First and Goal (from the 1 and a half)

1) I never really cared or paid attention when there were allegations against a university or player about taking money from an agent. It always seemed arbitrary as to which players were publicly indicted. I assumed it happened everywhere, all the time, so when news came that Reggie Bush was taking money while he was at USC, it seemed almost unfair that he was singled out. A part of me felt bad for him to have to go through this, while hundreds of others do the same thing but it never makes it on ESPN.

Then, I started reading the confessional article coming in the new Sports Illustrated about former agent Josh Luchs. (Ex-agent Confessional) It was one of the greatest things I’ve ever read. Each line drew me further into the rest of the story. It was Jerry McGuire with the names of real athletes, but without the sappy love story. (I wonder if Jerry O’Connell modeled his character in Jerry McGuire after Ryan Leaf, or if that was just an insane coincidence.) Finally, someone on the inside not only confirmed what everyone knew, he gave a detailed play-by-play account. This article is the Goodfellas of sports agencies.

With all the allegations that it brings, the article is sure to spark the “Should college athletes be paid?” argument. The answer is no, but it’s complicated. The arguments for paying the players: The amount of money football programs bring in is astronomical and the majority of players are getting paid anyway, might as well make it legal and regulated.

Both are true, but think about how many players are on a college football team. With many of the big schools, it’s over 100 players including redshirts. Out of those hundred, maybe 40 of them see the field. The remaining players are either being groomed for the future or are used as tackling dummies for the others at practice. Do you really think the starting quarterback should be paid the same amount as a fourth string, former walk-on? No. People pay to see the quarterback, not the tackling dummy. They aren’t bringing in the same amount of money for the university, so why should they get paid the same. This isn’t communist China.

So, in light of this article, there is nothing wrong with the system the way it is now. The purists are satisfied because, on the outside, it seems like no one is getting more than a free education, but the realists are satisfied because the best players are making the money they’ve earned.

The only problem is arbitrarily singling players out and putting schools on probation. But, this can be done with tact. Remember a few years ago, when Appalachian St. beat Michigan and a ton of other upsets were going on across the country? That was one of the best college football seasons I can remember. A limited number of powerhouses and general parity across the rest of the board is what drives sports. So, when any one school (USC) or one conference (SEC) becomes too dominant, the NCAA can knock them back down so they are level with the rest of the country by “suddenly” uncovering violations of a player getting paid. There’s nothing that the schools could say about it; they are technically in the wrong for fielding a team with players who are getting paid. Plus, any school would gladly accept 10 years of success in exchange for 2 years of probation. It would be the 'circle of college football life'.



1/2) If your golf game’s ever been in a slump, I’m sure there were moments when you thought about quitting the sport for good. If you're playing this badly, what’s the point? You’re not having fun. There are better things you could be doing on your Saturday afternoon. As you're standing over your ball in the rough on 18, after you broke 100 two holes ago, you swear this is it for you and the game of golf. You’re going to stop at Goodwill on the way home and donate your clubs to some other sap. Then, you hit a picture perfect 6-iron approach shot that bounces past the hole and spins back to pin high. That sums up Alex Smith.