Dumb And Stupid In Oxford, Miss Comment Count

Brian

1. Brazen. Ole Miss's problem is that they made it blindingly obvious. People are dumb but they ain't stupid, and when a nobody with one year of college head coaching experience shows up in Oxford and acquires

  • the #1 player in the country
  • a five-star offensive tackle from Florida, and
  • most egregiously, a five-star wide receiver from Chicago

it's just a matter of time before the walls cave in. Nobody in the history of Chicago has ever thought to themselves "Yes! Mississippi! Especially the bit where not having a plantation owner as a mascot is controversial!"

Meanwhile the players in question were barely trying to hide it.

ChJ67vnUkAAhoib

Ole Miss was dumb and stupid and now they're going to be set on fire.

2. There are only two options for Hugh Freeze. Option A, which is by far the more likely, is that he was fully aware of what was going on from the drop and is a brazen liar. The alternative is that he is so impossibly naïve and delusional that he thought his very presence was sufficient to turn around the history of Ole Miss football. The Machiavellian interpretation is kinder, but this is a guy who compared Ole Miss's struggles to Jesus's trials on the cross so it certainly could be the latter.

3. The more pay-for-play scandals that happen the faster this edifice crumbles. If your main interest in the future of college athletics is dismantling amateurism that no longer makes anything resembling sense, the best case scenario here is that Ole Miss goes nuclear on the rest of the SEC and anyone else they have dirt on. This may be in process already:

Ole Miss, per multiple sources, possesses a recording, and has given the SEC a copy, of (Leo) Lewis’ mother asking Ole Miss for money and detailing incentives she received from other programs, including Mississippi State.

The fact that college football players get money and cars and whatnot is an open secret, but "entire SEC and half of ACC caught violating NCAA rules that everyone thinks are dumb" is the kind of thing that might finally bring the sham of amateurism—both its motivations and the NCAA's current ability to enforce it—down.

4. Dumb and stupid, for real. Ole Miss publicly challenged members of the public to provide evidence that they had violated NCAA rules. They had assistant coaches and associate athletic directors involved in direct cash payments to players and recruits. They ruined their credibility with the media by floating a bunch of outright lies that the more credulous people covering the team related uncritically:

(The same point from #2 stands for those who related it: they can either be hopelessly gullible or bought and paid for by their access.)

These days it takes a school standing up and begging to be punished for that to happen. Ole Miss volunteered. It might have been worth it, but don't be surprised when people dance on your corpse even if you got killed for something that should be legal.

5. Almost everyone does it. I have seen group texts between members of a previous Michigan recruiting class discussing the sudden shift of a player they thought they would get to a Southern school. "They bought his mom a house," per those texts. That revelation was followed by a variety of exclamations. Another recruit simply texted "money talks" when asked about his sudden change of heart.

I've talked to a bunch of people close to the program and heard some pretty astounding things, mostly about the dying days of previous regimes. These people were willing to tell me about players nearly getting in fistfights with coaches after the Gator Bowl that ended Rich Rodriguez's tenure. They've also asserted that Michigan recruits are consistently flabbergasted by the amount of money being thrown around to their compatriots, and that was one reason Brady Hoke's no visit policy could not stand: it was costing Michigan commits thousands of dollars.

Again, I don't think it's wrong that players take a life-changing amount of money in exchange for a valued skill that could cease to exist at any time. I don't think it's wrong that boosters gave him that money. The player in question has a shot at the NFL with some value already banked. He made the right choice.

I do think that everyone would be better off if the system was exposed for what it is and we could all be adults about it. Recruits currently have access to an unofficial and constrained pool of secret money that is far less than they would have if the doors were thrown open, and it's long past time to do so.

6. What grinds the ol' gears. You've got pinhead Pete Finebaum ranting in the national media about how Jim Harbaugh is doing something unethical by attempting to hire a decade-long NFL veteran coach because they may or may not get a 2019 quarterback out of it. Finebaum says nothing at all about the rampant under the table payments in the SEC.

You've got sanctimonious ass Hugh Freeze going on about how Jim Harbaugh is making him take time away from his family because Harbaugh wants to run some satellite camps. At the same time Freeze's program is overwhelming any satellite camp advantage that may exist by simply handing people checks.

If you're Harbaugh how do you not fire back?

Comments

jfree77

February 24th, 2017 at 12:41 PM ^

"If you're Harbaugh how do you not fire back?"

Harbaugh probably drove to Meijer, purchased all of their headsets and destroyed all of them in the parking lot out of anger.  I wouldn't blame him.

Looking back, Jim showed remarkable restraint with this piece of trash human being.

 

 

jfree77

February 24th, 2017 at 12:56 PM ^

Yeah, I'm probably being a bit hyperbolic.  However, he's not paying them out of the goodness of his heart.  If Freeze was suddenly an NFL coach, do you think he'd pay any poor kids any money?  Hell no.

 

It's the flaunting of the rules and hypocrisy that makes me loathe him so much.  Guys like Freeze are some of the real enemies of the sanctity of the game and thus so repulsive to guys like Harbaugh.  Always looking for a shortcut instead of trying harder or getting better.

 

I agree with everything Brian wrote about paying players, btw.  I wish they got paid their worth and think amateurism is a sham.  However, I still think Freeze is a jerkface for all of the above.

rc15

February 24th, 2017 at 1:37 PM ^

I compare it to weed...

Should it be legal? Probably.

Do people do it anyway? Yes, doing a little bit in your home and you probably won't get caught. No harm, no foul.

Should you be obvious about it? No. It's still against the rules, and I won't feel bad if you're caught after posting on social media, etc.

ElBictors

February 24th, 2017 at 2:11 PM ^

Interesting comparison but .... weed IS legal.

It's legal in California, Washington, Colorado, Mass, Oregon, etc.  So in this comparison, at the State (aka,  Program level), you would have schools like USC, Cal, UCLA, CU, UMass, etc. able to openly offer incentives to recruits to come to their schools while other programs would have to remain clandestine with their enticements.  I would think there would be a terrible imbalance of talent heading to the programs where incentives were perfectly okay and above board, as opposed to going to places where it's still sneaky.

 

Ahriman

February 24th, 2017 at 10:34 PM ^

of lies and propaganda by the Feds. 0 people, that's right 0 people died of a cannabis overdose last year, and the year before that, and the year before that, and so on. If you study the history, you'll find out "marijuana" is a made up word to make cannabis sound more foreign (it was popular with black folks and latinos).

Our very own Sanjay Gupta has made a few documentaries on why he changed his mind about cannabis legalization.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/08/health/gupta-changed-mind-marijuana/

I know we're supposed to avoid politics and religion, but having cannabis listed as a schedule 1 drug is ridiculous. The DEA is full of shit and while a majority of people support cannabis legalization, it's mainly 1 party that is pushing enforcement of these stupid laws.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/196550/support-legal-marijuana.aspx

By comparison, an estimated 88,000 people die from alcohol related diseases every year, but alcohol is legal.

https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/a…

 

looty

February 25th, 2017 at 9:19 AM ^

That's a lot of CNN and NPR "facts" lol! Care to guess what the percentage of folks who come through the rather large souther city detention facility I work in have marijuana is their system? Almost 90% and yes alcohol is also a factor. You make it sound like if nothing bad happens when someone has marijuana in their system. I'm here to tell you that there are some people out there who are committing some serious crimes that have a BAC of "0" that test positive for weed.

Ahriman

February 25th, 2017 at 5:07 PM ^

and with exception of the origin of the word, my "history" is based on facts.

Here is an exact quote from the article you linked, perhaps you haven't read it all the way through:

"Yet according to the ACLU, it's also the reason for more than half of the drug arrests in the U.S. A deeply disproportionate number of marijuana arrests (the vast majority of which are for possession) befall African-Americans, despite similar rates of usage among whites and blacks, the ACLU says."

And the other

"Throughout the 19th century, news reports and medical journal articles almost always use the plant's formal name, cannabis. Numerous accounts say that "marijuana" came into popular usage in the U.S. in the early 20th century because anti-cannabis factions wanted to underscore the drug's "Mexican-ness." It was meant to play off of anti-immigrant sentiments."

I do appreciate the link though, shows you even have to fact-check documentaries.

Our Man in Havana

February 25th, 2017 at 9:36 AM ^

deserve the death penalty? Particularly when they don't really harm anyone, except for a college football "fan" who takes it all much too seriously, and imagines that he's somehow been the victim of injustice? Or maybe it's Freeze's ignorance and/or stupidity that earns him that spot rotting in your hell...in which case, you'd better duck, brother.

ScruffyTheJanitor

February 24th, 2017 at 12:59 PM ^

it's another thing all together to be a sanctimonous hypocrite.

From SB Nation:

 

Q: We’ve heard a lot about negative recruiting at Ole Miss with the NCAA thing going on, what has Ole Miss said to you about that? “Well, Coach Freeze told me when you’re that big and out there with faith in Christ, he’s like, ‘What do you expect? Jesus got nailed to the cross.’

What an ass. 

Hardware Sushi

February 24th, 2017 at 1:44 PM ^

He is most definitely trash, in my eyes, but not for paying players. It's the hypocritical, sanctimoneous, holier-than-thou way he's carried himself, hiding behind some Christian persona that he somehow believes exempts him from acknowledging any faults of his own, all while taking advantage of these young, often poor players who also often lacking proper support systems to further his own agenda and personal glory. Guy is a grade A dickhead and piece of trash. I have a lot more respect for the Miami teams that said fuck it and owned up to who they were instead of Hugh "If you can prove anything, report it" Freeze.

Wolverinefan84

February 24th, 2017 at 10:24 PM ^

This is was irritates me most. I hate that argument. While it's true that a lot of schools in the South are paying players and their families (and I'm sure not all northern schools are clean), it's such a lazy response by fans of those schools. No, not all programs actually operate that way, and the ones that don't will likely never be able to consistently compete for championships. I think college athletes, particularly the ones who bring huge revenues to their school, should be reasonably compensated for their time and dedication to their sport. But that shouldn't give individual schools who are smarter than Ole Miss about paying their players an advantage over the schools that actually follow the rules.

You have to blame the NCAA for this. You either need to enforce the current "rules" (which will never happen, obviously), or change them. Even if they lay down the hammer on Ole Miss, that's not going to stop other programs from paying players, they'll just get smarter about it.

End rant.

The Fan in Fargo

February 24th, 2017 at 2:48 PM ^

Yeah but as soon as a Michigan player slipped up and tried it, the university would get crucified. Chris Webber ring a bell anyone? Michigan doesn't do it and they'd never get away with it. Too many envious and evil schmucks in the world. These dirt bag programs in the south, east coast and west coast shouldn't be allowed to either. Hopefully they prove to be as stupid as I think they are and destroy eachother. Mud and humidity loving lowlifes. 

Gucci Mane

February 24th, 2017 at 4:34 PM ^

Brian mentioned fights during Hokes times between players. Thought this might be interesting to some....but I heard from a player at the time that Taylor Lewan beat up Devin Gardner. Not ideal. Makes sense why they underperformed.

901 P

February 24th, 2017 at 9:21 PM ^

Yeah, I had to read it a few times. I think the stories about Michigan are meant to establish that these are credible sources with inside info--they know stuff, and they confirmed that other schools give cash. I think the other point (maybe?) is that these sources are even willing to reveal info that places Michigan in a negative light, but they did not state that Michigan does the same thing.

ish

February 24th, 2017 at 12:47 PM ^

the single biggest obstacle to change is the people who both believe that college players shouldn't be paid, but then set about to cheat by paying them.  that's hugh freeze and his compatriots.

M_Born M_Believer

February 24th, 2017 at 1:22 PM ^

But with a slightly different angle.  As the NCAA is set up now with their blind notion about not paying players gives schools like Ole Miss (and most of the SEC and ACC) a recruiting advantage.

Schools like Michigan will abide by the letter of the law, yet lose kids they could offer the world to because slime buckets like Freeze give them the short term gratification.

If the NCAA were to wake up and legalize paying players, Freeze (and the SEC) would lose their "advantage" in recruiting.  

Unless, of course you have the notion of...... What would restrain the SEC from stop paying players above and beyond whatever payment would be deemed reasonable?????  Nothing......??

hunterjoe

February 24th, 2017 at 2:16 PM ^

The last part is exactly my thought.  The NCAA allows them to get paid 20k a year but Ole Miss doubles that under the table. Even if you allow players to be paid, they'll still circumvent the rules and just pay them more to keep their advantge.  

Inuyesta

February 24th, 2017 at 5:49 PM ^

This is true, but the advantage would not be as large simply because money has declining marginal utility. "I can get 40k at Ole Miss or 20k at Michigan" offers a different scenario than "I can get 20k at Ole Miss or nothing at Michigan." I'd bet that given the other advantages a Michigan degree/experience offers, there are some players we've lost to southern bagmen that we could have gotten if we were letting them get their beak wet a little bit, even if it wasn't quite as much as the Ole Misses and LSUs were throwing around.

trueblueintexas

February 24th, 2017 at 4:52 PM ^

This is why I hate the "paying players will solve everything" argument. It won't solve what I think the biggest issue is, a fair and balanced playing field. I'm guessing the majority of athletes would rather have that, than an extra $10 - $20K through their four years of college. I am much more in favor of taking the crap ton of money floating around and creating true on-campus enforcement, long term health care, and on-going research to prevent brain injuries than simply giving it all away and not really changing anything.

gruden

February 24th, 2017 at 9:36 PM ^

It will never be a balanced playing field.  Schools - which includes Michigan - will always have an advantage due to name recognition and resources.  Top-tier schools will always have advantages that keep them at the top. 

Not sure what you mean by on-campus enforcement - why does a recruit want that (and enforce what?).  If you mean enforcement against sexual assault, exactly how draconian do you wish to be?  The proper rules are already in place, if things get out of hand there will be a backlash a la Baylor, etc. We need to disincentivize the cover-ups because the punishments are already sufficient to end people's careers and tarnish institutional reputations, which is why it happens.

As for concussions, while there is room for improvement, I don't see how this will ever completely go away.  The brain wasn't designed to take violent hits, and while better helmet technology can ameliorate that somewhat, as long as guys are running into each other at high speed concussions will be the result.  Payments and long-term healthcare seem reasonable compensation for athletes putting themselves at risk like this.

trueblueintexas

February 25th, 2017 at 1:17 PM ^

A rather contrarian argument post, but ok, I'll respond. Fair and balanced means taking the players one team can recruit legally up against those the other team can recruit legally. Will certain teams have inherent advantages? Sure. The Florida and Texas schools will always be located in talent rich areas and have an inherent advantage. It isn't so great that a coach like Harbaugh can't overcome it and have a legit competition. What isn't fair and balanced is when a school like Ole Miss pays players enough money the player changes where he would normally go, a la Laquon Treadwell. Michigan would have been a better team with him, instead, the field was artificially tilted away from Michigan based on an illegal act, not a better coach or program. Look at the Isaiah Wilson situation. How do you think Michigan's other recruits felt about his surprise decision? Based on what Brian posted, they were pretty upset that most likely an illegal act shifted the field artificially. So yes, I think the NCAA should take the crap ton of money and figure out a way to have a better investigation and enforcement program to cut into the influence bagmen have and to clean out corrupt coaches. Regarding concussions, just because you can not prevent them completely, doesn't mean there should not be efforts made to minimize them. Again, there is plenty of money to do something instead of nothing and it is an issue in which every little bit can help.

ijohnb

February 24th, 2017 at 12:53 PM ^

is a good proposal to compensate players?  Would they be paid by the University?  Who would get paid, football and basketball players or all athletes?  Would players of different abilities be paid more of less based on their ability to contribute?  How much of the money is guaranteed?  Players paid monthly, annually?  Do all schools have to pay the same amount?  Do MAC players makes as much as BIG players?  Do we think compensation packages would actually prevent schools from breaking the rules and wealthy donors from paying out of pocket to secure big time recruits?  If they are all getting paid, nothing would be different from right now as far as big time recruits go.  If they would be making as much as the fourth string tight end, why not take more money from other sources?

The problem with blaming the facade or illusion of amatuerism as a contributing factor in incidents like this is that paying the players does not actually provide a solution to the actual problem.  It just multiplies the issue ten-fold and makes the problem that much more complicated.  Most people who are conceptually against paying college players don't hold that belief because they don't think the players should be compensated.  It is just that it is kind of a "straw man" solution.  It would not really solve anything and would be logistically impossible to modulate and regulate.

 

In reply to by ijohnb

wile_e8

February 24th, 2017 at 12:54 PM ^

The easiest solution I've heard is called the Olympic model. The schools wouldn't pay players, they'd just keep up the current scholarship model. However, players would be free to accept outside compensation.

Booster wants to pay players on the team? Fine. 

Company wants to pay a player to endorse a product? Fine.

Players get a cut of jersey sales? Fine. 

It doesn't upset the current model at all, and basically makes what's going on at a small scale in places like Oxford legal.

Maizen

February 24th, 2017 at 1:12 PM ^

Booster wants to pay players on the team? Fine. 

That's not the Olympic model and it's also a violation of numerous tax laws. Rumors are Nkemdiche got over $250K from Ole Miss, you can't have that kind of non taxable income. It's illegal.

The Olympic model is way too professionalized. You want endorsement and Ad agents running around college campuses in a free for all? Come on man. The easiest solution is to give the players a much larger cut of the pie and call it a stipend or something along those lines. I laid out what i would do below.

Maizen

February 24th, 2017 at 1:24 PM ^

That's why they are called "professionals." You honestly think 19-20 year old kids are going to make sound financial decisions and would be able to handle the pethora of people trying to get in their pockets if this was made a free for all? LOL you are fucking nuts.

When you pay players you open yourself up to a whole host of problems most people don't have the foresight to see. Workers compensation becomes a huge issue. The formation of a union would be a foregone conclusion. Agents and marketing reps would be crawling all over college campuses because these kids would need representation. Once you are an employee you now open yourself up to being able to be fired without cause. The SEC would abuse the shit out of that one. And good luck getting thousands of players to reach a CBA with the NCAA.

The Olympic model would be pure chaos. But these players do deserve to compensated more than what they are getting right now, which makes a $20K stipend each year or whatever you want to call it much more sensical right now. 

wile_e8

February 24th, 2017 at 1:33 PM ^

Somehow non-athlete college students are capable of having jobs that provide income and the world hasn't come to an end. Yes, some of it would be spent unwisely, but I don't think blocking athletes from getting money is the solution there. Agents would help the players work out the deals, and smart schools would have financial advisors to help the players out.

Once players are no longer beholden to the NCAA endorsement deals are standard and somehow it's not chaos. I don't know what is so different about the NCAA that would make it chaos here.

Maizen

February 24th, 2017 at 1:52 PM ^

Yeah, they work at the CCRB and make 8 dollars an hour. Come on, if you don't see the complexity of the problems your proposal would create it's because you just don't want to at this point.

I don't want college football to be pro football. If I did I would just watch pro football. This isn't a hard thing to understand. People love college football because of the connectiveness, charm, and pagentry you don't get with pro sports. As John Bacon always says it's a religion. When you make it a business people start treating it like a business you become a customer and not a fan. Didn't we learn anything from the Dave Brandon era?

I'm all for giving players a bigger piece of the pie because the sport has generated so much money and has become "professionalized" in some ways, but I don't want for it to completely jump the shark. I love college football for so many reasons and I want to see the pillars of it stick around so one day my kids can enjoy it like I did growing up. 

wile_e8

February 24th, 2017 at 2:11 PM ^

Sorry, people have been getting paid in return for labor forever. This isn't complex.

And I have no clue how this would take away from the connectiveness, charm, and pagentry of college football. Players would still go to the same classes, live in the same dorms, and go to the same parties and bars as students - as much as they do now at least. The marching band will play the fight song, and you'll still get to get to relive your college years when you go back on game day. The players getting some more money on the side does not affect any of those things. If the players getting more fairly compensated makes college football unenjoyable for you, that's a problem with you.