Jason Whitlock: Into the Deep End

So I logged onto my computer after getting off from work and noticed this little headline on MSN:

"Expose the NCAA-Not the Athletes" - Jason Whitlock

This may be perhaps the worst thing I have ever read from Whitlock, who I hoenstly find to be a little hit and miss.  There are days when he can actually write some insightful and well thought out articles, and then there is....well, whatever this is.

The article is a response to the recent NCAA investigation of numerous players who may or may not have attended an agents party, a direct violation of NCAA rules.

Look, Jason, I get it.  Race is your thing, your main focus on issues in sports.  However, there is a difference between an article describing race relations and an article that uses race to get attention, and this is the latter.

Whitlock is not a racist, though some will call him that because of this article.  Rather he is a smart writer, which is juxstaposed to the honest one he claims to be.  Let me be clear, he is not a bad journalist, it is unfortunate that we live in a society where sensationlism and entertainment trump information and facts.  Whitlock is certainly not the first, or the last, journalist to use sensationalism to get hits on his web site.  This article is something that will certainly generate buzz (and the fact that I am writing about it should confirm that to some extent).  This type of writing can be entertaining or engaging but the reality is that it neglects the fact.

The crux of Jason's argument is that the NCAA is "enslaving" college athletes by not paying them for their time in college, something he reinforces with allusions to "Roots" among other pop culture sources.  His argument is layed out in one simple sentence, "We know exactly what Byers knows and admitted: amateur athletics is a for-profit scam".  Whitlock also claims that major sports in basketball and football are being used to subsidize "welfare sports".

So let me get this straight, we should pay athletes in sports that make money because they are earning that money?  Sounds reasonable right?  Except that doesn't work. 

Let's start from the bottom and move up.

In sports like women's basketball and wrestling there are a small number of teams that do make money.  Does UConn have to pay their players while Notre Dame and Florida don't?  Do Iowa wrestlers get paychecks while their counterparts at Illinois and Ohio State are left out to dry?  Whitlock is really only saying that football and basketball players should get paid, not all athletes whose teams make money and it really flies in the face of what athletes in other sports have achieved.  While Whitlock may dismiss "welfare" sports , the reality is that they are a great opportunity for athletes to compete for their school and for students who may not have had a shot at a scholarship a free college education.  It is a bit ironic how Whitlock is able to compare the NCAA rulebook to laws that "denied women's suffrage" while simultaneously calling out non-profit teams, which includes nearly every women's sports team in the country.

Furthermore, do you as an athlete get paid if your team is not making money?  The Iowa basketball team hasn't exactly been raking in the dough these past couple of years, how do you justify paying players when they havn't drawn crowds large enough to make the program profitable?
Not only does it create an issue of how players should be payed, it all but destroys the already strained issue of parity in college sports.

Imagine you are a recruit, you have the option of going to Michigan State, Iowa, or Penn State.  All three are fine academic institutions but because Penn State is probably going to get you the most money it should be the obvious choice.  Paying college athletes based on how much they bring in to the school is asking for parity issues in the sport as the best athletes will go to the schools that will earn them the most money. 

And what about conferences?  We heard all summer about how the Big Ten and SEC make grossly larger sums of money than schools in other conferences.  If  athletes in these conferences are earning more money it stands to reason that the best athletes would head to those regions.  What does this do for programs like Missouri or Georgia Tech who would be at a huge recruiting disadvantages to their neighbors?

Look I am not saying the NCAA is perfect.  If this were about basketball athletes not being forced to go to colege for a year, I would be all for it.  However, in the case of football, which make no mistake is highest grossing sport by a wide margin, these athletes require the years of training they receive for their bodies to develop and for them to learn the technique nesscesary to play proffesional ball.  You can't say that athletesaren't already receiving compensation when they are receiving at least three years of intensive training, a free education (if they choose to utilize it), and compensation for room and board (not to mention the numerous gifts they receive from the school in terms of clothes and bowl swag). 

So really, this isn't the media "demonizing black kids for cashing in like white men" as Whitlock describes.  Rather, the players being punished for violating the NCAA's rules on agents is more of a case of individuals breaking a contract.  Frankly, these kids knew taking gifts from agents was against their agreement (you know, the one that pays for pretty much everything they do) and I have no problem for them being punished because they need to have more than their entire present and future payed for.  These kids are not slaves, they are ungrateful college students who think that they deserve more than the already huge compensation they are already receiving.

Whitlock, you are better than this, stop race baiting and start reporting.