who's gonna say no to a free suit?

so reggie bush accepted a bunch of money while an "amateur" athlete. bfd, breaking archaic and unethical institutional rules isn't stealing, domestic abuse, substance abuse (i'm talking about steroids not marijuana) or murder. but if you watch espn or listen to espnradio, you'd wonder which is worse.

last week i listened to the herd (i think that's what it's called) or maybe the dan patrick show (or both) and watched part of cold pizza. each show spent any non-advertising time talking about the so-called reggie bush scandal. on espn, advertising is not limited to commercial breaks but bleeds seamlessly into the fabric of the shows (which i guess is seamless fabric?), and, taking this tired analogy further (or farther), it's nearly impossible to get blood out of fabric. this is why i stay away from analogies and metaphors. but if you don't believe the line between espn programs and their advertisements, just watch--interview question are brought to you by beer companies, sets are built by home depot, stats are provided courtesy of american express or old spice. i've even seen breakdowns of football plays using animation from madden 2007. the contents of the shows are actually commercials and the commercials resemble the shows.

it seems like i've already gotten off subject, but i think this blending of show and commercial informs espn's coverage of the so-called reggie bush scandal.

back to the so-called scandal:

so everyone on all the previously mentioned shows kept talking about reggie bush and laying the blame squarely on him. the question isn't, given the bullshit situation of major college athletics, how should players be fairly reimbursed, but how satanic is reggie bush for dirtying the purity of college athletics. they want to strip him of his heisman and possibly have him executed. maybe they should have dick cheney shoot him in the face. everyone defends usc and makes excuses for the agents giving offering him the money. not a single commentator suggested that the problem may be with the ncaa. i hate joe horn, but he's one of the few people i've heard state the obvious about the so-called reggie bush scandal: "the man [bush] earned millions for that school. that much is undeniable." but i want to take this a few steps further. not only did bush make a shitload of money for usc, but also for the ncaa, the television networks that cover college football and the companies that advertise with them. reggie bush, however, got his tuition waived.

college football isn't really a sport. like professional football, it's primarily entertainment. imagine you're favorite tv show. (mine's not grey's anatomy.) imagine, unlike campus ladies, that it's wildly successful raking in millions of dollars for the network and the advertisers. then imagine that the actors--the reason why anyone watches the show--get almost nothing. it's total bullshit.

ps, i read that marcellus wiley--a football player who moonlights as a commentator for nbssports--wrote a blog defending reggie bush and suggesting some kind of a trust fund for college athletes, but nbc has purposely made this blog impossible to find.