Paul Shirley

Former NBA journeyman Paul Shirley has written a blog entry that has been vilified by most for its rather callous attitude towards the earthquake in Haiti in January 2010.  The point I think Mr. Shirley was trying to make was that no government around the world should be donating money to disaster relief for a country that has, apparently, singlehandedly run itself into the ground.  And neither will he.  While I personally disagree with 99.9% of what he wrote, not so much for his opinion, but for his attitude in writing, i.e. this specific excerpt.

Dear Haitians –

First of all, kudos on developing the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. Your commitment to human rights, infrastructure, and birth control should be applauded.

As we prepare to assist you in this difficult time, a polite request: If it’s possible, could you not re-build your island home in the image of its predecessor? Could you not resort to the creation offlimsy shanty- and shack-towns? And could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?

Sincerely,

The Rest of the World

Maybe I used the wrong word earlier - it's more obdurate.  But he does make a point about our own nation that I think I agree with, regarding Hurricane Katrina and the rebuilding of New Orleans.  Is it smart to rebuild a top 60 city in terms of population in an area that is, as Shirley puts it - below sea level and a target zone for hurricanes.  Some would say it's a risk inherent in living in that area.  House insurance companies must hate it.  But I checked - New Orleans is the 59th biggest city in terms of population, home to 336,000+ people.  Less than 10% of the population size of the whole state of Louisiana. 

I realize the city has culture and history, memories of generations of people who have lived there for years and years.  But why should we rebuild a city where there is a danger from a natural formation that could and probably will occur again?  Isn't the safer thing to do to protect our people and put them in a place where they can recover?  Start new lives, earn new livings?  Couldn't the funds used for rebuilding the city be used to help them?  

Lane Kiffin, the new head football coach at the University of Southern California, is being somewhat criticized for his move to Los Angeles, after leaving the University of Tennessee, having worked there for only one season.  The criticism stems from an issue that gets visited every January (at the end of college football season) and every April (at the end of college basketball season).

The issue is simple - should coaches be able leave a job after one year to take a better one, while student-athletes (at least in the sports of football and basketball, although baseball and ice hockey are required to follow this rule), if they want to transfer are required to sit out a year?

My thought is unquestionably YES!  I fail to see why this is such an issue.  The premise, at least, is that these young men and women are there to get an education, or at least a way to start a vocation, if they are good enough to go to the pros right away.  A coach is a professional.  A student-athlete, at least in premise, is an amateur.  Don't mistake my reasoning for naivete - I'm not so dumb as to think there aren't schools having work done for their players, paying them, skirting the rules while recruiting (See Sampson, Kelvin).

But the premise, at least, the idea - is that a student-athlete is there for an education.  The chance to play a sport is the means to get it.

A coach is a professional.  Like any human being, they can take any job they want.  They can leave any job they want.  So what is the big deal?  If a student-athlete recruit is coming to Penn State because of Joe Paterno, maybe they should re-evaluate that.  Maybe they should see beyond the next four years.  Maybe they should know that Syracuse is a good journalism school and that Vanderbilt is a good education school and that Duke is a good pre-med school.

Maybe we should start going European - have sports academies on all our major sports team.  Kids can enter at at nine, and work their way up to the big squad, if they are good enough.  If they aren't quite, they can go to the UFL or the NBADL or Double-A.  We can keep collegiate sports too, and have student-athletes with the emphasis on student playing those sports.

Kent Hance Ought To Be Embarassed

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/img/12-09/1231leachblack.pdf


And this guy calls himself an educator?  How could any self respecting person in education look at this email and not be appalled that this guy is even communicating with someone like that booster?

Say whatever you want about Mike Leach.  He's a fool, a dope, outspoken, likes pirates, etc.  But this only speaks to the greater problem in Division I athletics.  It's stopped being about educating students, and more about making money for the school.  It's no secret that TTU ad Gerald Myers pissed off Leach by scheduling non-conference games on the road to make money for the school.  Right then and there is where the problem lies.

More on this to come...