OPINION: No more ballin' for college ballers

Remember that Seinfeld episode in which Jerry and Elaine develop a system of rules for `friends with benefits'?

And remember George's reaction when Jerry tells him about it in the coffee shop?

Yes, it was uncontrollable laughter (followed by a series of George-esque sarcastic remarks).

We all know it's impossible, and the episode's unfolding reminded us of the obvious consequences.

I was reminded of the episode (and had a similar bout of laughter and sarcasm) upon hearing that the Knight Foundation's Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics recently proposed an effort to reduce commercialism and financial backing for collegiate football and men's basketball, because athletics are overtaking what the commission's report refers to as `traditional education values in college sports.'

As George would say, "Where are you living? Are you here? For years... people have been trying to have their cake and eat it too. So all of a sudden you are going to come along and do it.

"Where do you get the ego?"

The commission was composed of 28 members and was chaired by University of North Carolina President Emeritus William Friday and University of Notre Dame President Emeritus Theodore Hesburgh.

Apparently, these two have been away from their respective universities long enough to forget what sports brings to a school.

Sure, Nike's shoes and CBS's coverage of March Madness forces top Division I program directors to relinquish a little bit of control over certain matters regarding apparel and television coverage.

But it's not like the schools aren't getting something in return.

And hey, that something is exactly what you think it is.

Money. It really is all about the Benjamins (a little reference to the sampler of all samplers who decided to change his name after, among other things, J-Lo kicked him to the curb).

A university is just like any other business. It has a purpose, which is accomplished through employees, materials and buildings.

And those things require money.

But the commission -- citing declining graduation rates and rising revenues and expenses in college sports -- stands by its agenda.

(Before I continue bashing the commission, I would just like to say that I do applaud their attempt to raise the value of a college education. I just think they're really going about the wrong way in doing it.)

Here are a few suggestions the commission made in their 48-page report (or what I like to call, `Top 5 Opportunities the Knight Commission Gave Me to be Sarcastic').

5. The proposal: Reduce the allowable number of Division I football scholarships per school, and convert all current one-year scholarships into four-year deals.

The result: Gives stability to those who get scholarships so they don't have to worry as much about performance affecting monetary compensation. Will also accomplish the commission's goal of raising the graduation rates of athletes.

The problem: Less scholarships means more kids can't go to college. It also means feeding high schoolers to the pros. Last week's NBA draft was just a taste of what is to come, and this certainly is no way for trying to counteract it.

4. The proposal: Encourage the NBA and NFL to form minor leagues so athletes that don't want to go to college have an alternative.

The result: Kids that want a degree will get one, kids that don't will not.

The problem: Yes, of course pro leagues will waste their resources trying to form a minor league system. They'll just ignore the fact that they're in their business for the money, basketball's popularity is on the way up and there are plenty of quality players for the greedy guys in marketing to get their hands on. What's going to keep kids from playing in the minors after the pros create them? The answer is not a college degree, as evident in the commission's own recognition of the declining graduation rates of college athletes. 3LW knows what's up. Playas, they gonna play. And haters, they gonna hate. Ballers, they gonna ball. Shot callers, they gonna call...

3. The proposal: Redistribute the NCAA's TV contract revenue so colleges receive money based on academic performance and gender equity, rather than the results of a Division I men's basketball tournament.

The result: A greater focus on academics and abiding by Title IX.

The problem: Ha ha ha! When the Academic All-American team beats the Fab Five, you let me know and we'll talk. The next thing you know they'll be saying athletes should spend more time perfecting their physics instead of their jump shot.

2. The proposal: Shorten practice time so athletes are more integrated with other students.

The result: Less hype about sports, athletes become average students.

The problem: Apparently I spoke too soon. You know what, let's tell musicians to stop practicing their instruments and artists to stop creating art while we're at it.

1. The proposal: Reduce playing season length and postseason tournaments.

The result: Something along the lines of No. 2.

The problem: I will no longer be able to cheat people out of their money as a bookie. And also something along the lines of No. 2.

Now, if I didn't make any suggestions of my own, that would make me a complaining jerk (that's a rhetorical comment, by the way).

So, here is my thought regarding this situation. Cut the problem off at the source, instead of drawing boundaries at the college level.

The best way to do this, in my mind, is to hold clinics or workshops for student-athletes throughout their middle and high school years.

Have guest speakers (successful pro athletes with college degrees, who are obvious role models to these younger players) come in and tell kids what their education means to them.

But hey, what do I know (again, rhetorical)?

Let's put more potentially college-bound kids in a minor league system and lower the overall quality of college players.

Soon, 5'9" Asian kids with no ups like me can start for Penn (okay, maybe not, but you get the point).

Is anyone in the commission paying any attention to the possible long-term consequences of their suggestions (the answer is no; their focus is short-term because they realize NCAA presidents have a whole helluva a lot more important things to deal with)?

Where are the smaller-name sports going to get their funding (the answer is nowhere; the programs will get cut)?

What is keeping high schoolers from going straight to the pros (the answer is nothing; the recent trend of high schoolers forgoing college will continue)?

Where do you get the ego?

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.