A MODEST PROPOSAL

Jim Tressel's downfall at Ohio State provides the background for this musing into the frequent debate about whether college athletes, whose talents permit the schools at which they matriculate and many others (television and radio networks, restaurants, taverns, motels, etc.) to earn millions of dollars, should be paid for their services. 

While those who advance such a proposal have cogent arguments supporting their views, my conclusion is that paying them is a step too far and not necessary to address the perceived imbalance between benefits accruing to others in comparison to those flowing to the athletes.  Most people who support paying college athletes ignore the reality.  They are already paid, and fairly well at that.

Let us compare how college athletes are paid by their school in comparison with high school athletes who do NOT go on to college.  Let's use Ohio State as an example. 

According to the website for THE Ohio State University, a non-state resident attending the campus at Columbus will incur costs for tuition, fees, and room and board of $33,768 during the 2010 - 2011 calendar school year.  For residents, the cost is $19,584.

Most high school graduates entering the workforce at an entry level full time job would earn about $19,000 (or less) per year.  Certainly, it would be the rare high school grad who would step into a job paying them nearly $34,000 per year.  Not only that, what the University is giving them will provide them with the expectation of SUBSTANTIALLY higher lifetime earnings even if they are NOT one of the fortunate few to go on to the NFL. 

Over a work life, earnings for a worker with a bachelor's degree compared with one who had just a high school diploma increase by about $1 million for non-Hispanic Whites and about $700,000 for African Americans; Asians and Pacific Islanders; and Hispanics.

So, all in all, I don't feel too sorry for these poor kids who are getting taken advantage of.  The REAL problem is NOT that they are not getting paid.  The problem is they aren't taking advantage of the opportunity they are being given.
 

If I had a voice for change, the change I would endorse would be simple.  When a college offered a full time athletic scholarship to a potential student that scholarship would NOT be for the 4 or 5 years the athlete was eligible to compete in athletics for the University.  The scholarship would be good for as long as the student can maintain him or her self in "good standing" academically with the University.
 

If the student was not in a position to graduate when his or her eligibility to compete expired because of the reduced load the athlete took due to the rigors of competing at the scholarship level - so be it.  He or she could continue on at the University with all tuition, fees, and room and board paid so long as he or she maintained a "full time" student load, and kept him or her self academically eligible.  Oh, by the way, they get the same resources they did when they were competing (i.e.. tutoring, if necessary).

That serves many goals.  First, it avoids the perception the colleges just use these kids up and spit them out when their usefulness to the college has expired.  Second, it will have an up front effect.  Will colleges still be willing to offer scholarships to the same kids knowing how long their obligation to the kids might extend?  I don't know, maybe or maybe not.  Third, it allows kids to reassess their priorities once they see the goal they were striving for throughout their college eligibility was a mirage.  In other words, now that the player knows he is NOT going to be an NFL star, maybe going to school and actually getting a college education and a degree will be something they will be more motivated to actually invest the time and effort necessary to succeed with. 

Finally, my plan is superior than one sometimes touted by others - tieing eligibility for bowl games to graduation rates.  That proposal will go nowhere because it will affect the quality of the product being put on the playing field.  My proposal will not.  It merely allows athletes to continue to work toward a degree after they are not distracted by their sport.  Furthermore, it has the added advantage that it can be adopted with minimal increased expense for the colleges. 

To the extent that the low graduation rate for scholarship athletes can be solved, my plan will solve it.  If it can't be solved, the inability to solve it will rest SOLELY on the athlete who is unwilling or unable to do what it takes to graduate, not on the University. 

DELICIOUS IRONY

I must admit I have a hard time understanding exactly what to make of a news story making the rounds today (of all days) about voter fraud in Wisconsin.  On the one hand, it seems to demonstrate the real possibility another Republican political operative is either an idiot or a criminal, or both.  On the other hand, it seems to demonstrate the lengths Republicans will go to prove one of their controversial policies is really necessary.  What am I talking about?

As most Wisconsinites know, the Wisconsin state legislature just yesterday passed a bill which, among other restrictions on the right to vote, makes it necessary for potential voters to provide a photo ID at the poll.  Since Governor Walker supported the bill and promised to sign it into law, it seems destined to become law – unless the law is blocked by a legal challenge which establishes one or more provision in the bill unconstitutionally restricts the right to vote (a prospect that is not all that far fetched given news reports which characterize the law as one of, if not the most, restrictive in the nation).

Republican backers of the bill say it is necessary to stem what they claim is widespread voter fraud.  Democrats allege Republicans passed the law to suppress voting from groups that have traditionally voted more Democrat than Republican (for example, the poor, students, and the elderly) rather than out of a desire to fix any real problem with voter fraud.  The story published today in the La Crosse Tribune provides fodder for both groups.

Marcie Malszycki, 30, an aide to state Rep. Warren Petryk, R-Eleva (one of the legislative sponsors of the voter ID bill), is center stage in this controversy.  She is under investigation for fraudulently voting (for Republican candidates according to her Facebook page) in Onalaska, WI (the locality from which the blog West Coast Wisconsin originates) in the 2008 and 2010 November elections.  While it is understandable a Republican state representative’s staffer would be proud about voting, and especially proud of voting Republican, it becomes a bit less a source of pride when one hears about the possibility that on both occasions, she was living in Madison while working for her boss (the aforesaid Republican legislator) at the state Capitol – which is also in Madison.

Tim Gruenke, the La Crosse County District Attorney, has referred an investigation into whether these actions by Ms. Malszycki constitute the crime of voter fraud Republicans (like Malzzycki's boss) are so concerned about to Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne to determine whether criminal charges should be filed.  So, it seems Republicans may be correct that voter fraud is (at least occasionally) a real problem.  Unfortunately, it looks like the problem may not be who the Republicans thought it would be.

You Think Drinking and Driving Is Bad?

Consider driving while shaving.  No, not shaving that, shaving THAT.  Yeah, that is what Megan Barnes was doing.  Catch the hilarious, and disturbing, story as retold by columnist Celia Rivenback at the following link.
http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20100327/COLUMNIST/100329716?p=1&tc=pg

Here is a photo of the offending driver.

Musings on the Death of Osama bin Ladin

According to a just released NBC poll, 80% of the American Public believe "it was the right decision to kill the al Qaeda leader" rather than capture him.  11% felt it was the wrong decision and 9% were unsure.  While my own opinion would be among the 80% (based on the information available to the public), it really isn't a matter to be decided by public opinion polls. 

As a matter of international law, there is little doubt the United States had the right to kill bin Ladin absent action on his part to unambiguously surrender when faced with the armed force of our military.  By his own words, bin Ladid declared war (jihad) on America.  This was not just words.  He also acknowledged being the person directly responsible for the al Qaeda terrorists who followed his orders to commit the murder of people in the Trade Center buildings in New York on 9/11 and other terrorist actions as ACTS of that war.

By doing so, he became an "enemy combatant," a term much abused by the Bush Administration, but one that certainly applies to Osama bin Ladin.  As an enemy combatant actively involved in the process of warring against the United States, bin Ladin was a fair target for American armed forces the same as he would have been if he was himself actively participating in an armed terrorist attack.

Now, if he HAD voluntarily (and unambiguously) surrendered when confronted by Navy SEAL team 6, they would have been obligated to accept his surrender and not kill him the same as they would have been obligated to accept the surrender of any armed combatant who surrendered on the field of battle.  But (at least so far as the public can ascertain) that did not happen.  He did NOT surrender, making it proper to kill him in battle.

I also agree with President Obama's decision not to release "death photos" of bin Ladin.  Most of the public did not need such visual confirmation to accept the reality of bin Ladin's death.  After all, within days al Qaeda itself confirmed bin Ladin's death which helped satisfy most of the arab world.  Those inclined to believe the American government would lie about the matter were not likely to be persuaded by a photograph (which they would argue had been faked).  One only needs to consider those who remain unswayed by the release of the President's long form birth certificate as an example of my point. 

Although the killing of bin Ladin apparently DID involve something like the mythic "black helicopters" of conspiracy theory lore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_helicopter), those who see conspiracies behind every tree are destined to continue to wear their "tin foil" hats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_foil_hat) regardless of whether the United States publishes a photo or two.  Publishing a photo would just have inflamed the islamic extremist enemies of the United States and helped to preserve images of their martyr.  We are better off without them.

Badgers to the NFL

The Wisconsin Badgers fared well in the NFL draft.  Two picked in the first round (J J Watt and Gabe Carimi) and five overall.  The others were tight end Lance Kendricks (Round 2), guard John Moffit (Round 3) and Center/Guard Bill Nagy (Round 7).  I can't recall a season when as many Badgers were drafted.  Certainly not with as many in the early rounds. 

 

As I expected might happen, John Clay did not get drafted.  Not a surprise for someone who was often injured, ran glacially slow at his pro day, ballooned up to 270 lbs during his last playing season (although he cut down to about 230 lbs. for his pro day event) and showed no pass receiving ability.  While Clay put up big numbers running the ball, the fact that 4 seniors who played on the offensive line (I am including Kendricks here) got drafted might have as much if not more to do with that than Clay did.

 

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel ran a headline on the website today saying "Clay heads list of UW's undrafted players."  I beg to differ.  Quarterback Scott Tolzein is also on the list of undrafted senior Badgers who are likely to sign free agent contracts.  There is no doubt in my mind Tolzein will have a better and longer NFL career than John Clay.  In fact, I will be mildly surprised to see John Clay on an NFL roster when the season starts - whenever it starts.

 

Some people commenting on the Journal Sentinel blog criticized Clay, and in doing so also criticized former Badger running back PJ Hill, for leaving school and entering the NFL draft with a year of college eligibility remaining.  I do not.  Clay (and Hill) left school to enter the draft because it was their best shot at the NFL.  If Clay returned next year, I doubt he would be the starting tailback even if healthy.  He might not even be the first backup.  If he tried to enter the NFL after a season as a little used back up for a Badger team that is not likely to be competing for a Big 10 title do you think he would have ANY chance of being drafted - or even signed as a free agent?  I don't.  Hill made the same choice for the same reasons.  Taking a long shot is better than not getting a shot at all.  Both made the right call. 

Thoughts on the 2011 Packer Draft

I don't have any pithy comments about whether Thompson did right or wrong by drafting who he drafted (although I must say I have no quarrel with any of his picks or the positions he decided to draft people for).  However, I DO have some comments about things overall.

The Pack went into the draft with 9 choices and came out with 10 players selected.  Common wisdom was the Packers had so many quality veterans already signed and/or with experience on the team (what with all of the people who played last year PLUS those returning from injured reserve) that there was little chance for 9 rookies to make the team.  This led to speculation Thompson would likely use his 9 picks by bundling some of the picks together to move up to get fewer but better rookies who would have a better chance of making the team.  Thompson (as usual) defied conventional wisdom and used his picks to obtain more bodies even though they were lower in the draft than if he had stood pat.  What do we take from this?  Well, I take three things from it. 

First, Thompson marches to the beat of his own drummer.  I give up trying to figure out what he is going to do.  That is not exasperation or annoyance talking, just a concession that he operates on a different plane when evaluating what should be done than me.  One would have to assume that is a good thing for any NFL general manager and the Packers are lucky to have him. 

Second, I have reached the conclusion that one of the principles by which Thompson operates is recognition of the fact NO ONE, not even a genius as he is cracked up to be, will hit on all of his picks with regularity.  For that reason, I think Thompson has decided having MORE picks results in better draft results even at the expense of having those picks come lower in the draft.  In other words, he recognizes that an unacceptably high % of draft picks will be busts, or if not busts, that the person picked will not be what they were "trumped up" to be (a rather apt phrase to use given recent events).  Having more selections allows you to compensate for the failures you have to expect will occur and offset them with other choices who will perform beyond common expectations.  If you have more darts to throw at the target it is likely you will end up with more bullseyes. 

Third, I think the current draft ought to make a number of veterans nervous.  Going into the draft, Green Bay looked pretty set across the board with relatively few question marks.  Would Chad Clifton retire or come back for the final year of his contract?  Mark Tauscher was expected to retire.  Would he?  Would Donald Driver retire?  Would James Jones leave in free agency?  Would the Pack cut or trade Nick Barnett?  He has a disturbingly high cap number this year for a guy who (given the extensions signed by AJ Hawk and Desmond Bishop) seems destined to not start.  Cullen Jenkins was expected to be gone to free agency.  Would Brandon Jackson be resigned as a third down back?

If all 10 draft picks made the opening day roster that would represent a turn over of approximately 20% of what is commonly believed to be the deepest and most talented roster (perhaps excluding, but perhaps not, the New England Patriots) in football.  I don't think ALL 10 of the draft choices WILL make the team, but this tells me a number of people including those already mentioned PLUS Pat Lee (cornerback) and Donald Lee (tight end)  are on the hot seat and Ted Thompson is ready to make do without most if not all of them.  My gut tells me Clifton and Driver stay for 1 more year.  The rest of those named are gone. 

Oh, by the way (if memory serves) at least one undrafted free agent made the team each year Thompson has been general manager.  Because of the lockout, no teams were able to follow up on the draft by signing any undrafted free agents.