Joel Hammond sees it as nothing more than a bully being a bully. No matter, receiver Mike Williams is not suiting up to defend USC's national title this season.
By Joel Hammond
210 west Writer [send email]
Even bullies, in any shape or size, have their rules. Whether that may be a daily penance of 50 cents for milk at lunch or some dude who's messing with their off-limits girl, rules, in bully-speak, are not made to be broken.
Imagine the NCAA, then, the biggest bully of 'em all, finally being able to take a stand after a couple of punk kids won a decision that allowed them to break two of said bully's most sacrosanct rules: student-athletes must be continuously progressing towards a degree, and contact with professional agents is strictly prohibited.
The progression of the saga has many parts.
Initially, one of those punks, Maurice Clarett of Ohio State gave up his amateur status, signed with an agent and sued the NFL to able to enter its draft prior to the league's window that requires athletes be three years out of high school.
Clarett had one season under his belt, only half of which was really any good. He helped lead a football-crazed town and school to a national championship, and initially, courts ruled in his favor. Clarett's initial victory in court enabled a far more gifted, talented and mature athlete, USC's stud wide receiver Mike Williams, to sign with an agent, drop out of school and prepare for April's draft.
Then, just prior to the draft, the ruling that allowed Clarett and Williams to enter the draft was overturned, leaving the pair in limbo -- Unable to play in the NFL and ineligible for amateur competition at the collegiate level.
Thursday, after a long, drawn-out investigation, the NCAA refused Williams' appeal for reinstatement just days before Saturday's season-opening game against Virginia Tech in Washington.Williams was gracious in his comments in the media after learning of the decision, making clear his sympathy for his top-ranked teammates and friends and family members who attempted to help him become eligible for the 2004 season.
When he declared for the draft after Clarett's victory, it seemed as though it was a victory for those athletes who, unlike Clarett, were physically and mentally ready for the rigors of life in the NFL and clearly out of college football's league. It turned out, though, that all Williams did was take the bait for one of the most ridiculous and self-serving decisions in the history of amateur athletics.
Clearly, the NCAA, as a governing body that must have student-athletes' best interests at heart, has rules in place pertaining to an athlete's amateur status that, in normal circumstances, cannot be overruled. Those rules, like a minimum number of credit hours in the previous semester and the strict abstention from contact with professional teams or agents, are simple enough by which to abide.
Let me reiterate: normal circumstances.
The Williams camp undoubtedly realizes it broke both of those most fundamental NCAA rules when the receiver declared for the draft, only after he was told he would be drafted, and signed with an agent.
But clearly, these were no normal circumstances. The same people who opened the door for Williams to realize his dream slammed the door in his face on the eve of the proverbial ball.These were extenuating the circumstances facing Williams and the NCAA, which, under new president Myles Brand and in the face of more and more scandals facing its member schools (read: Colorado, Larry Eustachy, Mike Price and others) have vowed to enforce its rules as close to the letter as possible.
Williams, USC lawyers and Coach Pete Carroll, though, have insisted Williams became eligible again when he completed six hours of summer school and paid back every dime to those who originally paid him.
Still, though, Williams was denied reinstatement, despite complying with the rules set in place by the NCAA.
Presumably, though, these facts didn't matter to a group of people who had a chance to prove that the best interests of the group it governs - student-athletes - are still at the heart of its decisions.
After all, bullies have pretty good memories.
Natalie Miller-Moore thinks a regime change would be best for 20-something Americans.
By Natalie Miller
210 west Content Editor [send email]
Yesterday, as my brother and I sat at the Sno-To-Go, we were approached by some petitioners to help get Ralph Nader on the presidential ballot. I’m always a petition signer, but I hope to God that all potential Nader voters see the importance of getting Bush out of the White House this election. As the petition guy said “I’d rather write in my dog for president than have Bush be re-elected.” It’s an uneasy alliance – we are united in our disgust of Bush, and the
Naderites are weak, but could still be a threat to the Democratic we all know needs to happen.
These past four years have undoubtedly been difficult for the country. They’ve also been difficult for me personally, in answer to the question “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” I’m not sure I can blame the president, but underemployment is a constant
concern for graduates. On the other hand, getting that $300 tax rebate check saved my ass during a very lean time.
I understand that Bush cannot be blamed for everything negative from the past four years. I don’t believe he can be blamed for 9/11 (although he probably didn’t do enough to prevent it.) But he and his administration certainly can be blamed for getting us into Iraq in the manner that we did. And now that we are there, it’s even more difficult to figure out what could have been done better. I was extremely ambivalent when we invaded. I diligently absorbed news
coverage from many sources to inform myself, but still couldn’t go one way or the other.
Now, I’m not happy with the result, but really couldn’t provide a definitive answer to this complex issue is. I’m pretty ticked that it now appears that we went into this so blindly and unprepared, relying
solely on might and American bravado. It’s similar to an arrogant, brutish man walking into an unfamiliar, seedy bar – let’s say Ah-nold in Tijuana. He might be big, but they are on their own turf, there are more of them, and they don’t like him being there. It’s going
to be a long night.
And because of these and other actions of his administration, I can say that Bush does not represent me. I don’t relate to his life or personality. Besides the fact that he has led a privileged life, he seems to cover that with “I’m just ol’ Dubya, a God-fearin’ rancher and business man,” and uses this as one of his main campaign assets.
Except he’s not a small business man in the self-made, work your way up from nothing definition. It’s the epitome of privilege to have a
father who was the President of the United States. This offers you a lot of leeway in the business enterprises you undertake, a lot of capital at your disposal and a lot of forgiveness if you screw up from
people who want to be in good with your daddy.
That Bush is seen as a real American is strange to me because he is the opposite of most people I know. I am a young, college-educated woman who works in business and is involved in the community. The people I know here in Williamsburg and at home in Cleveland are
educated, reasonable and concerned. They don’t appreciate things like “Bring It On” or or “imminent threats” that weren’t or premature statements of “mission accomplished.” They support having good
stable jobs, safety for their families and proud patriotism (as opposed to blind patriotism.) I think they are a bit overextended and baffled by current affairs.
It’s not just the rhetoric, it’s the policies. I am a liberal feminist, and as such I do not like many things that have come out of the Bush administration. The administration has made some unfriendly moves in regards to women’s policy, but its more of their lack
of attentiveness that annoys me. It’s so traditional
that there’s almost no thought given to examining it.
At the March for Women’s Lives in Washington DC, I saw that I was unaware of the amount of Bush-hatred there is out there among people who have very similar views to mine. We had lots of cheers for our march, but the overwhelming favorite was “HEY HEY HO HO, GEORGE BUSH
HAS GOT TO GO.”
You can argue that liberal feminist aren’t a majority in this country, but broken down into separate issues of health care, child care, economic opportunity and the environment, you’ll find many people who are concerned. In the book “One America, After All,” sociologist Alan Wolfe concludes that most middle class Americans are fine with letting people live their lives how they choose, whether it’s being religious staying home with the kids. This negates the hype of social alarmism by the far right where people are overly concerned with what their neighbors are doing. (Are their marriages 4,000 times more secure now that the San Francisco marriage licenses have been voided?) Most Americans are social liberals and fiscal conservatives. Bush seems to be the opposite.
What I do believe is that he is trying to push the country more to the right, in the sense of pandering to a very conservative base. The
mainstream America that I know if very willing to live and let live, yet the most argued issue in the country is gay marriage? Give me a break. I am also a religious liberal, not as common as the religious
conservative. I don’t mind including spiritual or religious themes as part of our national discussion. But don’t tell me that our “Christian nation” is in agreement on anything – religion is one of the most
divisive personal issues out there.
Democratic candidate John Kerry, on the other hand, seems to be more of what he actually is: A Boston blueblood. (When did the word Brahmin ever see so much ink?) And he is a better alternative for me -- his stances on women’s issues are much more inline with my views and needs. He is a practicing Catholic who follows his own
conscience, which is infuriating to some Protestants,because they followed their own consciences right out the door to another church. It’s a complicated thing to explain to people who aren’t Catholic how
contradictory views can be held simultaneously. “The Onion” said that Kerry has declared a one-point platform to run on: “I’m not Bush.” Will that be enough for America? It’s enough for me.
I’m fascinated by the Republican claim that they are more in tune with mainstream America. I would love to know what mainstream America they are referring to, who specifically they are targeting because they have made some strange fiscal and political decisions in this term. I always could see the good in having two different political philosophies where one errors on the side of conservatism, particularly in fiscal matters. But the out of control Iraq budget, the underestimation of the Medicare bill, the passing interest in sending NASA to Mars again and the 1 billion dollar initiative to encourage marriage? Who are these Republicans?
Kerry, at least seems to have a better sense of our national priorities. We aren’t interested in Mars…people can hardly get interested in Iraq. People understand that there are nuances of the Iraq situation, but just want a sensible plan to get out. If you want to keep marriages from falling apart, do something about jobs. There are few things more stressful on a marriage than layoffs. Except maybe health care bills, so do something about that, too. Maybe Kerry is smart to sit back and let Bush implode, but I do want to hear more details about his plans are for being president.
I have no idea why GW wants to be the president, and that worries me. The Saturday Night Live skits featuring Will Ferrell seem to ring true to me…did he really know what he was getting into? I can’t figure out if possibly he’s a dumb puppet being moved by the administration or his corporate donors, or if this is some kind of Teflon he’s adopted
as a defense mechanism (ala SNL’s Reagan skit.) I can smell the machinations behind him from the way he presents himself. I’m not
buying it, Rove.
I know that some voters have revolted against Bush – but will they turn out to vote him out? Will they vote Nader? Will their votes be counted by hand or by a touch screen? Will they see to it that Bush gets voted out or will they give him another chance? I guess we’ll see who knows America better on November 2.
Zach Baker's love for the Olympiad has eroded considerably. In fact, he would rather keep following baseball than lend his attention to a meaningless international competition clouded in drugs and bad memories.
By Zack Baker
210 west Writer [send email]
The Olympics are here.
I don't care.
It doesn't matter to me anymore, and sometimes I wonder if it ever mattered to me. That's not to say that they haven't mattered or that they don't matter to a lot of people, but to me, well, they don't.
In fact, as we approach the Athens games, I am more concerned about
terrorism than who's going to win the most medals. Athens has been
behind in its preparation, and has already sustained two blackouts leading up to the games. I'm still not even sure that the pool has a roof yet. Are we sure we even want to risk this?
For those of us born in the "post-miracle" years, the point of the
Olympics can at times appear lost. Is it to promote world unity? Maybe that's the idea of it, but so are the United Nations.
Is it to showcase the world's greatest athletes? If so, then why are
Pedro Martinez, Manny Ramirez, Ichiro Suzuki and Barry Bonds not competing in baseball for their respective countries?
Maybe the Olympics meant something in the Cold War era, in fact I'm
Sure they did. But looking at it now, it seems like no more than a chance for certain world advertisers to (try to) make money. Not to mention the cities that host these things, who spend God knows how much, with the hope of gaining even more.
In 2000 and 2002, I may have watched five minutes of the Olympics combined, because I just don't care.
My memories of the Olympics are for the most part, bad ones: Ben
Johnson in 1988, the bomb in Atlanta in 1996, and the numerous money scandals that followed. When working in an editing position last Spring, I must have placed more stories about scandals in the Olympics than sports. Add to that all the BALCO and the drug questions surrounding Marion Jones and other US athletes, and the whole thing is just frustrating.
Maybe a story will emerge, like Michael Phelps, Mary Lou Retton or (forgive me for even mentioning) Kerri Strug. But until then I will be content to surf the channels and follow the same sports I have been for the last three months, and pray it all turns out fine in Greece.
Dan Nied thinks Zach Baker must be off his meds if he thinks the olympics are meaningless. Why? well, did you see what Iraq just did?
So, the Olympics don’t mean anything?
Tell that to Iraq.
As insurgents terrorized their country and American troops infiltrated their streets, the Iraqi soccer team showed anyone who was watching Thursday that the Olympics are still a powerful entity on the world’s stage.
The beleaguered Iraqis upset world power Portugal 4-2 in their Olympic opener. Call it the “Miracle on Grass” if you want to Americanize it. Just make sure you take note of the miracle part.
After not fielding an Olympic team since 1988 Iraq showed up in Athens as a free country for the first time and proved the power of sport. After the game Iraqi streets were still littered with gunfire, but this time it was in celebration instead of war.
For anyone who thinks the Olympics are just a big to-do about nothing, look at this team, look at this country and try to tell them this win doesn’t matter.
Sure it is easy for Americans to dismiss the Olympics. We already know we’ll win the most medals. But look past the Americana and into what one medal, hell, look into what one win can do for a country. There is no war being fought on our soil. We haven’t dealt with political upheaval in the past year. The United States doesn’t need the Olympics. Iraq does.
And there they were, out on the pitch, letting the world know that Iraq has returned from the ashes of tyranny. For the first time Iraqi athletes do not have to worry about torture should they fail in their endeavors. Now they can just be athletes and play for personal and national pride.
So if the USA doping scandal and a the corrupt activity of the IOC has you washing your hands of the Olympics, turn your attention to Iraq and allow yourself to remember what one huge win can do for a nation looking up at the top of the hill.
Could this version of the Dream Team be in trouble after a demoralizing loss to Italy Tuesday? Dan Nied sees the possibility.
There they were, allegedly the greatest basketball team in the world, made up of the greatest players in the world, walking off a court in Cologne, Germany, heads hung after a 95-78 upset loss to Italy in an Olympic exhibition game. They were wondering how they embarrassed their country on a Tuesday afternoon.
In short, this version of Team USA was harshly welcomed to international competition.
Carmelo Anthony and company didn't realize that this game they play overseas is just different enough from the NBA game to make get you called for traveling each time you touch the ball. It's just team-oriented enough to baffle a bunch of scorers and make a group of non-passers obsolete. It is precise enough for a lack of shooting ability to stand out like a drunk at church. And let's not even get talk about the defense.
Start with the excuses as to why Team USA got booed off the court in Germany: They were jet-lagged. This was only an exhibition. They had only played one game together. Italy was absolutely on fire. Take your
pick.
But then move on to the reasons Team USA was handed their worst loss since 1992, when NBA players were allowed to compete in international competition:
The way basketball is played successfully - as a team - has escaped the playgrounds of the United States and found a home in Europe. Look at Italy on Tuesday: they threaded their passes, found the open man, hit their shots and forced turnovers. Look at the United States: They collapsed under the weight of a shoot-first philosophy, rested on their press clippings and threw boneheaded passes in hopes of creating a highlight reel. Perhaps the Americans did not realize that you can't win games solely on dunks and three-pointers.
They didn't play the right way. Italy did.
By the end of the game, when Italy was posing for the crowd and Team USA was feeling the pressure of the loss, USA coach Larry Brown, a man who coined the phrase "Play the right way" while leading the Detroit Pistons to the NBA Title last season, looked like he wanted to be on the Italy sideline with a team that is not immune to his teachings. He looked like he wanted to get as far as possible from Allen Iverson, Anthony and the rest of this hard-lump-of-clay of a team.
And so it is that Brown faces possibly his most daunting task as a basketball coach. Over the course of 11 days he has to take a group of unseasoned playground snipers and mold them into a team that can communicate, play defense and find the open man. If that doesn't happen, then Tuesday's embarrassment will be repeated in Athens.