Paying College Players

I've been reading a lot lately on the sports blogs about the idea of paying collegiate athletes for their 'contributions' to the school. It's certainly a hot-topic debate, because it crosses the line between amateur and professional.

It makes all logical sense that athletes should make money in programs that generate revenue. Those programs are really limited to football and basketball for the top schools. Most every other sport loses money, for one reason or another. So it's wrong to just pay the students who make money for the university and not those who contribute in other ways. That's not fair. Which is why it can't work.

The students are already being given a free ride to "go" to school (I use go very cautiously, because I believe the jocks at the top programs don't really go to school, they just play. That isn't to say that every college athlete doesn't go to school - far from it.) That's somewhere around a $200,000 paycheck right there. I'm sure there's more than that when factoring in the training and "tutoring" and things like that. So in that sense, the players already are getting paid.

There's a ton of things we don't know about collegiate athletics. How much benefits they receive from those notorious boosters. How they all pass their classes, because we know some of them still struggle speaking English. How any of their lives happen. I firmly believe situations like USC and Ohio State happen at every major program. It just comes with the territory. Players are treated like they are larger than life and afforded opportunities they wouldn't get anywhere else. The NCAA expects everyone to turn a blind eye to all the trouble going on, until someone uncovers it one way or another.

Regardless of if these students go to class or not, they still are committing a huge amount of time to their sport. In that sense, it's not crazy to pay them. We're not talking about a full-time salary with 401k and stock options. I'm saying a couple hundred bucks a game for each player. Even if these players have a free ride, there's still everyday "cost of living" expenses that college doesn't cover. These players can't have a part time job because all of their time is spent with their sport. So in that sense, they may really need money - which begets all of the corruption in the first place - to get by or whatever.

Schools facilitiate part time jobs for normal students - doing administrative tasks or cafeteria or whatever the case may be. So it seems stupid that collegiate athletes can't be paid the same way these students are. They're sacrificing their time to make some extra money. But we say no. And the reality is, not every athlete on every team (I'm thinking the smaller teams - tennis, volleyball, etc.) is on a scholarship, so they're paying to sacrifice their time.

It makes sense. It really does. BUT - always but - you can't just pay players in top programs, otherwise that presents a huge unfair advantage. And you can't just pay players in profitable programs - it's everyone or nothing. With that in mind, it won't work. It can't work. The schools will just lose more money. The corruption will just grow into more extravagant examples of gratuitous lifestyles for 'amateur' athletes.

The NCAA is a sham. Anytime I hear about their latest plan it all just seems like a maneuver to generate more money - which is what capitalism is all about. However, when you promote yourself as providing a quality experience to youth in helping them grow into better people, making more money just seems like greed. The NCAA says they put that money back into colleges, but who knows. I do know that the President of the NCAA made 1.14 million in 2009. That speaks for itself. Money Money Money.

Why do we like Entourage?

Unless you're living under a rock, you know that the last and final season of Entourage premiered Sunday. I don't subscribe to HBO, so I couldn't watch it immediately, but saw it yesterday. As the series is coming to a close, it gets me to thinking why I/everyone loves this show. I've been thinking about the storyline - what has really even happened? When did you watch it and go "Wow, that was awesome!" or "This show is so good." I only came up with the episodes at the end of season 6. And maybe that's just because the show sucked so much for 4 and 5, so seeing any good stuff out of the show felt great.

But for real, I was trying to put together what exactly happened over 7 seasons. You could narrow it down to Vince and his success. But is the story really good? When was it good? Season 1 was the only time it was really worth anything. The focus was an emerging superstar taking his friends (and old decaying brother) to Hollywood with him for the ride.

After Season 1, there were expectations. There actually had to be a story that could continue the show. They had to out-do the previous season. And it continues to grow and make everything the previous season seem insignificant. But doing something "better" will make it less realistic/fun. It turned into just a gimmick. Everyone was mad that the Entourage was always succeeding no matter what, so then the writers had Vince take a downturn. Then he came back. Now he's a drug addict. The ride of up and down can only be done so many times before people lose interest.

So what about it was so captivating that we all need to watch it still? I think it's just to see where it ends. We've invested seven seasons into it, hoping for it to recapture the magic of the first season. Every now and then it does. Most times it doesn't. The thing that keeps it worthwhile is Ari and Drama jokes.

If you had to pick your favorite episode, what would it be? I don't think there's one that really stands out, which could mean two things: Every episode is great and flows together (like most great shows), or there isn't a single most memorable episode where you get excited when you see it on reruns.

I can think of funny moments. Ari with the paintball gun comes to mind. But I couldn't tell you what episode was really my favorite from season 2-7. That's sad. I've been thinking about rewatching it, but I just don't see any point. I think it's partially because I'm becoming a "tv snob" and enjoying the drama's more than the comedy's/dramedy's (I really can't stand that we made that a word. The English language breaks down more and more every day) and expect Entourage to be on the same language as The Wire and Breaking Bad. It isn't. It's not meant to be.

End of the day, Entourage is a fun show. That's it. Enjoy it. It's not great television, there's no amazing story arc that's going to make people go "damn, that's great." People will smile and enjoy the 25 minutes from it. That's really it. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Most of America doesn't want a show that makes them think too much. Let's hug it out.

All Star Lame

Quick post - I watched the All Star Game last night, and felt extremely disappointed in the game. The fans weren't given the true stars of the game. In reality - the AL missed out on several of their top pitchers, which ended up being the difference in the game. David Price, CC Sabathia, Scott Shields, Justin Verlander all couldn't play because they pitched over the weekend. Beckett got hurt while warming up as well.

I'm all in favor of saving their arms and not pitching on two days rest. BUT if the MLB wants to claim "this time it counts" to determine home field advantage, isn't it imperative that the teams field the best possible players at every position? Yet that wasn't what we had. We had some of the best, but not the very best.

I don't know what the correct solution is. Ideally, get rid of the "this time it counts" BS for home field in the World Series and instead make it count towards which league gets home field in next year's all star game (or the next one that hasn't been planned, which I'm sure is a few years down the road.) That would make sense, until I learned last night that the MLB was instituting the DH rule in every All Star Game, even if it is in a NL park. What kind of amateur hour is Bud Selig running? The rules are the rules. They can't be changed to allow an extra 6 All Stars to make the team.

Speaking of an extra 6 All Stars, there wer 84 All Stars selected. 84. That's more than the September 40 man roster on each team. Those dugouts must of been packed. I don't want to take this away from any of the 84, but it seems outrageous. We shouldn't dilute the numbers to make more All Stars, to allow for every team to have an All Star. I'll be honest - I've been a little out of touch with baseball this year. I haven't had enough time to keep up with every team, watch Baseball Tonight, etc. But I had not heard of half of the players in the game last night. It's a great opportunity for the MLB to showcase it's younger stars to turn them into faces of franchises, but this is absurd.

In the end, I can't believe that home field advantage for the World Series was determined from this game. A game where the NL didn't see the AL's best pitchers. How can something so important be taken so trivially. And the players who didn't show up, acting like they were too tired to appreciate the fans and the game. It's disrespectful to the history of the game. What a disgrace.