COLUMN: Troubling trends in college basketball

Even before news of Marcus Camby's acceptance of cash and jewelry hit the news stands, former Massachusetts basketball coach John Calipari had already made comments alluding to de-amateurization. The Associated Press quoted Calipari before the Hartford Courant broke the story, saying, "[Camby] didn't have a car while he was at Umass and he lived in the dorm. I know other poor kids, some of whom were candidates for player of the year, who has a Jeep and live in an off-campus apartment and he didn't have any money either. Marcus' mother never moved and still lives in the same projects she did when he came here." While this may appear as a cheap shot at Connecticut guard Ray Allen, who declared his eligibility for the NBA draft, the statement also hinted at Coach Cal's views that collegiate basketball players, who are, in essence, working for the multi-million dollar NCAA basketball industry, should receive a stipend for their work, perhaps payable upon signing with an NBA team or graduation. What Calipari and the rest of the pro-de-amateurization folks seem to be overlooking, however, is how college basketball has lost all ethics -- thanks directly to the influence of the money that surrounds the sport. Other than 25 percent of Division I-A football schools, basketball is the only sport that consistently makes money for a college or university. At Penn, it's the only sport. And with the college basketball boom of the late 1980s and 90s, combined with the exponentially rising salaries of NBA players, the game and ethics of college basketball has deteriorated. Giving amateurs a stipend will only increase that decline. The deamature-ites believe that college basketball players should get stipends like hockey and baseball players do while they're in school. For instance, Scott Burrell, a four-year Connecticut basketball forward and Toronto Blue Jay's pitching prospect, was paid by the baseball squad during his four years in school. All legally within NCAA rules. The difference between basketball and baseball or hockey is the lack of ethics which now prevails. These same poor ethics are what Temple coach John Chaney refers to every time he talks about resigning. But in the Ivy League, it seems Penn and the other seven squads have kept the game as pristine as it can get. Any NBA or high-ranked college team has a game plan that focuses on the individual. Add a stipend to that, and almost every player on the floor will be thinking "me" first and "team" second. But look what happens when a bunch of white stiffs from Princeton can do when they reverse the mentality, and put the team first like it should be. Just imagine if one day, a UMass or a Kentucky or a UConn or a Kansas took the talent they have, and play a Princeton-esque game. Chances are, they could probably beat even some NBA teams. But adding a stipend on top of their scholarship isn't going to do crap to improve the style and attitudes of the players on the court. Fans will further dismantle the ethics by rewarding the dunk over the fade-away baseline bank shot, and the whole mess will simply increase the problems college basketball will have today. Players will leave school early - if they even go to school - and the athletes who kids admire so much will represent exactly what we don't want them to believe. We want kids to see and believe the team picture, the all-for-one, and not the curse of purely individual achievement. On a side note, take a look at Penn's example as an alternative to de-amateurization. Even without a scholarship, players seem to get along just like any other student. Basketball star Donald Moxley held a work-study job in the same office as other athletes and non-athletes, and still had time to study and play hoops. The only solution that the ethics-killing deamature-ites can come up with looks a lot like the easy way out.