"The NCAA is amazing...every time you turn around, they come up with something new to ensure that the young men that have poured their hearts and souls and energy and intellect into their craft are continually kept at a disadvantage when everybody else around them is running to the bank." (Bill Rabinowitz, Columbus Dispatch, 12/24/10)
The comments above were made by the mother of Ohio State wide receiver, DeVier Posey. Posey, if you'll remember, was
one of the players suspended by the NCAA for selling his Big Ten Championship ring.
Once the dust settled on the scandal, it was revealed that Posey's mother, Julie, was the reason the ring was sold. The widowed mother of four is constantly struggling to make ends meet and Posey saw no harm in selling his ring to help her out—as Ms. Posey put it, "There's no crime here. None. They're not involved with agents. They didn't steal anything. They didn't borrow anything from anybody. It was theirs. Nobody told them it 'almost belongs to you.' It belonged to them."
While it's easy to empathize with a son who simply wishes to help his mother in any way that he can, it also begs the question (yet again) of who the bad guy truly is in these situations—is it the player or is it the NCAA?
Jason Whitlock, a reporter for
FoxSports.com,
published an article lashing out at the "greedy" NCAA and it's exploitative nature where collegiate athletes are concerned. The article references the forthcoming HBO Special (airing tonight), "
Real Sports With Bryant Gumbel", which speaks of former UCLA basketball star
Ed O'Bannon.
O'Bannon has sued the NCAA for the contract he, and thousands of other players have been forced to sign. A contract which states that they are forbidden from earning a dime off their college careers—ever.
Can you imagine that? A player not being granted control over his image, his likeness, or his name—as it applies to his collegiate career—while the NCAA has the ability to do so in perpetuity?
Granted, if this is indeed true, the player is made aware of this before he puts pen to paper. He could always just walk away and leave the scholarship, a chance at collegiate glory, and an opportunity to play at the next level, on the table. He doesn't
have to do anything, really.
But, let's be honest, what player is going to walk away from that opportunity? Not many, and both the player and the NCAA are well-aware of this fact.
More and more the NCAA proves itself to be as self-serving and hypocritical as any other monopoly. They aren't governed by any outside entity and haven't, until now, been forced to answer to any one about how they choose to operate. However, at some point, the fit hits the shan and you have to start asking the question of whether or not the NCAA is operating in the best interests of amateurism or in the best interest of itself—especially when more and more, the latter appears to be the case.
