Was Mark Rice Wrong in Coaching Technique?

In recent news Mark Rice, the coach at Rutgers University was fired amidst a "scandal" involving his verbal and physical "abuse" of players during practices. Video was obtained showing Rice cursing at his players and calling them "faggots". Also in the video, it shows Rice pushing players and throwing basketballs at them. The question is whether he was wrong in his coaching techniques or whether his actions were ok.

Coaches have had a long history of pushing their players to be the best that they can possibly be, but where does the line need to be drawn between pushing players and "abuse"? In earlier years "old school" coaches like the late "Bear"Bryant and Bob Knight used to do far worse to their players and not a word was said. Today it is different. People these days are so sensitive to words and feel so entitled to be respected that society has put an unnecessary strain on coaches ability to push players.

Mark Rice was an agressive coach with a fiery passion for excellence with his players. His passion extended to aggressively pushing his players to be the best. If a player is too sensitive for a coach to curse at them or call them names then they do not have the mental fortitude needed to play a sport at the highest level. People have vilified Mark Rice for his actions when his actions were understandable for a coach to engage in.  People need to not be so sensitive and if they are they need to find a new passion or career to engage in.

Does the NCAA Have a Lack of Institutional Control?

Recently the NCAA has come under fire because of illegal and morally compromising actions of its investigators in the case of the University of Miami violations. The NCAA hired the alleged booster that paid players, Nevin Shapiro's, attorney to gather more information about the UofM's violations that the NCAA did not have the power to obtain through subpoena. 

Mark A. Emmert, the president of the NCAA, often levies the most serious charge on institutions who's coaches and players violate the rules. This charge is called "lack of institutional Control". This can occur when a coach or player unbeknownst to the school officials violates NCAA rules. The schools administrators do not have to be implicated in the actions, and they can be cited for failure to promote an atmosphere of compliance. Either way they school is responsible for the actions of their coaches, players, and boosters. 

The question is whether the NCAA has a lack of institutional control that they accuse colleges of possessing. Like college administrators Mark Emmert did not know of the actions of his subordinates, and they did things that were against the rules. Because of this and the way that the NCAA levies penalties, The NCAA is directly guilty of a lack of institutional control and should be punished for their actions. 

Guaranteed Contracts: Good or Bad for the Game?

The NFL, unlike the MLB, NBA, and NHL, does not have guaranteed contracts for their players. Often times you will hear of an NFL player signing a new deal and it would be for a specific amount of money and only a portion of that money will be guaranteed. For example Joe Flacco of the Super Bowl Champion Baltimore Ravens just signed a 6-year $120 Million contract and only $52 Million was guaranteed. This means that if at any point the Ravens decide to cut or release Flacco then of his $120 Million he will only receive a maximum of $52 Million, depending on the date and time of his release and also on the production incentives that he receives as well.


The question is whether that is good or bad for the game. The other major sports have contracts that will be paid out whether or not the player even suits up for that particular team. If they sign for $100 Million they will get every dime of the $100 Million. It doesn't matter about injury, illness, unproductiveness, or insubordination. The player will receive all of their money unless they have stipulations in their contract for specific instances. I believe that it is good for the game to have non-guaranteed contracts because it forces the player to uphold their end of the bargain. If a player wants to collect their money then they should also have to produce enough to collect that money. This way the owners are protected from players being busts or failing to live up to expectations.

Without guaranteed contracts it prevents people from pulling a "Derek Rose". Derek rose has been out for the entire NBA season with a torn ACL that he suffered a year ago. He has been cleared 100% by team doctors to return to play but he has held himself back saying "he isn't mentally ready yet". This is absurd. He is sitting back and collecting pay checks for not producing and scoring a single point this year. With a non-guaranteed contract players would have to produce rather than sit out after being medically cleared to play. This is a protection of the owners investment. 

The gay rules?

During Superbowl week a player for the San Francisco 49ers spoke out against having a homosexual teammate and the football world was in an uproar about how his comments were unnecessary and wrong. People vilified this young man for his comments and some called for him to be suspended for the superbowl. NOTHING WOULD BE MORE RETARDED THAN TO SUSPEND OR EVEN  PUNISH HIM FOR HIS ACTIONS!!!

NFL players like Brendon Ayanbadejo and Chris Kluwe have gone on vigorous excursions trying to get the word out about how gay marriage should be legalized and how they are in support of gay rights. It is stupid that people these days are so protective of their first amendment rights to freedom of speech...UNLESS THEY DISAGREE. People are allowed to go out an say how they support something that is controversial and anything that anyone says against what they believe is all of a sudden outright wrong. People should be able to say whatever they want against what others believe without having to worry about they employment status or being reprimanded by their bosses. Homosexuality is WRONG and if someone wants to come out and say that it is wrong then they should be allowed to do so. 

NFL Concussion Lawsuit: Are You Kidding Me?

In recent years the NFL has been trying to put an emphasis on player safety due to the growing concern of concussions and their impact on players lives. There has been a class action lawsuit filed by over 4,000 former NFL players claiming that the NFL failed to inform them of the dangers of head injuries received from playing football. The question to these players is “how in the world can you not know that repeated head injuries can have side effects?”

These athletes used their bodies for years to make money and appear on highlight clips, and the are saying that they had no clue that repeated head injuries would have serious life long effects. Have they never seen Muhammad Ali? His body and brain are seriously damaged due to the amount of head injuries that he received while boxing. It is simply common sense to know that repeatedly injuring any part of your body will result in long-term damage being done, and the brain is no different. If these players were really concerned about protecting and preserving their bodies they would have made a better choice of career. It is 100x more safe to be flipping burgers at McDonalds but they chose to go for the money and the more risky career in the NFL. My advice to these retirees is to stop making bogus claims and simply ask the to implement better health benefits for retirees, because the only people winning during all of this litigation are the lawyers. 

We Should Pay College Athletes:the Breakdown

College Athletes Should Be Paid: How To Break It Down

By: A.J. Parker

As previously discussed college athletes are modern day indentured servants that are being exploited for billions of dollars nationwide per year. It becomes a sticky question when you ask, “How much do you pay these athletes, and do different sports get different money?”

We know about Title IX and the unshaven feminist radicals that have pushed for “equality” but have actually imposed unfair education scholarship cuts and mass institutional monetary losses with non-revenue women’s sports.

Here is the breakdown

Student athletes that participate in “revenue sports” (sports that produce a profit for the institution) will receive .05% of the annual revenue from their sport for the previous year including their tuition, room, and board.

·     

For example The University of Alabama football program made $80 Million in 2012

o   Each player would receive .05% of that revenue totaling in %410,000 per year minus their tuition, room, board, and books totaling in $40,000

o   This would leave them roughly $7,000 per week for compensation.

·      The University of Alabama basketball team made $11 Million in 2012

o   Each player would receive .05% totaling in $55,000

o   Minus $40,000 for tuition, room, board, and books leaving the athlete with $15,000 per year.

·      “Non-Revenue” sports such as womens basketball, mens soccer, and bowling would no receive stipends because their market value is not equal to the revenue sports.

Some my cry that this is discrimination and all athletes should be paid the same if they are being paid. This is ludicrous because athletes that are bringing more money to the institution will obviously have more value to the institution. Claiming that they all should be paid the same would be like claiming WNBA and NBA players should be paid the same amount when the revenues from the different sports are vastly different. This is a logical plan in which the student athlete can be properly compensated for their contribution to their institution.

Are the Current Policies of the NCAA Glorified Slavery?

In the wake of recent NCAA rulings against the University of Miami, claiming that some of their student athletes received improper benefits, the question comes to mind “Are the current policies of the NCAA glorified slavery?” The simple answer is, yes. The form of slavery exemplified here is technically called indentured servitude. An indentured servant is defined by Webster’s Dictionary as a person who signs and is bound by indentures (contract) to work for another for a specified time especially in return for payment of travel expenses and maintenance. This action is the exact thing that occurs when an NCAA student-athlete signs their letter of intent to attend a particular college or university. They sign a binding contract for a specific period of time in which they are compelled to work for their university, and in return they are only given a “free” tuition, room, board, and equipment. Anyone and everyone but the athlete and their family can profit from the athletes work and they are not allowed to receive any kind of other benefits or it is a violation under the rules of the NCAA.

In respect to college football and basketball, 95% of the student-athletes are African Americans that come from non-wealthy homes. These athletes bring millions of dollars in revenue to their institutions and simply receive meniscal compensation. The worst part about it is their “employer” (the institution) can take away their scholarship at any time for any reason and leave the athlete with nothing to show for their talents.

How can any logical person think this is right at all? It is easily seen as slavery or indentured servitude. As Clay Travis stated here the NCAA is the most anti-capitalistic system of rules in our American capitalistic society.

The only justifications that the enforcers try to give are very similar to the arguments that people who were against the abolition of slavery tried to give.

1.    There would be a serious economic impact. They say that institutions could not afford to pay their athletes. Even though they are bringing the schools millions of dollars (with respect to football and men’s basketball)

2.    There would be wide spread chaos. They say that there would be widespread corruption and more benefits being given to players than allowed. Well, that is already happening now, and this would decrease that.

3.    They already have a better life than before. Here they say that they are giving them something invaluable, an education. They are not properly compensating them for their contribution of millions to the institution and that is not fair.

Its simple, this current policy by the NCAA is ludicrous and the leadership of the NCAA and schools are promoting an outdated sense of amateurism that is skewed to prevent student athletes from marketing their talents. These athletes must be properly compensated for their contribution to the institution.