Is One College Athlete’s Preference Worth a University Losing a $3 Million Contract?

Marcus Jordan, Michael Jordan’s son, is attending the University of Central Florida (UCF) and playing on the school’s basketball team. Demand number one? He wants to wear Jordans because they hold a “special meaning.” This is absolutely ridiculous. One problem: adidas had an agreement with UCF to provide the school with athletic gear. Out of all the schools that have Nike as their sponsors, why did Marcus choose a school that adidas sponsors? I think this has more to do with a young, over-privileged kid wanting to stand out.

But what about the school? From reports, it sounds like they’ve been completely clueless as to what the big deal is about. They supposedly told Marcus that he could wear Jordans, even though the athletics program was in the middle of the contract with adidas. After the first game of the season where Marcus wore Jordans, adidas terminated its contract with UCF, and even then, UCF officials were dumbfounded about why adidas decided to cancel the agreement.

Will the university find another sponsor? Probably. I’m sure Nike is cooking up some kind of deal. But if UCF thought that by having Marcus would bring other athletic-gear companies to the table, why burn bridges with adidas? In cases like this, schools need to reinforce what’s best for the school and not take unnecessary risks just because a student wants to get his or her way.

In the team’s first game, UCF won, but did the Jordans that Marcus wore help his game? Let’s see:

• 1 point (0-3 from the field; 1-2 from the free-throw line)
• 0 rebounds
• 1 assist
• 1 turnover
• 3 steals
• 23 minutes

With numbers like that, the only thing he should be demanding is more practice. He’s got a long way to go to be like Mike.

Now don’t get me wrong; I enjoy watching and playing sports. But I just can’t stand the increasing number of spoiled, whiny athletes who only focus on themselves and don’t take their actions into consideration.

My point is, are young, unproven athletes right to wear and do what they want while playing on college teams, even if that means potentially damaging the integrity of the schools in the eyes of sponsors and the public?

Resources: nbcsports.msnbc.com; www.upi.com; ucfathletics.cstv.com.

Sad story from a great sport and dedicated player

This is by far the worst story I’ve read so far this year. Trading a person for inanimate objects is an insult.

This is something like from when I was in my freshmen and sophomore years of high school. I was so bad at sports that I’d joke with my teammates to trade me to the other team for a bag of Doritos and a basketball. Except in this case, it really happened in minor-league baseball.

Never would I have thought that in a real-life situation that something even remotely similar would be reality. I mean, sure, in professional sports, players get traded for cash and the ever-so-vague “other considerations,” but to be included in part of a trade for team equipment is a smack in the face. Who cares if John Odom, the player who was traded, went along and joked with the situation. I’d bet that a good percentage of people make a joke out of unfortunate situations when they’re uncomfortable or suffering from low self-esteem.

Odom should not be dead; he should be preparing for his next game or his next conversation with his agent.

Whoever thought it was a good idea to trade a human being for manufactured pieces of wood is a complete buffoon. I hope those who were involved with orchestrating the trade feel a deep sense of guilt. And if the law plays anything into this, I hope they have thousands of hours of community service to perform.

I just hope it doesn’t have to do with teaching little-league baseball.