Mike Lantry, 1972
Per Michael Kim's Twitter:
I don't see anything on their main page, and shockingly this hasn't created a Twitterstorm as of yet. I'll update with links if/when they become available.
One has to think Pryor's decision to leave OSU is related to this forthcoming story. Unfortunately, since he's no longer a student-athlete, he technically doesn't have to cooperate with the NCAA.
Edit: I'm an idiot who can't re-size an image. Was going to post this here.
EDIT #2: Link courtesy of Erik_in_Dayton. Gracias.
EDIT #3: More info coming out, this one by SportsbyBrooks (HT: TomVH on Twitter).
Looking for some guideance from the Board:
Unlike Maurice Clarrett who lied and protected his teammates, then got kicked out, the Terrelle Pryor is going to pre-emptively remove himself. If the Terrelle Pryor has no obligation to cooperate with the NCAA in the investigation, what are the implications of his lack of cooperation for the OSU. Can and will the NCAA increase the punishment if he fails to cooperate or is less than fully forthcoming? If they can't force him to cooperate and cannot penalize tOSU for his lack of cooperation, I would think this strategy would be repeated by anyone under investigation moving forward i.e. 'convince' your improper benefit using player to quit to protect the institution.
For those of you that like to wager I found a bet I really like. Clemson is 200-1 to win the BCS. While obviosuly a long shot I think they offer a realistic shot considering they play in the ACC and they get many of their tough games at home. Read this preview.
If they get even close near the end of the season you can start betting against them to insure you win some cash. As a bonus if they tank and blow your money, you can get ready for the RR era to begin in 2012 at Clemson because if they don't win at least 9 Swinney is toast. 100 to win 20,000 lock it in.
PS I still think Mich has a miracle shot if they get past ND, but I didn't want to ruin my credibility, oops just did, but at 75-1 and huge jinx possibilites it just doesn't work.
It has almost been a year since Ohio offensive lineman Jack Miller decided to commit to play for Rich Rodriguez and the Michigan Wolverines. A lot has changed since Miller's announcement, and despite the fact that the program has gone through an overhaul Miller's excitement has never dwindled. "I sat here and read all the articles about me projecting to go there, and then me signing there, and now it's time to be a part of Michigan football," he said. "It's not just football, it's being part of that tradition. We all report on June 25th, that's when we move in."
Miller had fallen in love with everything that Michigan brought to the table, so when the coaching change happened his commitment was never in question. He embraced the new coaching staff and was pleasantly surprised with Brady Hoke and his new position coach Darrell Funk. "I've been really impressed with the coaches. You obviously don't wish bad on anyone, and this isn't anything against Coach Rodriguez, but I think this coaching change is good for me and good for Michigan football," said Miller. "Everyone is buying in and is happy to play for them. I'm speaking real prematurely here and I've only gotten to know the coaches off the field, but I'm excited to get up there and learn." The major recruiting sites had Miller as a defensive line prospect but Michigan recruited him to play on the offensive line.
While most fans were nervous and didn't know what to expect with the new coaching staff, Miller said he knew everything would be ok. "I don't follow recruiting too close, but I've looked at it. I wasn't surprised that the coaches have done so well," he said. "The fans don't know Coach Hoke on a personal level, and I read that Greg Mattison is one of the best recruiters in the country." The fans might not know Hoke on a personal level, but there is mutual optimism now that the 2012 class has been rolling in. "It's a new transition for Michigan and who wouldn't want to come to Michigan," asked Miller. "Coach Hoke is bringing back the old Michigan, they're players' coaches, and they've been successful."
He speaks highly of head coach Brady Hoke, but Coach Darrell Funk has been the main contact at Michigan for Miller, and he's been preparing for his new role with his new family. "I think the way it looks right now I'll be playing center. It's an interior offensive line position and a lot of time it's need based so I wouldn't rule out guard either. In a perfect world with nothing wrong I think it would probably be center," he said about his new position. Jack played both offensive and defensive line in high school, so he has familiarity with the position. Jumping from high school to college as a lineman can be very difficult however, so Miller has been trying to gain every advantage he can. "I've been training first and foremost. Working out, and I've been trying to use some resources I have in the NFL," he said. "I've been watching film on different centers in the NFL, and I've been trying to figure out what transition will be like on the field. I have to accept the fact that my life is about to do a complete 180."
One aspect of his transition that many people can relate to is college life off the field, and discovering a whole new world. "I'm excited for what college represents, branching out as your own person and not relying on any one else," Miller said. "Becoming and developing who you are. It's exciting, not nerve wracking, but it does make you anxious." Luckily for him he has gotten a head step on befriending his new teammates. "I'm trying to room with Chris Rock [2011 DE signee]. We became friends once we both committed," he said. "I know Kevin Koger being from Toledo, and he and I have been in touch. I talk to Taylor Lewan and Patrick Omameh when I go up there, so I'm getting to know the guys and it's been good." Miller, like any offensive lineman, will likely redshirt his freshman year. With Dave Molk's senior status and only two others in front of him, Miller will have an excellent chance at contributing early if he can manage this transition properly.
There was some discussion within the Phil Steele prediction thread about how good (mhmm, good 'n terrible) the D could potentially be in 2011. Some selective data to consider:
- we all remember fondly, vividly and often the '08 cap one bowl where Henne shredded Florida's secondary. Florida finished 98th in pass defense that year. The following year they finished 20th. The difference? 2 of their studs (Black and Haden) were no longer freshman, and the freshman they did have (Janoris Jenkins) was a frosh all-american. Experience helps...but clearly they had more hyped talent in that defensive backfield relative to what Michigan will have this year.
A better comparison may be '09 vs. '10 Sparty. Finished 112th on '09 in pass defense (exactly where Michigan finished last year); in '10 they finished 60th. Their DB's were not highly touted coming out of HS.
I understand that this only looks at pass defense and ignores dozens of factors I can't even think of. What I do think is encouraging, is how a little experience in the defensive backfield can go a long way. Let's assume a couple things:
- Woolfolk & Floyd are basically 100% come August-ish
- Will Campbell/Q. Washington prove to be servicable this year
My long-winded question is then, what is the ceiling for this years D? Is it crazy to think we too can make the jump from 112th to the 60th range in pass defense based on experience alone?
On the heels of WatersDemos's excellent diary and the Bobby Knight Board discussion, I got to thinking that it might be worth while having a collaborative debate about the issue of payment to college football players. I would be especially interested in hearing from some MGoEconomists on this issue, given that there are some particularities of the labor market for football services that invite economic thinking.
The problem (if it is a problem) with the NCAA rule against players' selling their swag is that it seems to violate principles of personal property rights. So, the logical alternative is to allow players to sell their swag to whomever they choose. This creates an incentive structure in which recruits can be told by coaches that University X has a super rich booster who will give them $100,000 for a couple of signed jerseys. Lesser recruits might only be able to command, say, $50,000 over four years at a lesser school. At this point, college football becomes no different than minor league baseball or hockey, with the prearranged "jersey sales" being tantamount to signing bonuses.
But, this is only a problem if it is defined as a problem; that is, if our sepia-toned memories of what college football used to be like make us unwilling to accept that college football could be a farm system. On the other hand, humans use things like nostalgia and emotion to drive decision-making from time to time—it’s called “culture.”
So, one solution would seem to be a flat wage for all football players, outside of tuition, books, and whatever they currently get for pocket money. So, all players would be paid, say, $2,000 per month for 12 months, essentially a fairly lucrative campus job. That wage could even rise as they progress through college, so that by the time the NFL draft rolls around, the vast majority of players who don’t get selected might have a little money in their pockets to go to grad school, start a business, etc.
Two obvious problems with this:
- Other NCAA athletes don’t have access to this. It would only be football players; and
- Although the flat wage would prevent an above-board bidding war for recruits (since there would be no benefit to choosing University X over Y, unlike the return on choosing the Yankees over the Royals), it only creates a new level playing field on which rich boosters would compete under the table. In that sense, it doesn’t really solve any problems. That is, even if (and perhaps because) Terrelle Pryor would earn as much as Drew Dileo, there would still be incentives for back room payments.
Another solution is to create a farm system for the NFL, and force high school players to choose between college and the farm team. It stands to reason that if two of the three other major sports have farm systems, and the NBA has a sort of hybrid (the NBDL would be a true farm system if the players were allowed to sign directly from high school), there would be pressure for the NFL to follow suit.
It seems to me like the crux of the problem is that college football players (like baseball, hockey, and basketball players, and unlike college gymnasts or water polo players) possess a set of skills that, at their highest level, are highly in demand in the professional labor market. This creates all sorts of incentives for players to want to cash in on those skills.
This is what I want some economists’ take on: is it coincidence or causal that the two college sports where recruiting is dirty like dirt in a dirt sandwich are football and basketball, the two major revenue-generating pro sports that don’t have a fully-developed farm system, a la hockey and baseball? My working hypothesis is that having a well-developed farm system—which allows star players to get paid for their services prior to making it to the big show—that reduces the dirt in college baseball or hockey recruiting.
So, if we are truly concerned about such dirt, the solution would be to make the NBDL a true farm system, and to create a NFL farm system. The case of Brandon Jennings is instructive in this respect—recall that because he couldn’t go into either the NBA or NDBL right after high school, he went to Europe to play. I wouldn’t be surprised if this happens more in the future. In this sense, the Euro leagues are like the NBA farm system (see also: Ricky Rubio), but just a really inefficient one as of now.
Anyway, if the NFL did adopt a farm system, it would have to be done like the other farm systems, that is, in conjunction with the NFL. So, no competitive USFL or XFL or even Arena league nonsense. I actually think this could work, by the way. There are plenty of places where (1) football is beloved, (2) there is no local NFL team, and (3) plenty of rooting interest in a nearby NFL team. Or, more nationally, I’m sure the Dallas Cowboys’ farm team—even if it was located in, say, Louisville, KY—would generate plenty of suppport.
So I guess the three questions are:
- Is selling swag under the current system a problem?
- Would paying players more help the problem?
- Would an NFL (and true NBA) farm system be (a) economically viable, and (b) solve the problem of dirty practices in college football and basketball?
I'll hang up and listen.