Who's to blame for the new UAAP rule? Maybe Jerie Pingoy himself

I have an idea. Let's blame it all on Jerie Pingoy. During the online firestorm of criticism against the UAAP Board, people have done either or both of the following: demonize the additional year and removal of the clearance option as a hostage crisis, and scheme over various loopholes for athletes to eventually end up on their preferred teams. But few have been willing to challenge the sobering reality that the league is abusing and hoodwinking the very minors whose interests they've been charged to protect. The rule tries to dissuade recruitment between rival UAAP schools, as such means one school gains directly at the expense of the other and allegedly reaps the latter’s successes along the way. We planted, we tended and we ought to harvest, goes their protestations. Why should you partake of our feast? Shame on you for eyeing Jerie Pingoy. But high school athletes are not crops, for the relationship between student-athlete and high school is a mutually beneficial one. In exchange for a reduced or waived tuition, students forego their time with family and friends, labor in practices and push themselves to exhaustion, all for the school whose name they wear on their chests. In exchange, the school has a chance to claim immortal sporting glory with a championship in a given sport. Lately, league officials have railed against "losing investments." Don't teams lose investments all the time? When a high schooler from a non-UAAP school chooses another university over yours, when your team doesn't win the championship, when your coach runs your team into shambles, all of those can be considered “lost investments.” They can also be called “breaks of the game.” That doesn't matter though. Jerie Pingoy will forever owe his alma mater, and he belongs to them. It's no longer a shock to hear that some view student-athletes as a commodity, a resource to spend capital on so as to attract media mileage, sponsorships and brand equity for their university. There can be a healthy balance between sports and profit-making, but it's probably not at the point where universities measure an individual by his marketing value, as opposed to helping the individual achieve what he deems best for himself, which in the first place, is the biggest responsibility of an educational institution. Imagine a world where after Apple returned to the global stage, Microsoft declared they would prevent old Windows users from entering Apple Stores for two years. That's ridiculously unfair to anyone who desires an iOS device and can purchase one. And it's unfair to Apple too, because they came back from the dead and worked hard to challenge the dominance of Microsoft. Like universities-cum-recruitment-behemoths, Apple wasn't always there. While other firms dominated the competition, they laid low for years, labored over design, engineering and marketing to make sure the pieces were in place before Steve Jobs revealed his products. For Jobs' pains, the world embraced the iRevolution. The example shows there are no easy paths to success, and most people who earn it, deserve it. Teams like Ateneo and La Salle were league doormats at some point before they made the commitment to change that. Today, they're hauling in the hardware because they've surrounded their players with reliable talent, hired good mentors, inculcated a positive team culture and convinced their benefactors they were worth spending on. They laid down the groundwork to attract recruits from all over the country, a model that National University is trying to emulate now. Booms and busts in talent happen across all sports, and the teams that weather them best have built strong institutions instead of riding roughshod on a once-in-a-generation big ticket (as an NBA example, see LeBron James and the Cleveland Cavaliers, Chris Paul and the New Orleans Hornets, versus Kevin Durant and the Oklahoma City Thunder, Tim Duncan and the San Antonio Spurs). The new rule is a shortcut to building a team, and the league will pay for it in the long run. But why all this attention on Jerie Pingoy in the first place? In the hype, everyone seems to have forgotten that one blue-chipper (or two, or three if you dig deep enough into league history) doesn't guarantee a championship. Case in point, Ray Ray Parks is the league's most prolific scorer and a tremendous defender in the seniors division. Parks has two season MVP trophies to show for it, but he has yet to get past the Final Four. Maybe one day National U will step foot on the big stage, but it won't be solely because Parks is a Bulldog. But obviously this doesn't matter because Jerie Pingoy's gifts defy the logic of team building and will result in automatic Finals berths. There are other variables that factor into a student's choice of university. But the best you can do is to give your players a good reason to stay, and if you have a solid program and reputation in place, chances are that they will. Jerie Pingoy is transferring to a team coming off five straight basketball championships, but that shouldn't blind you to what goes on behind the scenes. Don't blame your future losses on a kid who wants to find a situation better than what you currently provide. Consider a few athletes who opted to move away from their "home" squad. Could DLSZ grad turned UST Growling Tiger Jeric Fortuna have coexisted alongside JV Casio, Bader Malabes, Simon Atkins and LA Revilla in his five-year stint with DLSU? How would another UST veteran, Paolo Pe, a former AHS Blue Eaglet, find playing time alongside Nico Salva, Frank Golla, Justin Chua and Jason Escueta? The UP Maroons, whose representative protested against this rule, would have to wait two years before rotation players like Martin Reyes (DLSZ), Mike Gamboa (ADMU) and Paolo Romero (ADMU) could contribute on the floor. What does the puzzle look like now, and would all these pieces find a home in this league? Something has to give, and where the board wants to stash the discarded pieces is unclear. The league is shifty between claiming there's no force involved and that this isn't punishment. But that makes zero sense: if the rule wasn’t forceful, then why implement it at all unless it was to encourage a preferred outcome? If it isn't a punishment for changing colors, then why bar a student from donning a jersey and competing for two years? But silly me, I know nothing. When choosing between graduating from a good program and furthering one's basketball career, it's a simple choice for Jerie Pingoy and everyone else to make. It's beside the point that the bulk of UAAP collegiate recruiting comes from outside the league. Future Pe’s, Fortuna’s and Reyes’ will fall through the cracks that this board is carving into the league's foundation. The rule will force these children into radically different career paths, even though perfectly good or better alternatives exist, all because of a choice they made (or that was made for them) on where to study when they were merely a 13 or 14-year old high school freshman. I can't imagine any other scenario where a responsibility with such repercussions is thrust upon someone who can't even drive. The "what if?" games this rule will spawn may be fun to play, but we have to stop and think: since when did people force teenagers to choose between athletic aspirations and academic pursuits? Why can't we be happy for players who find opportunities better than what they were previously in? How dare we tell our athletes to dream grand dreams when their representatives' parochial mentality holds them down. But hey, let's ignore the things that collectively pull the league and its fans down: the unfettered recruitment culture, the cutthroat nature of the competitions, and the politicking behind closed doors. Let's blame Jerie Pingoy, because he's not allowed to want more. - AMD, GMA News