I haven't responded to this thread I started because its tourney time
and I thought I'd save it for April, 1) because the season will be
over and 2) because a summer without bashing the NC$$ is like a
summer without sunshine. But after reading the (pardon me) drivel
about how lucky Trav is to have this attention and money showered
upon him, it seems some people are not in the mood to discuss
the tournament, and rather than continue that stomach-turning
thread, I'll focus on this one.
First, Ryan pointed out, way back before break, that some companies
have the right to nullify their employees' rights be making them
sign confidentiality agreements (like the infamous "60 Minutes"
informant on tobacco). However, this is not a valid arguement,
because student-athletes don't sign those agreements. Nowhere in
their contract does it say they can't talk to the media.
On the contrary, athletes are pushed into the media spotlight
(ok, some go willingly, others are pushed).
If you read USAT, SI, or any other paper in the country, you will
find SA's. Watch Sports Center, CNN or your
local newscast tonight: There are the basketball players, all lined
up at press row, ready to conduct a press conference. Aren't they
helping commercial entities, TV and print media, sell their
products? Would Sports Center be as interesting without
college athletes? No, but because it is in the NC$$'s interest
to have those athletes appear on TV and in the paper, those
athletes are there. Who is doing the exploiting?
Is it SI, who wants a student athlete to produce original work,
worthy of international publication in their magazine, and perhaps
even compensate the young man for his efforts?
Or is it the NC$$, who places the student-athlete on the public
stage, off the court/field/rink, so that he can be asked
what it was like to lose to Kentucky by 50 points
or what went through his mind after he missed the last-second
shot that would have won the game, so that the papers and TV
cameras can capture every moment? Or to be told by his
coach that he HAS to wear blue Converse sneakers or
a black Nike warm up jacket because, oh by the way, "They are
paying me half a million dollars if I make you do it."
Given a choice, I'd take SI's version of "exploitation" any day
of the week and twice on Sunday.
Another point (which I raised in my letter to the NC$$ and didn't
get an answer to) is: what if student A, a journalism student,
were given the opportunity to write for Sports Illustrated but,
oh dear, A is also attending school on a hockey scholarship?
Even though his goal is to be a journalist, and perhaps
to work for just such a company as SI, he would be losing the
right to practice his trade, to gain experience for the "real
world". I always assumed that is why we went to college:
to learn and gain experience that will help us once we leave
college. Would the NC$$ assume that, because A is attending
school, and can play hockey, he plans to make a living by
playing hockey? How many students participate in college athletics
and do not go on to become professionals in that sport?
It seems to me that situations like this need to be handled
on a case by case basis. In this case, SI was not
trying to exploit Dan Kreft. They were attempting
to shine a little light on a college athlete who offers
a different perspective from the usual sportswriter.
Consider this: If Dan had done an interview for SI (as he has
done for the Chicago Tribune, ESPN radio and several other
media outlets) the NC$$ would have no problem. But when
a student athlete puts those ideas onto paper himself,without a
reporter's intervention, it is suddenly against NC$$ regulations.
Makes sense to me.
John Forsyth
"If a cat always lands on its feet, and bread always
lands butter-side down, what happens of you tie
a piece of bread (butter-side up) to a cat's back?"
- Dan Kreft
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey; send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.
|
