One player will be conspicuously missing when the Ducks open up the 2006-07 regular season tonight at Mac Court. That player is senior Aaron Brooks and his absence will be because of his actions during last season’s Pacific-10 Conference Tournament.
Brooks was suspended by the team for tonight’s game and the January 25 contest in Seattle as a result of his swinging forearm to the face of the Huskies’ Ryan Appleby. While I commend the University’s suspension of Brooks, I don’t think it is nearly enough for the severity of his actions.
Both Oregon and the NCAA need to use the Brooks case to set an example. He needs to be suspended for at least half the year to show that fighting, on or off the court, is never acceptable. Not only does it physically hurt both parties involved, but it casts a bad reputation on both the individual and the program. Brooks seems like a thug, and the Ducks seem like a halfway house for letting him off so lightly.
I know what you’re saying. Half a season? Don’t you think that sounds a bit, well, harsh?
Yes. I do.
But with a case like this, harsh is definitely called for. If the Pac-10 and NCAA saw that a punishment, for once, that fit the crime was laid down, then things would begin to change. Players and coaches would get the message that they need to change their behavior in a hurry.
When an athlete receives a scholarship to play at a university, he or she is entering into two contracts, one verbal and one non-verbal. The verbal part is obvious, but the unspoken part is the most important.
The player agrees, in return for getting his tuition, room and board and other such expenses paid for, to not act like an animal and to not embarrass the program and the conference on a national stage. It’s an unbelievably simple concept and most student-athletes follow it to the letter.
Brooks, however, chose not to abide by this portion of the contract. He let fly with a seemingly unprovoked shot to Appleby’s face that prompted his removal from the game and required several stitches to seal the gash. Appleby did not return to the game and neither did Brooks. Brooks was rightly ejected from that game and suspended the next night, which made a huge difference in the Ducks’ 91-87 double overtime loss to Cal.
Then word came down of his suspensions for the two games this year. On the surface, a two-game suspension seems fair. But when you look at which two games the University chose for Brooks’ punishment, the teeth of the penalty seem to fall away. Suspending Brooks for the game against Lehigh is like holding Barry Bonds out of the All-star Game – probably not a big deal for either side.
The game in Washington, though, is a different story. I could understand if the school had held Brooks out of the game with the Huskies at Mac Court, but the road game? That’s almost a privilege. If he were to have played in that game, he would have had a target on his back. The Huskies’ players and fans would have had their first crack at revenge.
But by suspending him for that contest you are letting him escape any wrath the Washington faithful would have had waiting in their bag of tricks. Holding him out of his final home game against a conference foe and his hometown school would get the point across much more effectively.
I mentioned earlier that I believed he should be held out the whole year, and here’s why: He’s a senior and by taking his final season away from him, it hits him where it hurts. Brooks would have the course of the year to think about exactly what he did and why it was unacceptable. Most of all though, taking his final year away from him would institute a real “zero-tolerance” policy on fighting in the NCAA.
Don’t get me wrong though, I certainly don’t think Brooks is a bad guy or that this one moment of insanity is indicative of his character. That said, most athletes who do stupid things are not bad people. The second-string punter who stabbed the first-stringer to move up on the depth chart was probably not prone to habitual violence.
Similarly, Kermit Washington was not and is not a bad guy for the devastating punch he threw at Rudy Tomjanovich in 1977. However, those are two examples of players whose careers have been marked by one very bad incident. I don’t want that to happen to Aaron Brooks, he is too good a player with too bright a future ahead of him.
Brooks was sincere and swift with his apologies, which was a good first step. Sincerity is a quality too few athletes possess in this day and age. Apologies are not enough however, and neither is a skimpy two-game suspension. The NCAA, the University or Ernie Kent needed to step up and slap Brooks with a punishment that would make him think twice about what actions he takes in the heat of the moment. Two missed games set months apart only reinforce the idea that student-athletes can do whatever they wish and not worry about getting punished too severely.
But hey, if the punishment doesn’t get through to him, there’s always one team in the NBA he can go and not worry about acting like a decent human being – the Portland Trailblazers.
[email protected]