A FRONT ROW VIEW: College athletes not wrong to come out early

Each year, as the final bars of One Shining Moment fade into the spring air, taking all the excitement of another NCAA Tournament gone by with them, it seems the media and college sports fans' passion for that great event shifts to the debate of one singularly perplexing issue: that of underclassmen making themselves eligible for the year's professional draft. The NFL entry draft, which follows on the heels of the NCAA Tourney, only serves to fuel these flames. In recent years, the subject has deteriorated in controversy, as the the remittance of that last one, two or -- in some cases -- three years of eligibility becomes the norm. After all these years, the argument fodder has become predictable enough. The idealists, rebuffed by the scores of hypocrites who purport to care for the plight of the soon-to-be-drafted, defend the sanctity of the college diploma. Taking the contrary stance are the pragmatists, defending the lure of the immediate riches awaiting underclassmen who shove the books aside prematurely. The only reality more certain than the fact that representatives of both sides of the issue will surface annually is the ignorance of these respective combatants. The forum for much of the exchange in this debate is the public media outlets -- the sports pages and local talk radio shows. In truth though, there could be no more appropriate stage for such discussion than among university students themselves. My glorification of this topic may sound more than a little sanctimonious, but perhaps by looking a little closer at these prima donna athletes to whom we, the everyday college students, cannot often directly relate, we can gain some insight into their decisions, as well as our own choice to matriculate at Penn. For myself, the decision was quite simple. Attending this school looked as if it would give me the best opportunity to pursue my career of choice. While I'll never sign a multi-million dollar contract to display my athletic prowess in front of a stadium full of spectators, I can't imagine that the rationale behind, say, Corliss Williamson's college selection, was all that different. When an athlete who has a legitimate chance to one day trade his services for cash picks a school, the career he has in mind has nothing to do with a degree. His concern may focus more on what he has to do to develop his game to reach the next level. That doesn't sound far from the attitude of the aspiring intellectual, who enters college focusing on what he must do to develop his mind to achieve his goals at the next level. The only difference --Ea degree. The student needs that precious diploma to justify his success, while the athlete's skills do his talking. College prepares both for their lives outside university walls. Now, don't get me wrong. I am not advocating leaving school the minute greener pastures enter eye shot. Just the opposite. There are a few things as valuable as a college diploma, and for all those who leave campus early, not returning to finish up would be more than regrettable. However, the bottom line may well be that what we covet most about college is that which it affords after we've finished. Simply because that period of time is abbreviated for some of the nation's elite young athletes, those of us who stick around for the full hitch need not shake our heads in disapproval. Hanan Fishman is a Wharton sophomore from Maple Glen and a sports writer for The Daily Pennsylvanian.

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