Will Johnson and Jonathan Holmes are seniors at the University of North Carolina. You have probably never heard of them. They are the only two upperclassmen on a team rebuilding from the worst season in its storied history. They look more like a couple of guys majoring in economics than two players who practice with one of the most elite programs in college basketball.
Johnson has red hair and freckles. He is a three-time Atlantic Coast Conference honor student. He is a Moorehead Scholar, an honor given to just 50 students across the country and UNC’s most prestigious academic scholarship. He walked onto the club and has seen significant playing time since the Tar Heels came back to earth and experienced their first rebuilding year in 35 years.
Holmes is listed at six-feet, but he looks closer to five-feet ten-inches, and on any other UNC team, he would never take off his warm-ups. He is from Indiana and looks more like one of the guys from Hickory’s 1954 state championship team than a guy who plays 10 minutes at guard for an ACC team.
Normally, Johnson and Holmes would go through four years of hard practices and benchwarming, but by being prime examples of what scholars athletes are supposed to be, they have exposed a major flaw in the governing body of one of our nation’s most popular sports.
Johnson and Holmes participated in a three-on-three basketball tournament. The games were played on just half the court and the players, who are used to top quality referees, called their own fouls. In the words of UNC Director of Athletics Dick Baddour, the games were ‘less formal than intramural games.’ They each paid $10 to enter the event and received nothing in return.
Well, that’s not entirely true. They helped raise money for a student organization called the Carolina Cancer Focus, which is more than most professional players do on any given night.
Basketball players in North Carolina are regarded as highly as football players are in Texas. They wanted to use their celebrity on campus to build awareness for one of the most deadly diseases in America. The NCAA decided this was an act worthy of suspending the two players for the team’s opening game against Penn State University.
Before you throw eggs at the NCAA’s offices in Indianapolis or march down Commonwealth Avenue in a fury, you should know that UNC appealed the ruling and Johnson and Holmes played in the game on Monday. The absurdity of the situation, however, should not be dismissed. The simple fact that an appeal was necessary should be against all the NCAA stands for.
We are in an era where high school players don’t see enough advantage of the college basketball system to even entertain the idea of playing in it. It has become common practice for a top high school recruit to talk to general managers, not athletic directors. If there was ever a time to stress ways that college athletes can have an impact in their communities and not just take the money and run, this is it.
Of course, it is extreme to think that a top high school prospect would be more willing to attend college if he or she were allowed to participate in cancer fund-raisers, but these are the type of events that should be encouraged. I also understand the NCAA’s strict rules regarding money. It wants to get its athletes as far from dollar signs as possible. But this dogma has become so extreme that it limits a player’s ability to be exactly what a student athlete is designed to be.
It’s true that there is far too much money involved in the system, and that something needs to be done about it. But come on, there has to be a difference between a kid getting a car from a booster or playing for gamblers in Las Vegas and two scholars who want to raise money for a cause. Imagine what it would be like if Boston University were to tell its students they couldn’t participate in a food drive for the homeless. They could take the same stance as the NCAA and say all our efforts should go the university, and we shouldn’t waste time on outside programs.
We constantly criticize our athletes for not being good enough role models. They are generally selfish and poor influences on young athletes. By raising money for a cause they believed in and using their powerful influence in their community, Johnson and Holmes did precisely what we want from our athletes. Unfortunately, the NCAA has a slightly different definition of what our athletes should be.
