands of dollars, I might think it might not be on the up and up, even before the DoJ gets involved...
I mean, dude, do you even remember what when down? I'm sure you could google it to refresh your memory...
January 28th, 2010 at 4:57 PM ^
Thanks! That's an awesome reply. You didn't even address the whole making-things-up-that-I-never-said-and-then-complaining-about-them problem you have. You also failed to give any proof that the Webber family knew Martin to be a criminal. I know a lot of people. Some, I was surprised to learn, have criminal records. You likely know folks with a past as well. That's life, but it isn't stuff people brag about.
I don't need to argue with you; you're doing a great job arguing with yourself. It's even funnier since I know Webb (never knew Martin)...and, no joke, I worked at the DOJ. I don't need to google a thing.
Take care. All the best.
January 29th, 2010 at 12:16 AM ^
I don't have to address the making up what you say argument because it doesn't exist. I'm sorry you are unable to understand that.
I made it pretty clear that anyone who knows someone who is giving their child tens of thousands of dollars that his job in no way allows him to afford, if they have half a brain, will realize something fishy is going on. You don't give the Webbers credit for having half a brain; I do. And you claim to know them. Nice of you to think do highly of them.
Thank God you no longer work at the Department of Justice...maybe we can catch someone now that there's one less head buried in the sand.
January 28th, 2010 at 12:54 PM ^
And even if you don't consider what Webber was doing as knowingly laundering money, Martin was running an illegal gambling operation. Doing something illegal makes you a criminal. Which is how all this stuff was proven. Because the Federal government was prosecuting Martin. The fact that he kicked the bucket before they finished doesn't really absolve him.
January 28th, 2010 at 1:01 PM ^
Of course I don't consider Webber to have knowingly laundered money. That's insane. He was never charged with that (nor was that alleged to the best of my memory). He lied under oath about receiving benefits in order to protect the program. He didn't launder money. Maybe Ed Martin did other bad things...was Webber at fault for those things too?
You wouldn't make a very good prosecutor.
January 28th, 2010 at 1:03 PM ^
You don't read very well. He didn't say Webber "knowingly" laundered money. What he said is that Webber DID launder money, whether he was aware of it or not. That is a crime, and it is illegal, regardless of whether Webber knew he was getting money from a gambling ring or not.
January 28th, 2010 at 1:24 PM ^
Maybe I'm wasting my time with this..."I don't read very well"??? Is this bizarro world?
He didn't say Webb knowingly laundered money??? Right. I guess that's implied when someone says "even if you don't consider what Webber was doing as KNOWINGLY LAUNDERING MONEY (caps added)..."
Second, the crime you alleged requires criminal intent. No crime without the intent. Swing and miss. All the best.
January 28th, 2010 at 4:52 PM ^
It was actually Chitown who brought up the money laundering, and and I put that in because I didn't want to say myself that what he was doing was that (even though I tend to agree). So I was saying BEYOND that, and even if THAT WAS NOT THE CASE, he still was involved in/with...
January 28th, 2010 at 12:57 PM ^
Why should Fisher and Michigan be held accountable for what Webber did at the age of 13? This makes no sense.
January 27th, 2010 at 8:37 PM ^
Amen brother, excellent reply.
Regardless of whether or not people agree with you, this should be seriously plussed up for quality content and thought.
January 27th, 2010 at 11:02 PM ^
I loved your reply until I saw your sig.
January 27th, 2010 at 11:30 PM ^
Hahaha. Yeah, I admit that I'm a huge Ant Wright fan, and not just as a basketball player. Funny, funny guy with lots of interesting observations about the world. His humor is very Seinfeld-esque.
January 28th, 2010 at 1:00 PM ^
Sort of agree. Michigan had an assitant coach that eventually gave Martin access to Michigan players. Fisher didn't police his players, or their relationship with Martin. That's on Michigan.
That said, Webber broke an NCAA regulation. I don't buy the "maybe" he knew it was wrong. We all know Webber is not a stupid person. As a scholarship athlete at Michigan, who sat through endless seminars on what we could and could not do, I can assure you - he knew he was breaking a regulation. That's something he chose to do. He's responsible for his actions, just as Michigan is responsible for theirs.
January 29th, 2010 at 11:19 AM ^
I think that had Michigan done a little research into the background of their recruits, they would have known about the relationship between C-Webb and Martin.
Martin wasn't some nobody, he was a huge player in the Detroit High School hoops scene and people knew what he was doing. He got into trouble for attempting to "befriend" Terry Mills years before C-Webb.
I find Michigan's ignorance of the situation hard to believe. They knew of the relationship between Martin and Webber's family. He had been a major player in the lives of the Webbers for years. They just chose to ignore Martin in an effort to cash in on a once-in-a-decade mega-recruit.
You have to keep in mind that the Webber family considered Martin a close family friend. Although Martin did not begin paying Webber until later, he befriended the family at a church function after seeing Chris play basketball. He became a close family friend and loaned the Webber family some money, which was supposed to help them out before Chris' big payoff in the NBA.
Chris paid Martin back at least $38,000 (that's all C-Webb is willing to admit giving to Martin) of the $280,000 that Martin gave to his family. The freep's investigation into the scandal found that Webber had paid back Martin nearly all of the money. This behavior seems to indicate that while Webber, in all likelihood knew it was illegal, still considered it to be a loan, rather than a pay out.
Who knows? Maybe Mayce was duped by Martin, and believed that nothing was illegal. Martin was silver tongued, and maybe he told Mayce and Chris that because it was a "loan" everything was perfectly legal. We can't ever really know if Chris knew what he was doing was wrong until he admits as much.
That being said, if Webber is at fault for being befriended by Martin at a young age, and Michigan just overlooked this fact, then what about Maurice Taylor? Robert Traylor? They too were friends with Martin before coming to Michigan. During Mo Taylor's recruitment, Martin was present during an in home visit with Steve Fisher. Martin was also receiving special tickets, and unprecedented access to the team over a ten year period. The coaches, and the athletic department were well aware of Martin.
They chose to ignore the devil for the dollars, were caught, and rightfully punished..
January 29th, 2010 at 11:36 AM ^
I don't think I made the argument that Michigan didn't fuck up. Martin was engaging in behavior that was blatantly corrupt, and Michigan looked the other way. That's on them. They hired Perry Watson, who brought Martin on recruiting trips for Taylor, Traylor, and Bullock. That's on them. Webber is not responsible for any of this.
However, Webber IS responsible for choosing to violate an NCAA regulation, one that I assure you he knew existed. He's not dumb. His parents aren't dumb. The AD pounds, ceaselessly, into every athlete's head what they are and are not allowed to do. He ignored that, and he took money. That is his responsibility.
January 29th, 2010 at 3:33 PM ^
This is going to sound a little bit mean spirited toward C-Webb, but I don't see how you can make the argument that he's not dumb, or that his parents are not dumb. They've only ever referred to Martin's payments as "loans", and maybe they really believed that there was nothing wrong with a friend loaning another friend some money, when said friend's son also happens to be a superstar athlete.
It's not feasible to make the argument that he knew that he was violating the rules because C-Webb is the only person who can confirm or deny whether or not he knew he was violating the rules. You can have an extremely strong opinion on the subject but it's just that, an opinion.
He has never come out and said, "I knowingly violated NCAA rules." He admitted to taking a $38,000 loan from Ed Marin and repaying all of that money, but nothing else.
Until he comes clean about precisely what happened, we can only guess if C-Webb knowingly broke the rules or not.
January 29th, 2010 at 5:04 PM ^
It's not feasible to make the argument that he knew that he was violating the rules because C-Webb is the only person who can confirm or deny whether or not he knew he was violating the rules. You can have an extremely strong opinion on the subject but it's just that, an opinion.
Um, I can make the argument - because that's my opinion. I don't understand what you're saying, at all.
I was a scholarship athlete at Michigan for 4 years, before the scandal broke. They were STILL extremely thorough in pounding into our skulls, until no possible doubt remained, that we couldn't take a cent, a car, a ride, an apartment, a meal, nothing - from anyone vaguely associated with the University. We got passed out handouts on what to tell a "season-ticket holder" if they offered us dinner - and I was a fucking SWIMMER. There is no way he didn't know it was wrong. None.
January 29th, 2010 at 6:07 PM ^
Feasible-in this sense means, capable of being carried out successfully.
You cannot know with absolute certainty that Chris Webber knowingly broke the rules. Therefore you cannot feasibly make the argument that C-Webb knowingly broke the rules.
"...anyone vaguely associated with the University..."
It's cool that you were a swimmer, but Martin was a family friend well before Chris ever attended Michigan or had any idea where he would go to school. It is therefore easy to see where the line becomes blurred. If Webber thought of Martin as a close family friend, then why would he think that taking money from Martin was wrong? He wouldn't have considered Ed Martin to be the kind of evil, mysterious, criminal booster that the University warned him of, instead, he would have been close family friend, Ed.
He might have known that taking money from a booster or season ticket holder was wrong, but he might not have considered the fact that taking money from Ed Martin was wrong, due to the nature of Ed's relationship with Chris' family, and how closely intertwined they were.
January 29th, 2010 at 6:29 PM ^
Because he received large sums of money in circumstances that cannot have been anything other than suspicious earlier in life, he would not realize that it was not OK to continue to receive large sums of money in circumstances that were clearly against regulations. The only way that argument works is if Webber has a mental disability. As there is a person on this board who knows Webber, perhaps he could address this.
January 31st, 2010 at 12:28 PM ^
No, I knew what you were saying. I was saying it was idiotic.
I can't make an argument about an opinion I hold unless it is 100% true? And you say this while speculating why you think Webber didn't see what he did was wrong? Do you KNOW that's why Webber didn't think what he did was wrong? Do you even know if Webber thinks he didn't do anything wrong? How can you feasibly make that argument? See how that works?
February 1st, 2010 at 3:33 PM ^
You're argument differs from mine in that I'm not pretending that I know more than I actually do.
You say things along the lines of...
"I assure you he knew existed"
"He ignored that"
"There is no way he didn't know it was wrong. None."
Then you say something along the lines of...
"Um, I can make the argument - because that's my opinion. I don't understand what you're saying, at all."
followed by...
"No, I knew what you were saying. I was saying it was idiotic. I can't make an argument about an opinion I hold unless it is 100% true? And you say this while speculating why you think Webber didn't see what he did was wrong? Do you KNOW that's why Webber didn't think what he did was wrong?"
------------
Ok, so fist of all, if you're stating an opinion, you should avoid phrases like, "There is no way he didn't know it was wrong. None." or, "I assure you he knew existed..." because those statements come across as being more like, "I'm cloaking an opinion under the guise of a fact" as opposed to "I'm stating an opinion".
You also seem to like to say things like, "I don't know" and then, "I did know. I just chose to say the exact opposite and hoped that you would somehow read my mind and figure out that what I meant was the exact opposite of what I said." (It can really be bothersome to the person you're having a discussion with when you state the opposite of what you mean)
I don't know what happened. You don't know what happened. The only difference between us is that I admit that I don't know what happened, and you "assure me" that "there is no way way he didn't know" and thus pretend that you know more than you actually do regarding the subject at hand.
I don't know that C-Webb knew what he was doing was wrong. I don't know that Webber thinks that he didn't do anything wrong, and I don't pretend that I know more than I actually do.
I don't tell people that there is "no way, none" or "assure" because those types of statements imply that I know what C-Webb knew, and make me out to be some omniscient being, able to look into the mind of Chris Webber. I'm just using the knowledge that I've acquired with regards to the subject to form an opinion, and then state it as such.
I say things like, "He might", "we can only guess", and, "You can have an extremely strong opinion on the subject but it's just that, an opinion," which tend to be much more helpful in illustrating that my statements are opinions. I do not dress up and parade my opinions as facts by saying things like, "...Webber IS responsible for choosing to violate an NCAA regulation, one that I assure you he knew existed."
It is possible, to make the argument that you're making, that you know that "there is no way he didn't know. None," because you were an athlete, but it's inherently stupid because you don't know that there is no way that C-Webb didn't know he was breaking the rules.
You can assume that due to the fact that you were both athletes, and therefore have a shared experience, that you may attended some of the same university seminars, but you can't make the argument that "he ignored" the rules and that "there is no way he didn't know. None," because it is an "idiotic" argument to make. You don't know, and that's ok, but don't pretend to know when you really don't.
Just a little helpful tip: The fact you're becoming "angry internet guy" doesn't really help your case much either.
February 1st, 2010 at 4:23 PM ^
So, you're arguing semantics.
February 1st, 2010 at 7:41 PM ^
So, you're shocked that choosing your words carefully and paying close attention to how you say things is important when having a discussion/stating your opinion.
January 29th, 2010 at 2:29 PM ^
I just find it funny that someone ELSE in this thread who CLAIMS to be a friend of the Webbers doesn't seem to think that there's any evidence Chris's parents knew of Martin's existence at all...
January 29th, 2010 at 3:40 PM ^
How is it possible that you have over 3000 points?
It's like you don't read what people write, make up something else, and then complain about it.
I assume you're referring to me with this laughably faulty post, and AGAIN, I'll remind you that there is an enormous difference between knowing that someone "exists" and knowing that someone is a "criminal". Give it up already. Move on. You'll never forgive Webb. Sweet.
January 29th, 2010 at 5:13 PM ^
At least, that's what you said...but then, FWIW...
And I wash Brian's car every Sunday, so he slides me some points....
I'll may forgive "Webb". If he ever asks for it, contritely.
January 29th, 2010 at 6:21 PM ^
He has over 3000 points, you are in the negatives. Maybe there's a reason for that. In fact, I'll provide some:
1. When you disagree with someone, you tend to dwell in irrelevancies rather than address the heart of an argument, because your only goal is to win the argument. This is annoying and furthermore, it shows that you are incapable of distinguishing the difference between winning an argument and actually being correct.
2. You hold a double standard for everyone other than yourself. You criticize people for ambiguous word choices and failing to read/understand exactly what you meant while making the same errors when responding to others.
3. You launch personal attacks on others without anything approaching just cause. It is obvious that you are emotionally attached to this issue because you know Chris Webber and remember the Fab Five very fondly. That is clearly the basis for your opinion that Chris Webber should be accepted by the university. We know this because you haven't given a single intelligent explanation of why the university should welcome Chris Webber back other than the fact that he could donate money and help recruiting. You have compensated for this by making personal attacks against various people combined with a sarcastic attitude that is highly irritating and not remotely funny.
4. You ignore everything else written by others if what is being said does not fit into your vision of how the world works. In retrospect, I now realize that because of this trait of yours, the time spent writing this post was likely wasted.
January 30th, 2010 at 2:54 PM ^
I enjoyed it... :-D
And yeah, I think I'm done with this thread. But if for no other reason, the time spent writing was worth it to me so I could read it.
January 27th, 2010 at 8:33 PM ^
The issue is a little more complicated due to the unusual circumstances of the Fab Five. EVERYBODY was cashing in on them. Michigan set a record for apparel sales that stood until Vince Young's national champion Texas team. I myself owned a #4 Michigan jersey that cost $80 dollars. I bought the #4 because of Chris Webber, not the Michigan name on the front. I've got plenty of non-player specific UM clothes. If universities are going to cash in on specific athletes, they should be paid something, anything. Yeah, yeah, scholarship, housing, etc. That team made Michigan more money than 5 home football games. Look around for the official #5 Michigan jerseys at the Big House next year. They're not being worn to hearken back to James Whitley. If a guy is moving enough jerseys to subsidize a new building on campus, he deserves a cut. Maybe then they won't be tempted to take illegitimate cash that they probably feel they deserve.
January 27th, 2010 at 10:19 PM ^
"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."
Webber broke the second-biggest rule in collegiate sports repeatedly and in a very large way. He caused the fanbase that idolized him to suffer for over ten years with the consequences of his actions while he cashed in for NBA millions. He lied to the coaching staff and the fanbase. And he has never admitted anything in public, nor has he apologized the the coaches, the administration, or the fans.
The athletes that you mention all make their money within the rules of their respective sports. Neither Crosby, Sharapova, nor Wie took a college scholarship, took money under the table nor gutted their college programs for ten years with their actions.
These are all facts, not judgements; notice the lack of emotional phrases or words. There really was no contempt for Webber in the earlier thread; there was more adoration and mixed emotions than anything else.
There is absolutely no double-standard being used by those who wish to see a mea culpa and an apology from Webber. I would offer that there is much more of a case that those who would criticize Reggie Bush, Maurice Clarett, John Calipari, and the like while defending Webber are much more guilty of a double standard than anyone who wants to hold Webber responsible for his actions.
I love UM as much as anyone here, but I won't defend Webber's behavior just because he wore the maize and blue. Webber's behavior was a major part of the most embarassing chapter in the history of the University of Michigan.
Consider this for a moment: the University of Michigan has been around since 1817, and Chris Webber was the most prolific (he did take the most money) figure in the most embarrassing scandal in 193 years of a great institution. Why is it a "double standard" to expect him to take responsibility for his actions?
Non sequitur.
January 28th, 2010 at 12:35 AM ^
Michigan is who I blame, not 19 year old versions of Chris Webber/Maurice Taylor/Louis Bullock/Robert Traylor/etc...
^ See the laundry list of players...hmmm....I think when it's more than one over a ten year period it's on the U to figure out what the hell is going on, but Michigan just ignored everything in exchange for the ridiculous amounts of money and publicity the University was receiving as a result of these young men. No one ever questioned what was going on, they just said "keep it up boys" and kept watching the dollars roll in.
Bottom line, Michigan is to blame for everything that happened to Michigan.
January 28th, 2010 at 8:56 AM ^
misunderstood.
CW was simply greedy and you want to excuse him. Fine. No one held a gun to his head and forced him to accept the scholly at UM. He knew millions were coming his way with a mere YEAR OR TWO. CW did not come from the ghetto. There is a whole heck of a lot more to this story that what the OP is stating. Do your homework. Idol worship is some dangerous junk, bro.
And if Michigan is to blame for everything that happened at Michigan, then the US is to blame for everything that happens to it. That is really a junk argument.
potato salad
January 28th, 2010 at 4:22 PM ^
That's funny coming from someone who failed to address any of my points. Let me address yours:
1. "CW was simply greedy and you want to excuse him. Fine"
If he's greedy, so is every teenage athlete who cashes in (see OP). And no, I didn't excuse him. I think he needs to apologize and I think we need to forgive him (because there was no viable minor league for him to develop and make cash outside of the NCAA).
2. "He knew millions were coming his way with a mere YEAR OR TWO."
Tell that to Sam Bradford. Kids get injured all the time. Plus, MLB draftees don't have to wait. They get paid WHILE they develop as players.
3. "CW did not come from the ghetto."
Neither did Michelle Wie.
4. "Idol worship is some dangerous junk, bro."
Do you really talk like that in real life? If so, you're a tool.
5. "if Michigan is to blame for everything that happened at Michigan, then the US is to blame for everything that happens to it"
I don't think Michigan is to blame for everything. That was someone else's argument. But I think they were complicit and partially responsible. Remember, CW was one of many who took cash over a long period. I think CW needs to apologize as do school officials, and Fisher.
January 28th, 2010 at 10:10 AM ^
Webber might be an engaging individual with a keen eye for the game and prodigious skills during his playing days, but he has consistently underwhelmed when the pressure is on for him to perform in less-glamorous or trying situations. And I'm not talking about the game against UNC - that was a mistake that just happened, a confluence of events that you don't wish on anyone. But from the investigation to the various blow-ups he had while a pro, he has shown an immaturity that makes it hard to feel that bad for him. Yes, it sucks that college basketball players don't have disposable income and cannot go pro when they want, but that is kind of the deal. Doctors and lawyers have to "wait" to practice their craft and pass a variety of academic and societal barriers before they can start earning the big bucks. And while this may not be said for doctors, but as a lawyer I can tell you that I probably would be about as good of an attorney without going to law school (and just serving as an apprentice) as I did spending thousands of dollars on tuition, books, etc. in law school. But this is, by and the large, the price one has to pay sometimes.
Webber clearly felt that the rules did not apply to him, that he shouldn't have to wait to be paid in the pros while still in college. He wanted to be treated like the star he was. This is a feeling shared by, oh, most college players, and yet most don't accept money from boosters (or at least are smarter about keeping it under wraps). And don't tell me that he had no other option than to go to college - guys like Shawn Kemp jumped to the NBA and were successful, and a couple of years after Webber joined the NBA it was common to see high-school kids jump straight to the pros. Sure, it would have been tougher for him to gain a foothold in the pros, but the option existed.
No, Webber wanted to play in college because it would give him more exposure and boost his draft stock, and along the way he could receive a free education. Part of the deal, though, with such an arrangement was that he definitely COULD NOT ACCEPT MONEY from Ed Martin while was at UM. That is just part of the deal, and while the University definitely deserves a fair share of blame for allowing it to go on as long as it did, that doesn't absolve Webber of the blame he has yet to accept. I know that it is hard to turn down free money, especially for a young guy, but he knew it was wrong and he still did it. Webber never manned up to accepting responsibility for this actions, and that is why I will not cut him any slack.
January 28th, 2010 at 4:10 PM ^
" And don't tell me that he had no other option than to go to college - guys like Shawn Kemp jumped to the NBA and were successful."
1. Shawn Kemp did not jump directly to the NBA. He went to University of Kentucky, got in trouble and was kicked out. He then went to community college in Texas. Then he went to the NBA because he had NO OTHER OPTIONS.
2. "guys like Shawn Kemp"
What other guys? NOBODY was drafted out of high school between 1975 - 1995. Nobody. There was NO PRECEDENT for success in the NBA by being drafted out of high school. Moses Malone was drafted by the ABA. Darryl Dawkins was not successful. And that was in 1975.
January 28th, 2010 at 4:32 PM ^
We're obviously mostly in agreement.
That is - I think it's a false choice to argue either (A) C-Webb's evil and shouldn't be forgiven v. (B) He was a kid, he didn't know what he was doing, other people exploited him, not at all his fault, blah blah blah.
Often times - no - ALWAYS in these situations multiple parties are at fault. U of M as an institution was at fault. Fisher was. C-Webb's parents. Ed Martin. The entire amateur basketball system.
Again - multiple parties being at fault tempers any anger towards C-Webb, but it doesn't absolve him of his very real, very obvious fault - flouting rules he was aware of at the risk of hurting a program/school he still professes to love (have loved). At this point - let's drop the "do I have a right to be mad at him for what he did to UM" vs. "What did he even owe UM?" debate, and just say this - to profess your love of an institution without ever acknowledging ANY fault in your part in severely hurting said institution (I'm punting on the "C-Webb played no role, it was Ellerbe's bad coaching that screwed UM" debate. Frankly, that debate suffers from the same false A/B dichotomy, and I can't believe any reasonable mind wouldn't conclude Webber was a very real proximate cause of UM's probs), even with the understanding that you were a young kid, is straight up phony. It's insincere. And it evidences a quality in a man - not a 19 year old - that makes it hard for me to fully embrace.
And beantown, I agree with you that there wasn't an established precedent for HS-to-NBA jumps until the late 90s, but I do disagree with this - "His only way to prepare for a professional career was to go to college. As you pointed out, he wouldn't have been a top ten pick on his own."
That is - precedent or not, the way to "prepare" for an NBA career is besides the point - the point is, did he have the right/ability to start his NBA career in lieu of "preparing" for an NBA career as an unpaid amateur? The answer is undoubtedly yes. He could have. We can discuss actual choice vs. perceived choice vs. social pressures another day. But if getting paid was more important to him than prepping in college, or if he REALLY felt like making a statement about the exploitation of amateur basketball players, the way to do it was to bolt to the NBA. I agree that this would have sent shockwaves through the sports world - I don't agree that the uniqueness of that move means it wasn't available.
I used an earlier analogy to a law student determining that, even with the opportunity cost of not making entry level salary for 3 years and the additional $160K in loans, going to law school was a better choice. But that's not even a great comparison, right? In virtually every state (with the exception of CA, I believe, that has a wicked hard Bar exam to weed out non-law grads), a JD is mandatory to enter the profession. Unique or not, in the early 90s, attending college for a year or two was not mandatory to enter the NBA profession, even if "conventional wisdom" or common assumption said so. It's why I would stand and applaud a kid that followed Jennings' route to Europe - uncommon, sure, but undebatably honest.
And in any event, I sort of don't care, as I've consistently said that my inability to embrace C-Webb turns on the adult version's inability to suggest any wrongdoing all while expressing a seemingly phony surprise that the school has banned him.
Say what you want about U of M being hardlined about this, but many of us mocked and guffawed USC for thumbing their noses at the NCAA investigation into recruiting violations that may have occurred under the tenure of Lane Kiffen, recruiting coord, only to bring LK back as HC.... I find it wholly reasonable for the school to keep its distance from C-Webb until he acknowledges, as a man, that he played a role in an incredibly embarrassing time for this institution.
January 28th, 2010 at 8:31 PM ^
Thanks for the nuanced and thorough response. I agree that we're mostly in agreement (Hooray! Agreement!).
I think we both acknowledge that C-Webb is at fault, but is not SOLELY. We agree that he should acknowledge his wrongdoings if we're ever able to welcome him back.
My whole point in bringing this up is that IF he ever does apologize (and I realize that's a big IF), I hope people will forgive him and welcome him back. Because it wasn't ALL his fault.
Yes, he could've chosen to go pro. It would've been a huge risk, but yes he could've taken it.
But with a minor league similar to the MLB or NHL, he would've been surrounded by scouts and lawyers and agents, looking to make a financial investment on behalf of a professional organization--rather than being surrounded by AAU coaches and sketchy college boosters.
That is all. Thanks for the thoughtful response.
January 28th, 2010 at 10:22 AM ^
I have no sympathy for Chris Webber or his family. Both his parents are teachers. He did not grow up in abject poverty. He had a free ride to Detroit Country Day HS. I expect from that background that he should have morals and knows the difference between right and wrong. His parents must have known what was going on.
You don't need all this money in college. You don't need a car on campus. I didn't have any of this when I was a student. He doesn't "need" all this because he is a highly skilled basketball player.
He was a selfish brat who wanted to get paid from day one and made several statements to that effect concerning the royalty money that UM was receiving from their success.
What really bothers me is that Ed Martin was considered a booster. He was not an Alum. He wasn't their HS or AAU coach. He was a groupie that hung out at St. Cecilia's in Detroit. So he was given some tickets because it was thought that he might have had some influence with the "fab 5".
Until the NCAA comes down on USC for the $300,000 (about the same amount that Webber supposedly received) that Reggie Bush and his family received from an agent, then the Michigan scandal was all for naught.
January 28th, 2010 at 1:41 PM ^
I realize what I am asking about deals with a very politically sensitive issue. However, I wonder if there isn't a racial dynamic here. Even though C-Webb's parents were teachers, and even though he went to Country Day, Webber and his family are African Americans. Full disclosure: I am white, and while my parents were never wealthy, even living below the so-called poverty line, I have never been in want. Doors have always opened to me as a white, tall, UofM educated, male.
I have been given to understand that there is something, in some part of black culture, that almost feels a sense of entitlement to take from the establishment, whenever possible. In Chicago, we see this with some aldermen, and with the Cook County Board Government. I suspect that some of this happened with Kwame in Detroit. I saw it with some black managers when I was at Hydramatic in Ypsi. I also have experienced that this can be very hidden from white culture. Depending on the setting, some African Americans change their language, their speech patterns, their idioms, their dress, their attitude, severely.
My point is this. I believe it is possible that Webber was taught, implicitly or explicitly, that "the white man" (i.e., UofM) was using him, and it was entirely appropriate for him to take from the man whatever he could for himself.
By analogy, Robin Hood stole from the rich, but was approved by the poor. Robin Hood was stealing, which was wrong. But the general populace felt that he was ok.
Somehow, I think that there was something like this going on with Webber.
There is at least one other component involved. Namely, I think that for Webber to apologize would seem to him (and to the black community) to be groveling, to admit powerlessness to the white man, to humiliate yourself to the overlord.
There seems to be general agreement on the board that what Webber did was wrong, but that UofM and the Men's Basketball Program were also complicit, and also at fault. I wonder if Webber would consider apologizing, and admitting wrong-doing, if Fisher, and Frieder, and the UofM administration, ALSO apologized and admitted wrong doing.
If I were Webber, it would seem to me that I was being made the fall guy, and taking the rap, when so many others were given a free pass and not being held accountable. When there is mutual accountability and blame, it becomes more of a real option to have a genuine apology. It is infuriating, in general, to see those in a position of power shielded from any kind of accountabilty. The Harrison Ford movie "Clear and Present Danger" is a morality play about this very topic, with any number of powerful men, from the initial drug deal to the President, trying to avoid any blame or accountability.
This post has morphed into one of those TLDR things. But for any real dialogue to happen on this board on this issue, people of color (blacks from Detroit, etc.) need to weigh in with their perspective. I just think it is too easy for too many people who have come from privilege to see this whole issue in black and white (no pun intended.) The elephant in the room is the racial cultural component.
January 28th, 2010 at 5:02 PM ^
Don't you have to face some repercussions to be the fall guy? Other than facing perjury charges, which he did on his own, how has he been damaged by this? Because he can't come back and visit...? awwwwww
The U of M administration HAS admitted wrongdoing, and apologized. They helped investigate and threw themselves upon the mercy of the NCAA. Not sure how that doesn't constitute admitting wrong doing.
What do you want? A statement saying "sorry we weren't paying more attention Chris when you were taking thousands of dollars under the table, and we didn't throw you off the team then?"
Yeah, I'm sure he would have been grateful, and that would have done wonders for his draft status.
I'm guessing Webber came from more privilege than a lot of people on here, and if anyone of any color justifies doing something wrong because they're "owed it", that's a character flaw, and not something I would make a blanket statement painting a whole race or region as that way.
January 28th, 2010 at 6:08 PM ^
Mostly just want to say OP was speculating on what Webber might be thinking. I am not justifying his actions.
1) He wasn't a fall guy. In truth, Webber mostly went out of here scot free.
2) Admitting wrong-doing. Just curious . . . did Steve Fisher and Bill Frieder ever admit wrong-doing, or just the admin? And what exactly did the admin say (any links?)
3) No one is "owed" the ability to do wrong. Can't justify it.
4) No blanket statement regarding a race or region. HOWEVER . . . I suspect that SOME people think this way.
January 28th, 2010 at 6:47 PM ^
Whether Fisher or Frieder admitted wrongdoing is sort of a nonissue, right?
If you tell me that yes, they did, should I hate C-Webb? If you tell me that no, they did not, should I embrace C-Webb?
My evaluation and feelings of C-Webb aren't dependent on what Fish/Frieder did or didn't do post-hoc.
Again, as I said earlier, it's pointless to try to argue about isolating a SINGLE causes of a problem. It's called multivariate analysis, and it's our friend. When discussing C-Webb alone, I can acknowledge that he wasn't purely at fault and still consider him a cause. If you want to talk Fish, that's cool, too. I (1) don't know enough about him anymore to know if he apologized (and if he didn't, then yep, I consider that to be a weakness of character), but more importantly (2) his punishment was the anonymity and irrelevance one can infer from point (1).
January 29th, 2010 at 12:29 AM ^
I disagree with #2, and Ward goes over it exceptionally well, but just to add, Fisher hasn't apologize...and I'm guessing he not high on the welcome list either, and you could get just as long a thread trashing him. Frieder has complained about not being invited back and embrace more. Because frankly, they've all cast into shadow any good memories of Michigan Basketball I have.
As for what the Admin said- "We did it. Here's the punishment we recommend. Punish us. It's not the Michigan Way." they self investigated, reported, and hammered themselves enough that the NCAA accepted the recommended punishment. That sounds remorseful to me.
January 29th, 2010 at 11:42 AM ^
I think we can all agree that Webber - along with adults surrounding him - made a mistake. I'm not willing to chalk it all up to youthful indiscretion, but I do think that the adults in his life failed him. You can argue that the University paid for his mistake a lot more than he did, but please tell that to the NCAA and their archaic system of "justice."
I grew up on, and loved, the Fab 5. Did the fallout of the investigation taint it for me? Sure. But I still remember watching that team as some of my greatest moments in Michigan fandom.
In a perfect world, I'd love to see him apologize and make a symbolic gesture towards the University that paid for his mistakes. But regardless, when the NCAA ban is lifted, I will welcome him back to Crisler with open arms. I'll be rockin' my Fab 5 t-shirt when they do: http://www.zazzle.com/fab_five_t_shirt-235658740172422423
January 29th, 2010 at 4:41 PM ^
Mostly like your title. I guess I would edit slightly and say, "time to move on." I do want there to be forgiveness. But for full and real forgiveness to happen, C-Webb has to acknowledge that he did something wrong. It doesn't make sense to forgive if someone doesn't think they've sinned.
I fully agree that adults around Webber failed him, and I wonder if they've ever been taken to task. Whatever. Thanks.
Comments