By Nick bond

There is a pandemic sweeping through our nation’s institutions of higher learning and – more importantly – their athletic departments. It is slowly turning healthy vibrant programs into decrepit former shells of what they once were, devouring them from the inside out.

It’s what I like to refer as the “me”-ization of college sports. It’s the focus on the individual by both the player and the program. It’s the sack dance by a 3rd string defensive lineman at a football powerhouse that is up by six touchdowns to a school like ours. It’s the collar popping by a small forward after he posterizes someone 6 inches shorter than him. It’s the showboating before you get in the end zone or when you make a tackle on first and ten.

This is not even kind of how things used to be, when being an amateur athlete was something to be admired and the name of front the jersey was infinitely more important than the one on the back. Do you know why? BECA– USE THERE WAS NO NAME ON THE BACK.

It is the belief of this writer, and therefore, right, that the reason that college athletics finds itself desperately attempting to maintain relevance because of what seems like a completely innocuous wardrobe change: the placing of player names on the back of jersey.

The incorporation of player names into the back of jersey is especially troublesome because the pervasiveness of the change goes simply beyond an aesthetic one. It hints toward a fundamental change in the structure of programs, both financially and in terms of the relationship between it and the student-athletes that are a part of it.

The financial aspect is a simple enough one to understand, as the putting of names on the back of jersey in a clear indication of the prosperity that became a key part of collegiate athletics.

It is the latter aspect, the changing dynamic in the relationship between student-athletes and the institution at which they serve. Some student athletes – it’s important to make clear that is not all or most or even beyond a few – look at these institutions as a way to make a living playing their sport, which is not normally a problem, except they attempt to make a living playing their sport — in college.

There has also been a paradigm shift in the role that these institutions play in the career trajectory of many athletes, especially in the realm of college basketball, where schools are no longer seen as a place to get an education, but as a weigh station on the road towards superstardom in their respective sports.

This has led to a culture of self-aggrandizement and almost complete lack of concern for both the integrity of amateur sports and the notion of team.

Players now feel completely entitled to have their name on their jersey with little concern for the name on the front, and anyone that thinks that isn’t an issue needs clearly doesn’t understand how college athletics is supposed to work.

Some think that this revolution in the culture of collegiate athletics is the fault — indirectly — of our major professional sports leagues. The Spanish language has a word for a person who believes this: idiota. The “me”-ization of this level of athletics has significantly less to do with the amount of money involved at the professional level of a few specific sports than it does with the dissolution of the team concept in high-level amateur sports.

Now, You may try to make the argument that if college programs are going to take the names off the back of the jerseys, they should take the logos of the athletic companies off the front. You may say that if these student-athletes are going to be shilling for major clothing companies, they should be able to some subtle self-advertising.

You, of course, would be horribly wrong.

These sponsorship deals are one of the main reasons most schools can even keep their programs going.

For every cash cow like football and basketball, there are six sports that lose money hand over fist. In order to pay for those sports, the schools must be able to make as much money from the two or three moneymakers.

Even if that was not the case, why should a student-athlete be entitled to self-advertising? Is a free education with room, board and tutors not enough? It is a completely ridiculous thing to say that these kids are entitled to anything beyond than what they already get.

They are there to get an education and make money for the school, — in that order — and nothing else. How can someone even make a coherent argument otherwise?

To do so would be na’ve at best and simply idiotic at worst.

Or I could just be saying this to piss you off…