Milking USC

A reader who wanted to be known as "Eric from Okemos" writes:

Hi Joe,

Nice article on USC vis a vis the NCAA (Sun, 5/17).

But query:  Are we not holding the USCs of the collegiate world to a higher standard than the MSUs (Glenn Winston) and U of Ms (Kevin Grady) who retain athletes on their respective rosters that, arguably, are threats to society?

Put another way, are we fans being hypocritical when hanging the USCs in effigy, but turning the other cheek with the MSUs and U of Ms simply because they are OUR teams, and we want them to win (at whatever the cost)?

What say you?

Eric    

    Say I: Interesting point. For those who missed it, Eric is responding to this commentary on the latest USC allegations and the importance of the NCAA's response.
    The next thing I'd like to say is: We're talking about two very different things. The MSUs, U-Ms, USCs, Iowas, Penn States and Bowling Greens of the world all have players with legal trouble from time to time. Some more often than others. But when you're talking about 100 or so public figures between 18 and 22 in this kind of environment, you will have some problems.
    And that's not to minimize the situations involving Winston and Grady. And I understand, Eric, you're not talking about kids doing dumb things, you're talking about institutions choosing to keep those players on their rosters. Still, different issues.
    But to indulge this one a bit, there are some who think you should immediately cut ties with a kid who gets in serious trouble, others who think it's the responsibility of coaches to give second chances -- especially to certain kids -- and help them grow up and turn things around.
    I can't speak to the Grady situation, but as far as Winston is concerned, very little has been said by MSU. That's unfortunate, albeit typical of schools in these situations. What he did that night on Center Street has been well-documented by now. What I found interesting in the police report, though, is that Mark Dantonio told police that Charles Burrell (who was at the fight) was already off the team for various issues.
    Burrell was not charged in this situation and, legally, had just a minor citation to his name for failing to obey police from earlier in the year. Winston, of course, suited up and played for MSU against Penn State in the regular season finale.
    Point is, there's a lot that goes on, good and bad, that isn't on public record. In the case of Winston (and this is backed up by things I've heard from people around the program), he has apparently been accountable/remorseful enough to stick around, for now, despite a stupid and potentially deadly mistake. In the case of Burrell, not so much, despite no such known offense.
    And to put that in the "win at all cost" context, Burrell was one of the most heralded members of the 2008 class, a safety with a lot of ability and expectations to play early. Winston was not as celebrated, although he's certainly talented. If he stays eligible, stays with the program and is allowed to return to the field, he'll probably be the team's kick returner. He has raw speed and power, but I don't think he has all the elements to be the primary back.
    Back to the original point: No, I don't think there's a comparison between these kinds of decisions, where like it or not there's a lot of gray, and an "institutional control" issue with runners being paid by coaches, and agents having full access to the football and men's basketball programs. I just don't. If any of you do, I invite you to tee off on me.

    One last thing I wanted to mention regarding the column. I called the NCAA's nonprofit status "a farce," but to be clear, it maintains it because of the opportunities provided for the nonrevenue athletes. And those are important. This is big business, but there are a lot of people involved who do care about the educational aspect. There are a lot of student athletes who deserve the title. I'm sure there are a lot of both at USC, and they're probably angrier than anyone about what has transpired.