JaMarcus Russell - Poster Boy for Rookie Wage Scale

Jamarcus Russell, Quarterback, 292 pounds. Go ahead and lift your jaw off the floor and put your eyes back into their sockets. That is not a typo. That is how much Russell weighed when he reported for a workout with the Miami Dolphins in November of last year. Another thing you should know about Russell is that he made $31 Million dollars, just for signing his name. But Oakland did get more than just his signature. They also got 18 Touchdowns, 23 Interceptions and 22 Fumbles not to mention a QB rating of 65.2. I can't believe it was that high!

When Russell signed his contract, it was for a, then rookie record, of $62 million dollars. Luckily, the Raiders only had to pay him half of that amount. If a single player and a single contract had to be chosen to make Exhibit A in the "We need a rookie wage scale" trial, this is the perfect contract to use. Have there been #1 overall picks that have earned their contracts? Of course. But the majority of them do not work out and usually end up setting a team back five or six years rather than helping them become playoff teams.

I know that the rookie wage scale is just a small portion of what is being discussed in the new Collective Bargaining Agreement but I think that even the veteran players would agree that the rookie contracts are completely out of hand. Does Sam Bradford really deserve to make more money than Ray Lewis? The NBA has really got things right when it comes to rookie salaries. LeBron James, as much as I hate to admit it, played well above his contract while he was in Cleveland. Luckily for him, there are no limitations on sponsorship money. And trust me, if you're the #1 pick in the NFL draft, you're going to get plenty of endorsement opportunities.

If you only make $2 million your first year instead of $10 million, your life is still going to be better than 99% of Americans. Play hard, earn more. That's how we do it in the real world. We work hard, we do our jobs well and THEN we get raises. We don't sign inflated contracts and then take pay cuts later because our production wasn't what they thought it would be. We don't get chance after chance after chance. If we don't do our job, we get fired. We don't get to stick around just because we have a guaranteed contract.

No matter how things turn out, it seems that when Millionaires fight with Billionaires, the fans are the ones that lose. Figure your issues out, come to an agreement and get on the field so we can continue to pay you. Because remember, if you alienate your fan base, you eliminate the people paying your salaries.

Chicago School's Packed Lunch Ban - My Thoughts

So the Little Village Academy in Chicago has decided that they are not going to allow their students to bring in the lunches that their parents make for them in an effort to get students into a healthier eating lifestyle. You know what? I think it's a step in the right direction. Some, and I emphasize some, parents don't take the time to really think about what they are putting in their child's lunch bag. As a one time substitute teacher, I can't tell you how many times I saw kids pulling out chips, cookies, a sandwich and something coated in sugar out of their home-packed lunch. Where is the nutrition in Funyuns? How healthy is a Twinkie? As long as parents aren't going to take care of the children, they might as well let the people who have their kids for seven to eight hours a day take care of them.

And to be clear, this isn't a money making scheme by they school. They aren't serving Lobster and Steak. We're talking about less than $12 a week and that is only if they student doesn't qualify for reduced price or free lunch. Only 14% of the kids in the district don't qualify. Also, kids with allergies are excused from this practice. (Hell, if the allergy kids are smart, they'll start smuggling junk food in and start a black market within the school!) The school is required to meet certain nutritional standards that could be tough for parents to live by, especially on a limited income.

Some parents have complained that the lunches provided by the school are foods that their kids don't like. Part of me wants to say suck it up and try new things but the other part of me thinks that it should be the responsibility of the school to offer options if they are going to have a mandatory lunch. I can remember as a kid having at least three options every day and most days, I had a hard time deciding because all three looked good.

First Lady Michelle Obama's highly publicized Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, will make school lunches even healthier than they already are as the USDA sets calorie limits, and states that french fries will no longer be considered a viable "vegetable" option, as reported by USA Today. Unfortunately, I can't find a lunch menu of the Little Village Academy but I have a hard time believing that a lunch of Ho-Ho's, Doritos and a barely healthy sandwich is a better option than what they are offering. People will argue that it's all just a money making scheme for the corporation that makes the school's lunches but if only 14% of kids are paying the full $11.25 per week, how much are they really making? And what motive, exactly, do principals (they make the decision whether or not the school is home-lunch free) have in getting federal dollars for the provider of the lunches?

I'm not saying that this policy should stay in place forever, and maybe it should be revamped a bit, but until parents want to take the time to make sure that there are carrots, celery and fruit juice in place of Pringles and Pepsi in their kids diet then someone has to make sure these kids are eating properly. Who better than the same people who are preparing them for the future?