Gene Owens

Don't call them amateurs; don't call them scholars
By Gene Owens

September is the glorious part of the college football season, when hopes are high, unbeaten teams abound, and dear old Alma Mater's colors permeate the campus and surrounding communities.

Let's take a moment to salute the boys who pack 100,000 people into Knoxville's Neyland Stadium, jam 90,000-plus behind the hedges at Sanford Stadium in Athens, and stack them to the rafters at Williams-Bryce in Columbia, Bryant-Denny in Tuscaloosa and Jordan-Hare in Auburn. Even if some of those boys can't count to 100, much less 100,000, and probably can't spell "alma mater."

The cynics will point out that many -- maybe most -- of the guys who go to college on football scholarships won't graduate, and even if they do, will be functionally illiterate. So, they will point out, granting them scholarships is just a waste of money.

It's hard for me to figure out how it's a waste of money to give them scholarships when the college is getting a powerful quid quo pro:

* Tens of thousands of paying customers every Saturday.

* Mucho moola spent on tee shirts, caps, sweaters, jackets, bumper stickers and other paraphernalia bearing the school name, none of which can find its way into the athlete's pocket lest the NCAA step in with the death penalty: no post-season bowl games and a ceiling on athletic scholarships for yea many years.

* Priceless publicity via network television, which pays for the privilege of carrying the ball into millions of living rooms. Who would know where Troy State is were it not for the fact it takes on the football giants and recently pulled off a near-upset of Florida State? (Actually, Troy State is based in Alabama but has branches in Kuala Lumpur, Guam, Wiesbaden and other sites around the globe, which is why it is sometimes referred to as "Kudzu U.")

I don't begrudge illiterate kids their scholarships when they're delivering goods of that nature to their alma maters. Should we limit college football to those kids who can analyuze Faulkner, tell the difference between a logarhythm and a Hip-Hop rhythm, and write a 1,000-word essay on the difference between Kant and Kierkegaard?

To my mind, that would be patently unfair. If a kid's greatest talent is running with or throwing an oval ball, breaking through an O line to sack the quarterback. or opening a hole up the middle for a runnng back, why discriminate against him because he doesn't excel in scholastics? If he has a shot at making a million a year in the NFL without knowing how to spell "Dolphins," why deny him his opportunity? Should I be denied the opportunity to write a best-seller simply because I can't throw a football across a line of scrimmage?

The problem is finding a way to give these physically talented youngsters a chance to succeed without being hypocritical about it. It should go without saying that college diplomas should not be handed out to functional illiterates. It should be conventional wisdom that a college scholarship should mean that the recipient is expected to study with the objective of graduating.

But to superimpose those requirements on college athletes would mean to destroy college football as we know it.

So why pretend that college football is an exercise in education rather than a form of mass entertainment? Brittany Spears doesn't need a 3.8 GPA to make a millions in the movies. Why should Joe Butthead need a Phi Beta Kappa key to get into the locker room of the Titans?

Let's treat college football as if it were a minor-league dress rehearsal for the pros. Give the kids who play enough money to live decently during their apprenticeship. If they want to trade their performance for scholarships, let them. If they lack the ability -- or the disposition -- to pass college-level courses, don't wreck their careers. Give them vocational training so that, in the probable event that they don't make the pros, they can earn decent livings after serving their four- or five-year hitches.

That would keep football on campus, with all the splendor and tradition that go with it. It would not prevent old grads from lending a helping hand to some Herschel Walker of the future whose folks are living in a rickety doublewide while he holes up in the athletic dorm. Heck, if the kid can wangle a BMW out of an alum who runs a dealership, what's the harm?

As long as he doesn't have to pretend that he's an amateur, he can enjoy some of the fruits of his talent before he hits the big time.

That way, we can admire athletes for what they are: people whose intelligence lies in the communication between brain and limb and not necessarily in their intellectual insight. No shame in that. But there is a certain amount of shame in hanging on the wall a diploma that you can't even read.

(Readers may reach Gene Owens at 1004 Cobbs Glen Drive, Anderson, S. C. 29621, or through e-mail at WadesDixieco@aol.com)