This is my reaction to the Sports Illustrated story on Josh Luchs. This morning I got to hear Josh firsthand on Mike and Mike in the Morning on ESPN radio. I've been reading columns all day about it. The best of which was from Pat Forde http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=5681728 . There are lots of differing opinions out there about this subject, and I want to go over several of them here. The first of which is Mike Golic suggesting some will refer to Luchs as a snitch. First of all, that term "snitch", is something that people hide behind when they've done something wrong and don't want to be found out. Right and wrong is not absolute, it is a sliding scale and we simply have to make decisions based on what is more right than wrong. Secondly,if these players didn't want to be named for taking money, they shouldn't have done it. It's real simple, own up to it, take responsibility for it and it will cease to be an issue. If you don't have anything to hide, no one can expose you. How can someone be a "snitch" that is telling the truth? Mr. Luchs intentions may or may not be good, but that doesn't mean he isn't being honest. He said nothing in his report that is far-fetched, and many of the players have owned up to it, or not denied it.
Was anyone surprised to hear the news that players are being paid? I was surprised that some think this doen't happen. I went to a small college called Tennessee Tech in the mid-90's. I had many friends that played college sports. I saw with my own eyes a few of these people take money from coaches, on several different occasions. It was never very much money, but according to the rule, it doesn't matter. Now, imagine that if this was going on 15 years ago, at a college that you hadn't heard of till you read this, what it is like today a big universities across the nation, i.e. Reggie Bush. By the way, if his benefits are worth what has been reported, imagine what the top college basketball players make.
Let's also look at a different angle. The example I gave was a coach giving improper benefits, totally different topic, and much more disturbing but still related. Josh Luchs was an agent, and doesn't care where the kids go to school. When an agent is giving them money it has nothing to do with the school, and most of the time the school isn't aware of it. Which begs the question, if the school isn't involved, why can't there be contact with the agents? They are putting money out that they may never see a return on. Whether it be injury, skill level, or life circumstances, lots of these guys will never make it as a pro in their sport. That means that the agents are the ones taking the risk, none for the college at all. Why not regulate it instead of forbidding it?
Where would the NCAA be without these players? Where would the schools be without these players? Who needs who worse here? I've hear all day, "well, the players know its wrong to take it". Yeah, well I think the NCAA is wrong to have the rule. Kirk Herbstreit said it best, some of these kids don't have ANY money at all, or any time. They can't even afford to grab a pizza or go to a movie, but make their universties millions each weekend. Don't tell me "oh, well they get a free education". That is overpriced and overrated in todays world. Tell me what major Reggie Bush could have graduated with and made as much money as he makes today? We've seen college basketball suffer since players can skip college and go pro. Recently the NBA has changed that rule to make kids have to be out of school for a year before entering the draft, and that has hurt college basketball even more. All that aside, this isn't an NBA problem, or an NFL problem, and the only reason it is an NCAA problem is because the won't change the rules? Ask any good coach how to win, and they will tell you that you need good players. I hope this wasn't to disjointed, and I hope I gave you a different point of view. Good luck college players, you'll need it.
No comments:
Post a Comment