And, truth be told, I don't know what to think of Reggie Bush and the house rental issue. Yes, King, you do have a point in saying that the NCAA has stupid rules that beg to be broken and that everyone in the world, apparently, can profit off of an NCAA athlete except, unfortunately, the athlete himself.

The problem is that Bush DID sign up to play in an unfair system. You had me agreeing with you for awhile until you used the silly comparison between Bush's family cheating the system and me speeding and taking my medicine. First of all, when I get caught speeding, I have no choice BUT to take my medicine. So that's what I do. This isn't a case of Bush being caught speeding and taking his medicine; it's a case of him being caught speeding and then saying he did nothing wrong, it was actually my dad driving the car.

And to carry on your tortured metaphor (or is it a simile? I always get confused, but you know what I mean) a bit further, when and if I get caught speeding, I am not subjecting my family or my employer or anyone else to penalties for doing 70 in a 55. Bush and his family knew the rules or, as a lawyer would say, they had constructive notice of the rules and they chose to break them, or so it appears. They knew the kind of talent Reggie Bush has and they, at a bare minimum, had very good reason to know that by accepting what now appears to be a sweetheart deal on the rental of a house by agents who wanted to represent Reggie, they would be exposing their family and USC to all kinds of investigation and possibly sanction.

"But it's a stupid rule and he OUGHT to be able to profit from his talent," you say. True enough. He ought to. Sadly, there isn't a minor league system for football, not really. He signed up for his scholarship and got a lot of things in exchnage for playing football. Yes, I know you think that he wasn't going to USC to socialize, he was going to maximize his potential as a football player. Well, it appears that he did that. And he got treated like a God and at least had the chance to get a college education if he wanted to avail himself of the opportunity. All USC asked of him was that he abide by some rather onerous rules. Admittedly, it's a tough position for a player to be in. He needs money and can't get it through an extra benefit not available to an "average" student, but somehow women's tennis players do it as do lot's of swimmers, divers, hammerthrowers, wrestlers and men's basketball players at the NCAA Div. III level. They don't profit and they manage it. But because Bush is more talented and plays in a high-profile program he gets extra stuff.

I actually agree that athletes should be able to at least make a little something from the schools they represent. If a kid can't get a summer job because he has to work out and because the NCAA prohibits it, he should at least get a few hundred dollars a month from the school as part of his scholarship package. The thing is, if we excuse Reggie Bush for this particular act, it pushes the line of acceptable conduct a little more toward unacceptable conduct. At some point it becomes giving kids lots of money and giving wealthy schools like the University of Texas and USC an even greater advantage than they already possess. I am sure that prospect doesn't bother a lot of people, but I dread the day when rooting for Texas is like rooting for US Steel.

While this rule may be hard to rationalize and may produce some seemingly unfair results, it's very clear. No one can say they didn't know what they were doing was illegal. The NCAA may often be a big bully but it enforces the rules made by its member institutions, like, oh, I don't know, USC. And while the NCAA may be a bully in this particular situation, it needs a bright line rule. If there is some grey area, it will be exploited and cheating will become rampant.

I don't hold any pretensions that most college athletes are there to be what the NCAA steadfastly insists on calling "student-athletes" but there has to be some kind of standard. Why is the NCAA wrong to enforce that standard when the schools that make up its membership are the ones creating the thing anyway?

Gavin Fritton

dear king:

with all due respect to dan wetzel, i don't believe he is the best sportswriter in america. i believe that distinction belongs to pro football writer bob mcginn of the milwaukee journal-sentinel. you ought to check him out if you haven't already. you are my favorite sports COLUMNIST, by the way, if that is a valid distinction. so keep up the great work, and thanks for ripping bush today...the other one.

edwardo

fort wayne, indiana

I dunno, King. On one hand, I very much agree with you that it's ridiculous that "anybody can profit from collegiate athletes' success except the athletes and their families". On the other hand, you can't simply dismiss rules by hand waving. On yet another hand, I also fully agree with you that his parent's living quarters in no way affects his on-field performance and shouldn't hurt his collegiate record.

Still, a price must be paid for breaking the rules, and it seems to me that the person who should pay is the person who most knowingly broke those rules: Michael Michaels. He knew he was screwing around. He should be barred from recruiting and/or pay a hefty fine. Reggie Bush and USC should get some sort of hand-slap, but keep their awards and wins intact.

can I get a pronunciation for "Tchotchkes" ?.....seriously

When I saw that Bush was being defended on Salon, I looked behind me for the portal to Bizarro-World I must have just passed through. Then I realized it was Reggie Bush. Aaah...safe.