no jalen rose thread on the SPORTS board? ok then.

[cranrab]

i watched the fab 5 documentary.

i've heard all the fallout over the "uncle tom" remarks.

i've listened to the back-pedaling and scramble for damage control.

after weighing all of it, i've concluded that jalen rose is a jackass.

here's 2 reasons why:

1) the "i was young then" excuse was used to explain away the "uncle tom" remarks in the documentary. that's fine, but why then is jalen rose still indicting coach krzyzewski's recruiting process TODAY? coaches can recruit whomever they please. coaches can recruit prospects who they feel will fit best in their system. who is jalen rose to suggest to coach krzyzewski who should be recruited by duke university's men's basketball?

did jalen rose publicly voice displeasure over coach thompson's recruiting process at georgetown? you know, the same georgetown hoyas men's basketball team that started 5 Black freshman in 1973?

2) grant hill was gracious in rebuttal. he was extremely subtle, only making an off-handed reference to something that makes one question who the "uncle tom" label more aptly fits.

chris webber did not appear in the documentary. people have mistakenly assumed it was because chris webber does not like michigan university. nothing could be further from the truth. chris webber has openly and publicly proclaimed that he loves michigan.

what other reason might explain why chris webber did not participate in the documentary?

let us recall that chris webber faced 5 criminal charges (including obstruction of justice and perjury) as a result of a federal investigation into ed martin. one of the results of the investigation saw the NCAA order michigan to disassociate itself from chris webber until 2013.

let us recall that jalen rose testified before a grand jury, admitted accepting money from ed martin, yet was still able to retain his michigan honor as a 1994 all-american.

so ed martin, who sat on the end of the bench of jalen rose's southwestern high school team ON MANY OCCASIONS, only gave "pocket change" (totalling a few thousand dollars by jalen rose's account), but gave chris webber $280,000 over a 5 year period?



so BOTH chris webber and jalen rose accept money from ed martin, but the university of michigan only asked for restitution ($695,000) from chris webber?



let us recall that the 5th amendment offers protection from SELF incrimination; but when asked about others actions, you no longer have that protection.

 

[Spectrum]

let us recall that chris webber faced 5 criminal charges (including obstruction of justice and perjury) as a result of a federal investigation into ed martin. one of the results of the investigation saw the NCAA order michigan to disassociate itself from chris webber until 2013.

let us recall that jalen rose testified before a grand jury, admitted accepting money from ed martin, yet was still able to retain his michigan honor as a 1994 all-american.

so ed martin, who sat on the end of the bench of jalen rose's southwestern high school team ON MANY OCCASIONS, only gave "pocket change" (totalling a few thousand dollars by jalen rose's account), but gave chris webber $280,000 over a 5 year period?



so BOTH chris webber and jalen rose accept money from ed martin, but the university of michigan only asked for restitution ($695,000) from chris webber?



let us recall that the 5th amendment offers protection from SELF incrimination; but when asked about others actions, you no longer have that protection.

didnt know all of this..interesting...

 

[RunawaySlave]

It's the media in the United States of America.....all kinds of contradictions will be present because the media considers sports fans too obtuse to delve any deeper than what the writer writes or the commentator comments (this also applies to right wing politics). It's a house of cards built on innuendo. ESPECIALLY basketball. Revisionists are everywhere in the sports world, but in college basketball, where Christian Laettner and Mark Alarie are held on the same level as Hakeem Olajuwon and Shaquille O'Neal, it's not even worth paying attention to....

and I'm not going to.


Agree you with Cran that Coach K (I couldn't spell his name right if you paid me) and all the colleges can recruit whomever they see fit. However, I disagree that Rose is an ass for speaking on their policies. We've been omitted for too long. Our voices have been ignored for even longer. I haven't heard everything said by Jalen Rose (and I don't plan to either) but if Rose has the platform and doesn't choose to sugarcoat things the ways college basketball has done since I started watching it in 1978, then I applaud him for speaking his mind.

 

[playahaitian]

Paid College Athletes: A Reasonable Compromise

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jalen-rose/paid-college-athletes-a-r_b_836449.html

Each year the debate of whether college athletes should be paid gains more steam. Furthermore, every year a student-athlete such as Cam Newton or Terrelle Pryor and his four teammates at Ohio State come under heavy scrutiny for receiving improper benefits.

As a member of the "Fab Five" at the University of Michigan, I have lived by the rules of the NCAA and also faced its consequences when those rules have been broken. With that said, I am strong advocate of college players being paid to play sports. Each student-athlete should be paid a stipend of $2,000 per semester. Universities, coaches, apparel companies and everyone in between financially benefits from the success of these student-athletes except for the player themselves. This is a small investment for universities that see millions of dollars in revenue each semester and treat these student athletes as indentured servants.

The elephant in the room is the current NCAA contracts for basketball and football which exceed $20 billion annually!

Before the NCAA advocates scream college student-athletes are paid via education, keep in mind that while academics are noted and needed, athletes are recruited for their athletic skill. The universities view athletics as a business and an opportunity to grow their brand and make money. This is why so much emphasis is put on making it to the NCAA Tournament and playing in a Bowl games. It's no secret that athletics rake in a huge amount of revenue for Universities across the country. While fans attend games and tune in to root for their favorite school, there also has to be names on the back of the Jerseys such as Walker (Kemba) and Fredette (Jimmer).

Despite the fact very few student athletes ever have the opportunity to turn professional, the overwhelming time commitment of practice, film sessions and team obligations make it impossible to maintain a part-time job, which is not permitted. It's difficult to juggle two full time jobs -- going to school and playing athletics.

A $2,000 per semester stipend would go a long way for giving the student athletes extra money to help pay bills and living expenses.

Many student-athletes may not have family members they can rely on to give them money when funds run low. This makes it harder for some student-athletes to resist the temptations from boosters, agents and other individuals seeking to prey on them.

For those who believe the NCAA stresses education over athletics, an athlete's scholarship can be taken away at any time regardless of your GPA. A player can have a 4.0 GPA and the coach can decide that player no longer fits the system. The school has the authority to rescind that player's scholarship no matter how well they perform in the classroom.

This is a debate that will likely never end as it's impossible to have a decisive fair balance between a student and an athlete. With that said, I feel my solution of providing a $2,000 per semester stipend to student-athletes will help ease their concerns of daily living expenses while still maintaining the integrity of receiving a college scholarship.

Yall AGREE???

I'm gonna be back on this

 

[cranrab]

However, I disagree that Rose is an ass for speaking on their policies. We've been omitted for too long. Our voices have been ignored for even longer.

the problem i have with jalen rose on this point is three-fold:

1) DUKE's recruiting practices don't make the PLAYER an "uncle tom" for accepting a scholarship,

2) jalen rose's (and jimmy king's) refined (and strongest) claim against duke is one of exclusion based on class (have v. have nots) rather than race,

3) jalen rose and jimmy king both need to remind themselves that if coaching staffs paid attention and/or gave credence to their type of outside pressures, THERE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANY FAB 5.

 

[cranrab]

in college basketball, where Christian Laettner and Mark Alarie are held on the same level as Hakeem Olajuwon and Shaquille O'Neal, it's not even worth paying attention to.

the christian laettner part of the documentary is probably the most amusing to me because jalen rose intimates that christian laettner proved (to jalen rose) that he could play. for me, it was never a question whether christian laettner had skills; i still believe that christian laettner was a punk, and a bitch, who also happened to be able to play.

duke and arizona are both prime examples of programs that had tough TALKING front court players who talked major trash while surrounded with talent at the collegiate level.

 

[RunawaySlave]

the problem i have with jalen rose on this point is three-fold:

1) DUKE's recruiting practices don't make the PLAYER an "uncle tom" for accepting a scholarship,

2) jalen rose's (and jimmy king's) refined (and strongest) claim against duke is one of exclusion based on class (have v. have nots) rather than race,

3) jalen rose and jimmy king both need to remind themselves that if coaching staffs paid attention and/or gave credence to their type of outside pressures, THERE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANY FAB 5.

1) True. Only "tomming" makes you an "Uncle Tom". Even though I don't consider him one, Al Sharpton tap dancing on SNL is a good example. Anyway, I don't really use that phrase that often. It's reserved for those HIGH up (Colin, Clarence) on the food chain. But selling out happens all the time at different levels. And not just with black folks. Not stating that Hill sold out or is a "Tom" but just need to differentiate the terms because too often they are used to manipulate the masses. Much like the term "racist".

My bottom line: Duke is free to practice what they want...and even to be DISCRIMINANT in who they select, but people are also free to point this out AND to express outrage on it (if they see fit). Especially if they advertise to the contrary (I don't know if they do or don't)


2) My views for 2 are probably covered in 1. But again, I haven't heard everything they said (or plan to). I also don't CARE what was said, I only care that they got to express themselves on a NATIONAL SPORTS FORUM.


3) Not sure what you mean by this. But then again, I did not hear all they had to say. I do know that traditionally, big time college programs have always come to the ghetto to recruit players, ever since black players were "allowed" the "privilege" of participating in their great "American" dream. Only prerequisite was that all you "n-----rs" make sure to check all that ghetto shit at the door. Or at least leave it on campus.

 

[cranrab]

I also don't CARE what was said, I only care that they got to express themselves on a NATIONAL SPORTS FORUM.

i don't mind either having a job appearing in front of the camera. i don't mind either having a platform to speak from.

but i do mind them trying to finesse their comments after the fact. they need to let their remarks stand and stand behind them, not run with manufactured excuses that don't hold water.

Not sure what you mean by this. But then again, I did not hear all they had to say.

what i mean is that if coach fisher had to comply with public criticism of how he recruited at michigan (the "harvard of the midwest") there never would've been a "fab 5". paying heed to remarks condemning the recruiting process would've meant the wolverines never having that squad.

another example is that if coach thompson had to comply with public criticism of how he recruited at georgetown, he too would never have been able to put his squads together.

 

[RunawaySlave]

i don't mind either having a job appearing in front of the camera. i don't mind either having a platform to speak from.

but i do mind them trying to finesse their comments after the fact. they need to let their remarks stand and stand behind them, not run with manufactured excuses that don't hold water.



what i mean is that if coach fisher had to comply with public criticism of how he recruited at michigan (the "harvard of the midwest") there never would've been a "fab 5". paying heed to remarks condemning the recruiting process would've meant the wolverines never having that squad.

another example is that if coach thompson had to comply with public criticism of how he recruited at georgetown, he too would never have been able to put his squads together.

Agree 100% on first point: Can't be taken seriously if you backtrack off what you just said yesterday

Okay, now I got it on second: Thanks for the clarification

 

[tp2001]

I'm gonna be back on this

I would agree there with you but I recently changed my mind about it (in a way)...sure they deserve it, but it can't be universal...