Ok, so you don't like my assumptions (sometimes highly subscribed assumptions, even if they are presented as assumptions, are based on facts):
Assumption 1: The percentage of Americans volunteering has dwindled and is now at its lowest level in a decade. Last year the volunteer rate was 25.4 percent, or 62.6 million people, compared with 29 percent of the population in 2003, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Volunteers under 24 years old account for 21.4 percent of all volunteers, while ages 25-44 are 24.8 percent, ages 45-64 are 29.4 percent and those over 65 account for 25.6 percent.
Assumption 2: Real classes. I don’t need to be a scholar on the subject. There is a boat load of analysis on a large portion of college athletes that major in studies which give them an increased chance for ongoing participation in the college sport vs. good jobs post grad. Case in point: North Carolina. I think we can safely assume this occurs at many other college sport programs. Furthermore, a 2013 NCAA report found that athletes who entered college in 2005 graduated at rates 18 percentage points lower than non-athletes, and black players lagged by 24 percentage points. I surmise those percentage points are NOT lower because they are taking "real" classes and just not able to graduate – it’s likely because education is taking a back seat to the sport. So I guess my assumptions aren’t sourced from hateful imagination, but rather – pretty well known facts.
Assumption 3: As for the cars that the players drive, if it’s in line with the typical millionaire, the top three makes of autos driven by millionaires in the U.S. is BMW, Mercedez-Benz and Lexus.
As for attacking an opinion based on spelling errors in a chat room, get over it.
Back to the main point. Izzo took the easy way out. It’s the best response that will be the least detriment to recruiting or impact on existing players. The college gives an athletic scholarship to perform on the court. If a player wants to take a social stand, Izzo should tell the player “I’m 100% behind you and I will do everything I can to help you find the appropriate venue in which to do it – the classroom, student class representation, community activism, community volunteerism, etc. and just do it in a way that reflects positively on the University – but when you’re on the court you focus on the game”. We’ve had this same discussion in management meetings at my company. The workplace is not the right place for trying to drive social change, discussing politics, or promoting religion (that IS assuming that that workplace is inclusive, accepting, etc.) Remember the backlash that Tim Tebow got for wearing his religion on his sleeve? and he wasn’t really even doing this on the field other than wearing a cross. I reiterate, if an NFL player is really interested in promoting social change then stop with the silly sideline symbolism and do something about it. I would challenge them to be like Jesse Owens…
Jesse entered the 1936 Olympics, which were held in Nazi Germany amidst the belief by Hitler that the Games would support his belief that the German "Aryan" people were the dominant race. Jesse had different plans, as he became the first American track & field athlete to win four gold medals in a single Olympiad. Throughout his life, he worked with youths, sharing of himself and the little material wealth that he had. Owens supported his young family with a variety of jobs. One was of special significance - playground director in Cleveland. It was his first step into a lifetime of working with underprivileged youth, which gave him his greatest satisfaction. After relocating to Chicago, he devoted much of his time to underprivileged youth as a board member and former director of the Chicago Boys' Club.
View attachment 5147