The next Slate/Intelligence Squared debate is May 8: Why Jason Whitlock thinks we should give college football another chance.

Why Jason Whitlock Will Argue That College Football Shouldn’t Be Banned at the Next Slate/Intelligence Squared Debate on May…

Why Jason Whitlock Will Argue That College Football Shouldn’t Be Banned at the Next Slate/Intelligence Squared Debate on May…

Live debates about fascinating and contentious topics.
May 1 2012 6:42 PM

“Hey, It Worked for Me”

Why Jason Whitlock will argue that college football should not be banned at the Slate/Intelligence Squared live debate on May 8 in New York City.

Jason Whitlock
Jason Whitlock.

Photograph courtesy

Jason Whitlock’s personal experience lies at the core of his support for college football. An offensive lineman for Ball State University, Whitlock cites his years on the team as crucial practice for his later work in journalism. “When I look at my No. 1 success as a columnist,” he says, “it’s my ability to deal with diversity issues.” Nothing teaches grace at the intersection of racial, religious, and class boundaries like playing football with students “from all walks of life.” To shore up his defense, Whitlock also invokes America’s free principles, which he feels encompass the “right to act dumb” in pursuit of athletic glory or even cash. What he can’t stand is the bad faith of college leagues withholding pay from their risk-taking players. (It’s “embarrassingly hypocritical,” he grumbles.)

Katy Waldman Katy Waldman

Katy Waldman is Slate’s words correspondent. 

Whitlock writes a national column for and contributes to Fox Sports radio. At the next Slate/Intelligence Squared debate on May 8, he will combine powers with former NFL player and author Tim Green to counter the motion that college football should die a swift death. Across the field, Malcolm Gladwell and Buzz Bissinger will champion the motion. I recently spoke to Whitlock about “shamateurism,” the point of a college education, and the inherent darkness of playing football. Here are excerpts of our conversation.     

Slate: You’ve written a lot on the “amateur idea” and its perversion. What is the amateur idea?


Jason Whitlock: That somehow there’s nobility in playing sports without financial gain or incentive. That there’s some integrity and advantage in playing the game for free.

Slate: Is the idea worthwhile in theory?

Whitlock: No. Not only is there no nobility in playing the game for free, but it also goes against America’s capitalistic values. And when everyone else involved in managing and putting on the game makes tons of money, and you ask the participants not to make any, that’s embarrassingly hypocritical.

Slate: Is that why you say that the NCAA has replaced amateurism with “shamateurism?”

Whitlock: Yeah, but I doubt they did it intentionally. Television exploded in such a way—it became such a driving force in the sports world and injected so much money into sports—that the NCAA became its slave. The NCAA is in the thrall of all the money being generated by sports on TV.

Slate: So what’s the solution?

Whitlock: The NCAA just needs to acknowledge that the rules they came up with when Walter Byers [NCAA president from 1951-1988] concocted his rulebook were from another time. Television wasn’t so influential in the sports world. They need to recognize that TV is the driving force now and to give the game a whole new set of rules.

Slate: What kinds of rules?

Whitlock: For one thing, they need to figure out a way to partner with the professional leagues, particularly in football and basketball, and financially compensate the athletes. Offering them academic opportunity is no longer enough. The NCAA should form a partnership with the NBA and NFL because they are the minor leagues for those sports. They’ve got to find a way to share some of the wealth with the actual participants.

Also, in developing that partnership, the NCAA should make academic achievement in college part of the financial incentive. They could say, “We’re going to share this wealth with you as long as you go to class and make a sincere attempt to educate yourself and work toward a degree while you’re here.”

Slate: Some colleges regularly do things like cancel classes the day of a major football game or postpone athletes’ finals. What kinds of academic sacrifices is it appropriate for schools to make for sports programs?

Whitlock: There is no hard-line answer to that, and I don’t want to be locked into one. A team’s athletic success, particularly in football and basketball, can uplift the spirit of the entire campus. I went to Ball State on a football scholarship. One of my favorite memories is that our basketball team made it all the way to the NCAA Sweet 16. That experience—celebrating with my friends on the basketball team—happened 21 or so years ago and I still remember it vividly.

Look, a big team’s athletic success drives donations to all of the school, not just the sports programs. There’s no reason to ignore that athletic teams are a big part of the college experience in a positive way. Schools should make concessions to the teams that participate in that and provide students with once-in-a-lifetime experiences.

At the same time, I’d assume there’s probably some excess going on. It’s like alcohol. Some people drink it in moderation and some go way too far with it. That doesn’t mean we should prohibit alcohol.

Slate: What’s the goal of a college education? Does being a student athlete help or hinder someone trying to achieve that goal?

Whitlock: The four or five years you’re supposed to spend in college are about your intellectual and social evolution. One of the biggest incentives I would offer for participation in college sports, particularly football, is that it gives many people their first experience of American diversity. Not just ethnic, but financial, religious, and class-based. You have players from all walks of life, and you throw them into a locker room with a shared goal.

You don’t go to college just for the books. I can pick out athletes by the way they conduct themselves socially—they’re more advanced. I’m not talking about their primitive dealings with whomever. But in terms of being able to work with people across different class and religious boundaries, they’re better at that than the rest of society, because they’ve participated in goal-oriented group activities that confront them with diversity. If you join some fraternity where everyone looks just like you and their dad makes just as much money as yours, it’s different.

Slate: But putting Greek life aside for a second, don’t most extracurricular activities expose students to diversity?  

Whitlock: No, not at all. Take the band. Whoever comes to school and plays in the band probably isn’t from some inner city. To be honest with you, they bend the rules academically to let athletes in. I don’t know that they do that to let band members in. I think not: They don’t recruit from around the country for band members. Most extracurricular activities—they’re all similar people for the most part. I’d guess the football team is the most diverse group of people on campus.