Smamateurism

And my theory regains some steam.

The college sports world is practically ablaze with news regarding the amateur status(es) of college athletes, most revolving around football. Depending on what day it is, the UNC football program is often at the center of the current controversy.

Today happens to be one of those days as the News & Observer is reporting that 49er Kentwan Balmer paid for a Cali trip for former Tar Heel (and hallmate of mine) Cam Thomas and current Tar Heel Marvin Austin, who can't seem to keep his name out of the news for more than a week right now.

According to UNC's assistant AD of compliance, a former teammate's paying for a current college students' trips isn't necessarily illegal under NCAA rules. Even so, this latest "scandal" is important enough to grace the Lead of ESPN's bottomline and will certainly be discussed in the ongoing investigation into UNC's compliance.

Regardless, this instance points to a fundamental flaw in the philosophy of the NCAA's view on college athletes: it unilaterally limits athletes' personal relationships. In fact, it practically eliminates what Jack Donaghy considers the purest expression of friendship: gift giving.

It seems nearly impossible that current professional athletes wouldn't feel close enough to certain current student-athletes to give them presents. In many cases, those athletes spend years together playing sports and building bonds and whatnot. But, again, that's not necessarily illegal.

The NCAA is more concerned with sports agents, boosters, etc. giving gifts to student-athletes. That is illegal and can lead to sanctions that punish an entire program. The purpose of this system is presumably to prevent student-athletes from becoming professional athletes while still on campus (which is a questionable goal).

The problem, as I see it, is that this eliminates the possibility of the type of legitimate gift giving that goes on in the lives of most normal people. Isn't it possible – especially considering many student-athletes come from athletic families that often have close personal ties in professional sports – that an agent or booster or pro coach might genuinely want to show affection to a student athlete through one of the most thoughtful forms of communication?

What if a sports agent – with his multiple contacts and resources in the sports world – raises his son to be the next great student-athlete? Does that mean he can't buy his son birthday presents?

The NCAA argues that student-athletes should be students first and athletes second, but they're eliminating one of the key elements of college life: free stuff. Students love free stuff. When I was in college, I'd joke that free food (especially pizza) was like currency to us. It was the only way our RAs or other community leaders ever got any sizable group of students to do anything.

But student-athletes have to be so careful.

It's frustrating, even for me.

Quote of the Week:

Obviously I could go with any number of quotes surrounding the Cards/Reds series, but there are too many good ones to choose from.

So, here's Jeff Van Gundy, from the Miami Herald:

"They [the Miami Heat] will break the single-season win record. And I think they have a legit shot at the Lakers' 33-game streak, as well. And only the Lakers have even a remote shot at beating them in a playoff series. They will never lose two games in a row this year. They have put together a much better roster than anybody could ever have expected. There is now no good way to defend them. They are unguardable. They are indefensible. They are just too good and have added so much shooting and are so versatile that they will score at will. And with Erik Spoelstra coaching, they will be in the top three defensive teams in the league, as well. The other 29 teams better hope the lockout gets moved up a year."