From The Inbox

Japan exhibition with Woods will be good for golf

If it's good for Asia, it's good for the game

Will the exhibition involving Tiger Woods, Rory McIlroy, Jason Day and Hideki Matsuyama be compelling golf? Highly unlikely (“Hawk & Rude,” Sept. 27). Is it good for the game? With the Presidents Cup already coming to Japan, it’s a nice lead-in – a silly appetizer before the main course in December (which is kind of a silly appetizer in itself).

More golf in Asia, where the game is growing, is good for all tours, which by extension is good for the game in general.

Anything that promotes golf around the globe is a good thing for all who love the game.

Mark McAdams
Wilmette, Ill.

End NCAA’s outdated thinking
Isn't the question and move toward college athletes’ accepting compensation another part of evolution? (“California pokes NCAA’s golden goose,” Sept. 24).

The NCAA is a bit of a dinosaur with some of its rules. Coaches are to have minimal contact with prospects, athletes limited on recruitment visits to campuses and buying a meal for a prospect could be a violation leading to probation for the school.

Is their ideal of a pure amateur out of date?

Years ago, the International Olympic Committee's suits and ties adjusted their thinking about their rules on compensation and “amateur status.”

The IOC might not be a good analogy, but perhaps the NCAA brain trust can get ahead of the curve and formulate a program that recognizes the athletes can capitalize on their talent without retribution to their school.

Heck, with limited professional opportunities, athletes on the rowing and fencing teams should be able to capitalize in any way they can to offset egregious college costs without an NCAA penalty.

Now, how does the last guy picked in the NFL draft, "Mr. Irrelevant,” get an equipment company with foresight to place a bet on him?

Dave Richner
St. Johns, Fla.

Nothing is ‘free,’ even in college
I agree with the conclusion of Andrew Walters’ letter, that “Free money with zero accountability breeds entitlement, and entitlement breeds contempt” (“From the Morning Read inbox,” Sept. 27). However, I do not agree with his letter.

Walters writes about what it “cost” him to attend college in the 1970s – meaning the excess above the scholarship he was given. He then says that the price of college has skyrocketed in the past 50 years, which he attributes to “free” money in the form of available loans, which he concedes many find difficult to repay. Walters’ college scholarship was free. Loans are not free; they must be repaid.

The contempt bred from Walters’ entitlement bred from a lack of accountability bred from his “free” money is quite evident from his letter. By the way, the inflation factor from the 1970s to today is six times, not the three that Walters wrote that he “will concede.” And the main reason the “cost” to the student has increased above inflation is that state funding levels for higher education have cratered since the 1970s.

There is no “free” lunch, and there is no “free” education. Cut taxes, cut funding levels, and someone has to pay, even if they borrow the money to do so.

Eugene R. Richard
Newton, Mass.

Morning Read invites reader comment. Write to editor Steve Harmon at steve@morningread.com. Please provide your name and city of residence. If your comment is selected for publication, Morning Read will contact you to verify the authenticity of the email and confirm your identity. We will not publish your email address. We reserve the right to edit for clarity and brevity.