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

grumbler

February 24th, 2017 at 4:30 PM ^

I can see no reason for the school to hire professional entertainers to represent the school one day a week for thirteen or so weeks per year.  If the players want to be professionals, let them play professional football.

It makes zero sense for there to be a Michigan football Wolverines team of professionals.  Running professional entertainment companies isn't within the school's mandate.

I am all for players getting paid.  I just want to see them paid by their pro team, not the University's AD.

gruden

February 24th, 2017 at 9:55 PM ^

" If the players want to be professionals, let them play professional football."

That's the crux of the problem, isn't it?  If a kid has the talent to play baseball really well, he can bypass college and go straight to the professional ranks.  Same with basketball and hockey.  Football, however, locks kids out of the professional ranks for 3 years, thus they have no options; if they want to eventually join the professional ranks in football, they have to join a college team for at least 3 years. 

How many players on any P5 team, including Michigan, do you think would be there if there was a professional option (ie. a minor league-style football league)?  I think your romantic notion of all the players on Michigan or any other team being their solely for their love of the school is a mirage. 

Cardale Jones got roasted for his 'playing school' comment, but that exposes a certain reality for a lot of the top-flight talent.  Sure, some of them would play on a university team, but given the risk of career-ending injury it's a common sense decision to seek compensation, especially when so many people around you are making money off your effort.

jabberwock

February 25th, 2017 at 9:26 AM ^

The NFL should set asise a pool of $ to pay the colege players.

1.  It acknowledges that the CF system is indeed a type of farm system for the NFL

2.  It allows smaller/sruggling athletic departments to remain viable & keep their programs.

3.  Avoids Title IX issues (I think)

I would still structure it to pay the majority at graduation etc. but this seems doable if enough NFL owners arms are twisted.

I think the threat of a "minor league" and concussion issues would help sway them.

Ihatebux

February 24th, 2017 at 8:08 PM ^

So, you are saying "dumb" athletes, many of whom are minorities can't deal with having money.  However, if a "smart" "normal" student gets money, they won't do bad things.   That may happen, but is incredibly racist and a very stupid argument.

gruden

February 24th, 2017 at 9:45 PM ^

An argument that '19-20 year-olds don't know what they're doing' seems a poor rationale for not compensating them.  Will bad things happen?  Sure, but they already do.

I don't think unions are foregone conclusions at all.  As for representation, the whole reason you have it is to have an expert who can negotiate fair compensation.  Right now you have coaches, alumni and universities themselves going after kids, it seems like knowledgable, experienced guidance on their behalf is exactly what they need to avoid being taken advantage of.

jmdblue

February 24th, 2017 at 1:27 PM ^

Football and I believe our program is relatively pure.  Also, the numbers of players being highly compensated are small enough that there is some competitive balance.  If M' s football team becomes a de facto pro squad, I'll find other ways to spend my time and money.

ijohnb

February 24th, 2017 at 1:38 PM ^

a lot of ways, yes.  Aside from Michigan, I am most likely to watch a MAC game than really any other college football game.  I absolutely despise the SEC and have not watched an SEC game that did not involve Michigan in a few years.  Put is this way.  I had 0% interest in the National Championship game.  I didn't even DVR it.  For me, that is certainly waning interest.

In reply to by ijohnb

schreibee

February 24th, 2017 at 1:57 PM ^

Too bad, you missed a great GAME, for really no reason whatsoever. I mean, if all you watch is Michigan, then I guess you're just more a Michigan fan than sports fan. 

I was in SF in a bar full of people who jumped, hooted & cheered when Clemson scored the winning TD, you'd have thought I was in S.Caro.

Now, if Clemson strings together as many titles & #1 recruiting classes as Bama has, no doubt in a few years I'll be in a bar full of people jumping, hooting & cheering when someone else beats them!

College FB is the best sport going, I love it, cheer for our beloved Michigan, root against the teams I don't like, every week is like a virtual playoff scenario.

You avoid all that..... WHY?!

ijohnb

February 24th, 2017 at 2:08 PM ^

is not a conscious, intentional thing.  I just didn't have enough interest in it to care about it.  I agree, it sucks.  No, I am a pretty big sports fan, in general.  I haven't had really any interest in any of the Playoff Games since that thing got started.  I am not sure why exactly.  I do watch a lot of the "meaningless bowl games" though. And the Rose Bowl remains pretty awesome.

(Actually, I did watch FSU v. Oregon in 2015 but that was most likely because it was the Rose Bowl).

In reply to by ijohnb

schreibee

February 25th, 2017 at 3:41 AM ^

Man, I bet you're WAY younger than me, but you sound older!

I still watch the Rose Bowl, but that Playoff thing?! Just can't get into it....

Unless Michigan is in it of course!!!!!

ElBictors

February 24th, 2017 at 1:13 PM ^

Take Jeremy Bloom as a better, less complex example.  As an NCAA/CU skier he was prohibited from accepting items like goggles and gloves, which are commonplace in competitve skiing - even at the 'amateur' Olympic level.  So in order to get a $99 pair of goggles, he was forced to choose between skiing for CU or quitting the team.  How in the world does a skier with a pair of "free" goggles benefit?!

The annuity model - with some tweaks - would not only be a decent solution, but might also encourage student athletes to actually stay in school as opposed to going Pro and might go a very long way to repairing the ruin that is One and Done College hoops.

 

Yinka Double Dare

February 24th, 2017 at 3:49 PM ^

The Bloom thing was worse than that - his Olympic sport wasn't his NCAA sport. He played football at CU and was an Olympic-level skier. But he couldn't take a lot of what every other skier could because of NCAA rules if he wanted to play an entirely different sport. As if, say, Rossignol was going to be funneling money to a punt returner on a football team.

rc15

February 24th, 2017 at 2:02 PM ^

What I think would be interesting is you could essentially start a Kickstarter campaign to keep a player from going to the NFL. Fans pledge money to pay a player, but the player only gets it if they decide to stay and play another year.

If Jabrill knew he'd get 10 million dollars for staying and playing another season at Michigan, there's no doubt in my mind he stays. Probably for a 5th year too...

In reply to by ijohnb

jmdblue

February 24th, 2017 at 1:05 PM ^

a proposal for compensating players that even begins to seem workable. IMO a huge reason college football is so popular (and therefore makes so much money) is the sense that these are college kids representing their colleges.  If/when college football becomes a free market AAA minor league for the NFL, I suspect 1) there will be  even less parity than there is now, 2) the game will become vastly less popular, especially for the growing list of have-nots, 3) the game as a whole will be a whole lot less fun and a whole lot less profitable.

 

Catchafire

February 24th, 2017 at 1:24 PM ^

I agree with this, but it feels like that already after seeing Alabama in the championships each year.  If you are a cfb blue blood school, you have advantages that many schools do not.

 

In a way, cfb is getting very boring for schools that never have a chance to begin with.

ijohnb

February 24th, 2017 at 1:31 PM ^

think what Maizen proposes right underneath this is moderately plausible, while still leaving the "essence" of college football as we know it intact.  But his proposal does not address all of the issues.  Who gets paid?  All football players?  All athletes in every sport?  And it does not address the fact that players, schools, and boosters are still going to cheat regardless.

Players don't accept money and "benefits" from donors because they are not provided "livable" conditions by way of their scholarship, they do it 1) because it is offered, and 2) they want it. Those things are not going to change because they make 40 grand while in college. The fact that they are not paid to play is not the reason they accept illicit money, it is merely an excuse for doing it.  If you pay them, that excuse is simply going to change to "we don't get paid enough."

In reply to by ijohnb

Maizen

February 24th, 2017 at 1:38 PM ^

No proposal is ever going to stop boosters from cheating as people will always gladly accept more money. However its the NCAA's job to make their penalties so severe that the risk of cheating outweighs the reward of doing so. Right now that balance is skewed so far towards cheating is worth it that college sports has become a wild west of sorts. The NCAA needs to get serious about enforcemnent (they spend 1% of their annual budget on rules enforcement) for it to be effective.

The hope with my proposal is that players start getting a fairer shake in this deal and it helps cut into the number of players who choose a college because of what the bagman gave them. There is no perfect solution out there that satisfies everyone, but I can't think of anything else that keeps the integrity of amatuerism while realizing these players deserve more. And for the record it's 80 grand not 40 grand.

jmdblue

February 24th, 2017 at 1:55 PM ^

With compensating college athletes for 2 reasons:

-it threatens the game itself... I don't think many people are interested in watching a bad version of the NFL

-for the most part the "uniforms" are what is making the money, not the players... Denard Robinson was a huge force in college football, but without the M uniform what is he? A decent running back in a free market system.  Is M football worth significantly less (in terms of money of course) if Denard played somewhere else?  I don't think so.   Players worthy of compensation do get paid at a level commensurate with their talent and popularity... in the NFL.

All of that said, I like your proposal better than others I've seen.

M_Born M_Believer

February 24th, 2017 at 1:51 PM ^

In a fantasy world, what if the NFL got off their high hog and started drafting high school players.  Kinda like the hockey model except that the NFL would actually sign these kids to contracts, "minor league contracts", but contracts all the same.  

Then these kids would still be able to go to a college of choice, except for the fact that the 5/4 stars athletes are now getting paid and would, in theory, not be swayed by slimy booster.

I see it a free capitalism, if the athlete is good enough and identified by the NFL as a prospect, then he gets rewarded for his talents.  This would go a long way to curbing the booster under the table.  I can not imagine that boosters are willing to shell out big bucks for a 2 or low 3 star.

This can also be opened to Freshman and Sophomores so for the "late" developers, they can get their share as well.  I would even call is a supplement draft so that a NFL team would own the rights to the player.

Of course there are still a thousand details that would need to be hashed out and I would give it a 0.0% chance that neither the NFL or NCAA would get into this (Too much work with little to no extra profit benefits for the corporations), but I'm just throwing out the hypothetical....

gruden

February 24th, 2017 at 10:35 PM ^

I get your point, and I think there's some validity: there most likely would be some change in the spirit of the game of players were paid.  But I also think it's a one-sided view, it's a view that benefits you (us?) as fans, but not so much the athletes.  If we aim to be fair and equitable, they deserve something. 

The game has changed a lot over the years simply due to the ever-increasing sums of money changing hands with college football.  Cutting the athletes out seems unethical at this point. 

The head football coach is the highest-paid state employee in many states, it's already a crazy system.

In reply to by ijohnb

Maizen

February 24th, 2017 at 1:16 PM ^

I don't think you can just let boosters run wild and pay whoever they want whatever they want because payments like that would violate numerous tax laws. There has to be some regulation and preservation of some sense of amtuerism.

My proposal has been give each player $20K for every year he stays in college, but for half the amount to be paid after he graduates. In other words, a 4 year scholarship player would have $40K to spend while in school ($10K each year) and $40K waiting for him when he graduates to help get him on his feet in life. This would be easy to regulate, it would allows kids to live comfortably in college and help their family back home financially if they need it, and it would give them a nice nest egg once they graduate. It would cost the AD $6.8 million a year. Incredibly doable. 

This wouldn't eliminate bagmen, nothing ever will, but it would allow kids to stop making college decisions on financial necessity and also allow the NCAA to go after the real cheaters with more vigor than they currently do. They players get a piece of the proverbial pie and it doesn't cost the schools and arm and a leg. Win win all around IMO.

jabberwock

February 24th, 2017 at 1:29 PM ^

to the idea i usually endorse.

Give them enough to live on campus comfortably, (keeping academic eligibility requirements each year) and a cetain percentage as a cumulative bonus upon graduation.

I could even see players allowed to apply for "family harship" waivers that funnel some current or future payments immediatly to their family.

The endorsement $ is a separate issue, but I don't see that being a big problem a long as endorsment $ goes into the "nest egg".

I'm sorry, but the "burn it all down" manta that Brian always espouses sounds petulant, and I think would change the game too much.

Kingpin74

February 24th, 2017 at 2:04 PM ^

That's a good idea, but the problem is that it would violate Title IX if the school paid it directly. Every athlete in every sport would then have to get the same 20K a year under the law. The only way I see it being possible is paying the players as a cut of the TV money for football and men's basketball, i.e. something tangible and separate for the only sports that make money.

In reply to by ijohnb

ST3

February 24th, 2017 at 1:36 PM ^

Free market economics? School offers athlete a job with a salary. Athlete either accepts or rejects. 5-star recruits are going to make more money, just like graduates of top universities can make more coming out of school than graduates of community colleges or high schools.

This works for McDonald's employees and Starbucks employees and rocket scientists. Why shouldn't it work for college athletes?

jmdblue

February 24th, 2017 at 5:27 PM ^

But if cfb becomes nfl lite and is no longer profitable the golden goose is dead... As for your belief in markets in this case I'd say this... Cfb is an inferior product played by second tier talent, yet somehow it makes vast amounts of money. Why is this? In large part because talent acquisition does not happen in a free market. There is a place where players can sell their services... The NFL.

In reply to by ijohnb

bronxblue

February 24th, 2017 at 1:52 PM ^

Paying the players has never been about stopping cheating; of it curtails it that's just a nice by product. These kids help generate millions for the school, and should get a piece beyond scholarships. And let's be honest, if UM can offer you an above-board extra $20k or Ole Miss a bag of cash in a dark alleyway that could lead to you losing eligibility, I think a number of people would take the prior.

In reply to by ijohnb

Chiwolve

February 24th, 2017 at 2:38 PM ^

Disagree -- especially with this, "It just multiplies the issue ten-fold and makes the problem that much more complicated."

While you pose some difficult questions that are not easily solved, the answer is not to throw our hands in the air and do nothing because it is too difficult or the solution may not be perfect. 

Here's one proposal: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/09/sports/a-way-to-start-paying-college…

Here's another: http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-pac-12-and-the-smartest-way-to-pa…

Neither of these provides a perfect answer but I don't see how you or anybody else can defend a clearly broken system where all revenue is directed towards "owners" and administrators, while the "talent" is offered an educational opportunity that they may or may not value

In reply to by ijohnb

funkifyfl

February 24th, 2017 at 4:06 PM ^

1. Would they be paid by the University? Yes.

2. Who would get paid, football and basketball players or all athletes? Athletes on revenue-generating teams. Such a determination would have to be made at the beginning of each season and schools will have to carefully consider whether they want to continue their programs (sounds a bit like saving and finance right? Probably a good thing). Universities can decide whether they want to support non-revenue-generating athletics and to what degree.

3. Would players of different abilities be paid more of less based on their ability to contribute? Interesting question, let's leave it aside for a moment.

4. How much of the money is guaranteed? 1-year guaranteed contract that includes spring practice, summer conditioning, and the football season. This also helps with respect to transfers.

5. Players paid monthly, annually?  See #4. Players can be paid weekly, bimonthly, or monthly, it works in the real world under all these different pay period systems. Standardized contract language could control what happens if a player is dismissed/terminated for cause, so that they are no longer entitled to the benefits of their contract.

6. Do all schools have to pay the same amount? No, see below.

7. Do MAC players makes as much as BIG players? No, obviously.

8. 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? No, but at least there would be baseline compensation for players and each individual can then decide whether to skirt rules or not while getting finite remuneration (i.e. not just an academic scholarship + room and board).

9. 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? Because it would be against theoretical rules and could result in punishment.

 

I'm in favor of letting these men enter the NFL draft without going to college, but I don't see that happening. It's the fairest thing to do from a labor perpsective, but it would also likely diminish college football as we know and love it, so this whole exercise is about making a compromise. Some of the issues you raise are actually interesting, but others are tiresome.

 

For example, no one should expect the P5 programs to reduce their expenditures to MAC levels or for MAC schools to raise theirs to a P5 level. Here, and with a lot of your other issues, the separate leagues will have a bigger role in how this develops. For the sake of explanation, if the P5 programs got together, I think they'd be able to come up with essentially a salary floor and cap. Perhaps this is done on a player level (i.e. a fulltime player can be given no less than X per season and no more than Y per season). Where walk-ons and preferred walk-ons fit into this scheme is getting a bit far into the weeds for a post-response (already there, I know). Actually, on that note, I'm going to stop here.

You are getting stuck on THE fundamental issue - the current system requires these men to do something the public (i.e. college football fans) values very highly under a compensation structure that is severely limiting. There is real value in a full athletic scholarship, but these guys have no choice, but to accept that under the rules. I don't know what you do for a living (or if you're a student, what your major is), but if someone told you that by virtue of this decision, you were subject to a compensation system that does not involve putting cash money in your hand I think you would feel differently in a very strong way. The fact that football is incredibly dangerous only heightens the need to care for these people. So, I'd be MUCH more interested in talking about how such a system will pay for injuries and care for years down the line after the athletes are done playing (briefly, a fund needs to be setup and paid for by universities for exactly this). But, until people can understand that the whole system is setup to avoid paying labor, we have a long way to go.

 

Edit: This article was also JUST posted, please read it. deadspin.com/no-paying-ncaa-athletes-wont-cost-them-money-1792711863

funkifyfl

February 28th, 2017 at 9:47 AM ^

You're right in a technical sense, but if these changes are coming I would think the entire framework, including Title IX would get an overhaul. While the gap between haves and have nots may grow, I think that may be offset a bit by some teams at the bottom dropping the highest level of football because of its expense.