The Maddest Part of March

The University of Kentucky Wildcats, led by Head Coach John Calipari, had a dominant season, and while it is indisputable they were the best team in college basketball this season, that does not mean we should be glad they won.

Calipari has been the head basketball coach at three universities: UMass, Memphis and Kentucky and he has achieved great success at each stop. But that success has come with a price, as he is also the only coach to have Final Four appearances vacated at two different universities due to NCAA violations that left the programs at UMass and Memphis shackled with penalties upon his departure.

He gets off fairly easily with the media and fans because he seems to be the type of coach that genuinely cares about his players. However, based on his track record, it’s fair to guess that something shady has gone on in Lexington, Ky. as well.

While that’s just conjecture, the facts are Calipari's teams take advantage of the ridiculous “one-and-done” rule that is screwing up college basketball.

He brings in uber-talented superstars who play for him for a year, have success and then move on to the NBA, usually as first round picks.

This is in stark contrast with the approach that a coach such as Mike Krzyzewski takes at Duke University. 

Generally, he brings in players committed to Duke for the long haul and slowly builds teams, which also do incredibly well. I always sound like an old man when I say things like this, but the professionalization of college athletics is an epidemic that must be stopped.

I do not actually begrudge Calipari for winning under the current system. It calls to mind political candidates accepting support from SuperPACs: it would be stupid not to take advantage of the system, and it puts you at a competitive disadvantage to take a stand against that same system. That’s why the rules need to change (in both instances actually, but I will keep the focus on basketball).

Forcing people to go to college who don’t want to go is a waste of time and university resources, and it is also a travesty of the highest order when you consider how essential college is to a successful life.

We let athletes come to school for free and in the case of top college basketball players, the NBA is essentially forcing them to come to school for free for a semester and live the life. However, when an average citizen cannot foot the bill to better their life through college education they are out of luck.

That sounds to me like a system that could use some improvement.

While I am not calling for the elimination of full scholarships, it seems that the NCAA and NBA need to get together and face reality. Forcing kids to come to college and simply stay for a semester is an utter and complete waste of time and resources for the university.

Let’s cut the charade and either make them stay out of the pros for at least three years after their high school graduation (the NFL model), or just let the kids and their families make the choice they want to make (the MLB model). Even NBA commissioner David Stern seems to be on board with reforming the system based on recent comments regarding the rule. Stern says he is in favor of adding a year, but that the player’s union would turn it down and ask for something in return. He also said that the current rule is “not a social program,” but one that is good for the business of the NBA. They want more time to look at the undeveloped talent.

Unfortunately reform like this is unlikely to occur, especially when the system rewards programs like Kentucky becoming nothing but basketball factories. Also, these types of teams are fun to watch and bring a lot of money into their respective universities. But regardless of financial implications, the “one-and-done” policy should be done away with, for the good of the game.

The Budget Game and the need for a third way

The Budget Game and the need for a third way

By: Andrew Geisler, for the Miami Student

           

Representative Paul Ryan is often praised for displaying political courage, the courage to actually lay out for Americans what he views as the best way forward for our country. The logic of this transparency is as follows, everything may not be easy to stomach, but it’s necessary when you’re staring at a $15 trillion and rising national debt. President Obama offers a competing plan and with it a completely different vision, his plan continues to add to our deficit, and got zero votes in the US House of Representatives.

The Ryan plan is fun for conservatives to praise, and the Obama plan is easy for conservatives to target and vise versa. The unfortunate reality is that they both are ridiculous and tell a sad story about the state of our political system.  I’ll admit my bias; ideologically I am a conservative and am a fan of Paul Ryan and his plan. I’m glad that there are finally some real cuts where they need to be made, namely to Medicare, and we’re finally talking about real tax reform (although the specter of $700 billion worth of unspecified closed tax loopholes raises some eyebrows).

But I also am well aware of the fact that the Ryan Budget really is an extremist document, and extremist documents never become law. And if you disagree that it’s extremist, consider this, the Ryan budget cuts programs that the most vulnerable Americans rely on, and then after a while, massive cuts to Medicare kick in that fundamentally alter it. All of this is used to pay for massive tax cuts for corporations and the richest Americans. I think this is unfair spin from the left, but it’s the reality of the way the plan is portrayed.

I also know that in the current toxic political environment where an attempt to curb health care costs and make sure people have coverage becomes a political football, any ideologically extreme legislation simply makes things worse. Legislation always ends up in the middle, but nobody on Capitol Hill seems to have any interest in middle ground. Compromise seems to be a dirty word in DC these days.

This was on display when only 38 representatives voted for a budget that was modeled after the Simpson-Bowles commission’s proposal (it would cut the deficit by around $5 trillion over the next ten years through a perfectly reasonable mix of spending cuts and revenue increases). That is the direction that a country $15 trillion dollars in debt should be moving towards, not away from.

So while Paul Ryan’s proposal may look courageous, it really isn’t. Because he knows it will never be law, everyone, including Ryan, knows that revenue increases will be a part of any deficit reduction package. All proposals like the Ryan plan do is fire up the “don’t tread on me” base and divide us even further.

We don’t need more division; our problems are too great for that.

The Republican Conference on Capitol Hill is so extremely against any necessary tax increases, and the Democratic Caucus is so extremely anti necessary cuts and, based on the debt ceiling fight, both are 100% willing to take their ball and go home and take our country off of a cliff. A centrist path is where we will have to end up; there is no other possibility. But it seems our politicians don’t realize this.

That’s why movements like No Labels, which is made up of current and past political pros and concerned citizens who see the problems with the system and want to make some real changes, are so important. They work to bring issues into the public consciousness that the general public doesn’t understand, but if they did, would demand be changed. Issues like filibuster reform and ending ridiculous pledges.

Polarization is here to stay, and deal making seems to be dead, but it doesn’t have to be this way. Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill saved social security. Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich produced balanced budgets. They didn’t cut deals because they agreed on everything. They did it because it was what was good for the country, and, in the end, that’s what politics should be about.

The third way is the only way for our country to move forward, we just need more leaders who are willing to admit this truth.