By Ed Piper
The news just came through that former USC basketball assistant Tony Bland pleaded guilty this morning (Jan. 2) in federal court to a felony charge for accepting bribe money to steer players to his former program. It was part of a plea bargain in which Bland will only be sentenced to 6 to 12 months in prison, none of which he is expected to serve since he doesn't have a previous criminal record.
The incidents involved allegedly included giving money to "associates" of former St. Augustine and Foothills Christian star Taeshon Cherry. Cherry, a five-star CIF San Diego Player of the Year in 2016-17, transferred to Foothills from St. Augustine three weeks before practice began a year ago last fall. In press reports in the past, Cherry's grandfather denied anyone in the family "did anything wrong" in the case of the star player's recruitment by Bland and others.
This brings up discussion over the holidays about amateurism, antiquated NCAA rules, and the like.
One friend who is more an NFL enthusiast said he is for some kind of "annuity" for college athletes to receive after their time in college. This is kind of the continuation of the romantic view, in my opinion, of what in the 1950's and 1960's was called "amateurism"--the idea that elite athletes still were not tainted by money, and merely pursued their sport for the love and purity of it.
The fact is that no such amateurism has existed for decades. Avery Brundage, the former head of the International Olympic Committee, championed this outdated picture of athletes in his time. Our Olympic athletes are either outright pros in their respective sports, or they work out day-in, day-out, year-round to achieve the level of excellence they do. And they do it for money, either sponsorship from the U.S. Olympic organization or some other organization.
These are no longer the days of Jim Thorpe circa 1910, when he, as the purported greatest athlete ever, could dabble in football or track on the sidelines as he maintained his paid job from 9 to 5 during the day.
This is far afield from where we touched on Taeshon Cherry, but no so much. Another conversation partner, a relative, was just saying on New Year's Day something about athletes. Then he got an earful from me, because, opining on the subject, I feel like I've looked into things and thought about them a little. And why not think toward what are possible solutions to the mess that are high school and college sports, where millions and billions of dollars are generated and change hands, often in corrupt ways?
Surely, there is more we can do than the NCAA's rule that a college athlete cannot accept a Subway sandwich from a booster, otherwise it violates "amateurism" rules and lends unfair advantage to one athlete or school program over another.
Years ago, there was a story on a football player at USC who could only afford to eat one meal a day in the offseason. During the season, he could eat at the team training table. But out of season, he was reduced to a Third World existence. Ridiculous.
The family of former La Jolla High volleyball standout Madeleine Gates has said that the Second Team All-American at UCLA receives an in-season (fall in the case of women's volleyball) stipend to cover expenses not taken care of by her full athletic scholarship covering tuition and room and board. There was a gap covering expenses in the month of August, when team members had to report but much of campus was closed down. The family was happy to cover their daughter's needs in August, but they needed to know what those were and to be able to plan for them. That was the sense I got.
During her team's season, meals would be provided. But in August, that hadn't yet been set up, since the regular school year doesn't start until September in the UC's.
What impressed me recently, related to athletes' skill level, was something Trent Dilfer passed on. Dilfer, the former Super Bowl quarterback for Baltimore, is now a TV commentator and quarterbacks coach. He said that Tua Tagovailoa, Alabama's super quarterback, has been coached by Dilfer and others. But only five or so years ago, such players only acquired a personal coach in preparation for the NFL draft.
The point is that in the short span of a handful of years, high school athletes have increased the amount of specialized training they and their families are willing to pay for and receive the benefit from by quite a bit.
This means, in the conversation with my relative yesterday, that today's athletes are far more skilled than we were back in our high school days. They have coaching and methods that are much more scientific, targeted, and skilled--and their training costs more.
I guess my overall point is that youth, high school, and college sports are much more professionalized these days, with the large number of high school coaches being walk-ons who are not teachers on campus. We have discussed the benefits and drawbacks of this situation before: more specialized coaching, but less accountability and connection with the school (weakening reinforcement of the need to concentrate on one's academic studies).
The better high school athletes now play for club or travel teams outside of their schools, because that's where you go to get the training, reps, and high level of competition to perfect your skills in pursuit of the college scholarship, with a pro career a possibility in the background?
No comments:
Post a Comment