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

StateSmells

February 24th, 2017 at 2:13 PM ^

Why be subtle?  This whole subject is so annoying. All this rampant cheating is such an "open secret", but only to folks in the know who then keep their mouths shut.  So you claim to know at least some of what's going on.  Brian knows of at least some of what's going on.  We get vague snippets of stories from the JUBs, Sam Webbs, and countless others connected to the players or recruiting world.  This article goes so far as to say

"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"

Ok, so who do we propose should expose it?  

It's annoying hearing the connected insiders claim this should be discussed, when they are the ones most able to bring it into the open.

Magnus

February 24th, 2017 at 2:48 PM ^

People who are involved. Or actual reporters.

Brian and other Michigan-specific writers count on sources and anonymity to do their jobs. They can't rat people out whenever they hear something, because they'll lose their sources.

Shop Smart Sho…

February 24th, 2017 at 3:30 PM ^

Seems like they have three options then.

1.  Stop talking about it in public.  It serves no purpose other than as an ego-boost becuase they know something the rest of us don't.

2.  Destory their access and publish what they have, either individually or as a group.

3.  Become an anonymous source for a non-sports writer who has no connection to any of this.

Bigku22

February 24th, 2017 at 12:53 PM ^

This is rampant in America these days. Repeatedly and loudly publicly accuse an opponent of doing something awful (usually exaggerated). And behind the scenes you're doing something exponentially worse. Freeze is ranting on Harbaugh about the geographic location of high school football camps, meanwhile Ole Miss is blatantly paying players and telling bold lies about all of it. To make it worse Freeze uses religion as some type of holy distraction from his blatant cheating. What a fucking disgrace, if the NCAA doesn't take action here in the most obvious of all obvious cases, WTF is the point of even having the NCAA.

The Fugitive

February 24th, 2017 at 2:21 PM ^

"If you aint cheatin, you aint tryin."
Acts 7:14

"Give to the Bagmen what belongs to the Bagmen"
Tuscaloosians 12:1

"Look the other way"
St. Pete 3:16

"Their casualties will be many for the unwanted no longer, are forsaken Crimson" Mass Exodus 34:6

ommeethatsees

February 24th, 2017 at 1:11 PM ^

Sorry Brian but I wholeheartedly disagree with you.  I don't believe college football players, or for that matter, any college athlete should be paid other than a modest stipend to compensate for the fact that they don't have time to hold down a job while at school because of time contraints placed on them by their sport.

I'm not naive enough to believe that cheating and paying of players will change given the enormous sums of money to be made by successful college football programs or the prestige that comes with it.  Public universities should not be in the business of paying college athletes just because they are making money off their athletes backs.

I believe the answer is to provide another avenue for football players to develop their skills outside of college football programs similar to those offered by baseball and hockey sports.  Those football athletes who value the benefit of guaranteed free tuititon worth over 100k can use that to their advantage.  Those athletes not interested in that route could go the other more risky route where they are payed money to develop their skills without the burden "we ain't come to play school" of attending classes.

gustave ferbert

February 24th, 2017 at 7:30 PM ^

It surprises me that during these discussions no one talks about one crucial advantage.  These athletes are granted access to a network of supporters that the average college student doesn't get.  

That was even highlighted in that speech harbaugh gave several years ago on youtube.  

There were guys on the team who were basically benchwarmers who went on to work at prominent investment banks or Law firms.  I personally know several employers who hire Michigan football players out of college. 

 

Unless you are Tony Boles, I can't think of any guy who stuck with the program who wasn't taken care of after their football careers were over. 

Magnus

February 24th, 2017 at 1:24 PM ^

I agree with others here who say there's no viable option that I've seen. No matter what, the people willing to cheat are going to cheat. If everyone gets a stipend of $20,000 a year, the boosters slipping a new car or a new house or an extra $10,000 to some kid are going to be able to sway players to play at that school.

bronxblue

February 24th, 2017 at 1:45 PM ^

Paying players should be divorced completely from cheating anyway. It may vary by school, but at the one I worked at in their technology licensing office, if a student was involved in an invention that was patented and marketed by the school, they got a small piece of that revenue. It wasn't much, but at least one guy involved in some video encoding patents got around $50k after they licensed the tech out for millions. He helped give value to the school, and he was compensated on top of whatever funding he got elsewhere in the form of teaching and research stipends. So if Ole Miss got an extra $10M in donations and ticket sales because the football team won a bunch of games, giving a little slice of that to the players who contributed to it sure seems fine.

Magnus

February 24th, 2017 at 2:53 PM ^

The problem with that is Title IX. You can't pay the male athletes and disregard female athletes. And you would have to compensate for all sports.

So yeah, Laquon Treadwell might help the football team win a bunch of games and he might deserve his slice of the pie (say, $100,000), but you can't pay every athlete (swimming, tennis, football, basketball, gymnastics, wrestling, etc.) $100,000.

bronxblue

February 24th, 2017 at 3:20 PM ^

Title IX only requires in-kind amounts.  Michigan brought in over $32M from their membership in the B1G last year.  Let's say you set aside $2M in payments to Men and and equal amount to Women sports.  That still leaves each school with a windfall of $28M, and you can distribute that $2M however you want.  So maybe Treadwell gets $100k and your backup DT gets $15k.  People would survive.  Or you set everyone the same amount and then nobody complains because of favortism.  And then if you still go out and take illicit funds, then you deserve your punishment.  But my point is that cheating and revenue sharing with athletes can be mutually exclusive without ignoring either one.

bronxblue

February 24th, 2017 at 4:31 PM ^

Do you not think there isn't already a bidding war?  Do you think schools pump millions into training facilities, study halls, private planes, trips to Rome, etc. because they just feel like it?  Harbaugh and Meyer and Saban collect millions of dollars a year because the schools know they'll recruit good athletres and turn them into successes on the field, which brings more money and prestige to the school.  Do you wonder why G5 teams clamor to join a P5 league?  They do it for resources, to stay competitive with others.  

For the kids who earn scholarships to MAC programs, they still go.  They won't get offers to go to a P5 program, and maybe you set the limit in the G5 to something less.  Who the heck knows.  But all of this pearl clutching about how it screws over the little guy isn't new, and yet WMU and BYU and Houston keep kicking along fine.

MJs_PJ_Party

February 24th, 2017 at 1:26 PM ^

Brian raised an interest point... 

 

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.

 

Is the current "secret" pool of money truly far less than if the doors were thrown open and we paid the college athletes?

On the surface, when we factor in possible taxes, Title IX implications, and athletic budgets across the nation, I think that the current "secret" pool of money may actually be greater.  

Pepto Bismol

February 24th, 2017 at 1:29 PM ^

...Nope.  Still don't want to pay players. Disagree with everything you believe on this topic.

I look forward to rehashing this yet again next week. 

Perkis-Size Me

February 24th, 2017 at 1:37 PM ^

I don't feel bad for guys like Freeze. He calls Harbaugh out for satellite camps and talks about being a family man, but then lets his own football program run wild. Either he was in on it the whole time, which makes him a hypocritical crook. Or he didn't know about it, which makes him an out of touch, incredibly naive fool. And the latter possibility honestly might be even worse. Either way, it makes him unfit to be a college coach.

That being said, in a very, very, and I mean very small way, I get why he probably did it. You look at Ole Miss, which is a complete dumpster fire of a program. It has absolutely nothing to hang its hat on but Archie and Eli Manning, and you look at the situation and say "how the fuck am I ever going to compete with Alabama, Auburn, LSU, UGA, and UF every year?" Ole Miss does not have the allure or the resources, pound for pound, to compete with those schools. They just don't. So Freeze may have sat there and thought to himself "Do I do this the right way, and probably get fired in 3-4 years when I can't do any better than 6-6? Or do I cheat, get this program elevated, and deal with the potential risk later?" 

Doesn't excuse what he did, and I don't agree with what he did. But in a way, I understand his likely motives. His problem was that his players made zero efforts to ever hide the fact that they were being paid, and then he painted this holier-than-thou portrait of himself and his program. There's no way Freeze comes out of this with his job intact.

BlueLava009

February 24th, 2017 at 1:37 PM ^

How does this honestly make you feel about the sport at the college level?  I know a lot of people, myself included, are more and more turned off to the NFL each season because of the commercialism of the sport.  We see this slowly creeping into the college level, well not so slowly, but with what base salaries (?)  for each player wont this just turn into what it already is, a developmental league for the NFL?  Players wont even be required to fake attend class.  In general takes a little out of the game for me.

bronxblue

February 24th, 2017 at 1:39 PM ^

Pay the players. Take all your rationalizations, all your gritty bootstraps, everything, and focus that energy elsewhere. Pay these kids some money for making millions for the school. Or stop freaking out about the Ole Miss's of the world and just hope that your team succeeds in spite of it or hides it better. I am done, though, being surprise that states with some of the worst educational systems in the country are pulling in kids from across the nation because a head coach quotes Bible verses and has a nice garden where girls in sun dresses and guys in boat shoes cheer them on.

ijohnb

February 24th, 2017 at 1:58 PM ^

which players?  And what is their job?  What is that they need to do, specifically, to earn that money?  Say Logan Tulley Tillman had been paid by Michigan, would he have had to pay that money back?

You can't ignore "rationalizations" when everything about the details of any proposal seems irrational and counter-intuitive.  Saying "these players should be paid" is something entirely different from figuring out just how in the holy hell you are going to do it.  Logistics are everything here. 

 

 

In reply to by ijohnb

bronxblue

February 24th, 2017 at 3:16 PM ^

I don't know why people assume that an organization that makes billions of dollars a year, has contracts with dozens of companies for licensing, land ownership, content deals, etc., and is comprised of universities that are usually some of the largest employers in their states couldn't figure out some logistics.  

I'll give it a crack, though, because it's a Friday:

  1. Men and Women receive 100 tuition+$12k/yr scholarships, just to make the math easy.  The schools can decide how they are distributed (i.e. maybe football gets 85, basketball 10, baseball/hockey 5 total; women get 15 for basketball, 30 for crew, 20 for water polo, track and field/x-c 35).  This complies with Title IX.
  2. Each scholarship recipient gets paid $1k/mo provided they are still enrolled.  So for LTT, his last stipend check is the month he leaves Michigan.
  3. Scholarships are on a yearly basis, subject to changes in revenue.  So if a school suffers a loss in revenue, that payment total goes down for a year.  But to protect against schools screwing kids around, the total you set down holds for 2 years, while increases are locked in only for a year.  So it's a recruiting anchor if you only pay $8k while another school pays $12k.  
  4. The NCAA sets a yearly cap for how much you can pay, or maybe it's per conference, that a team can't pay over that (or maybe you allow 125% or something once every 4 years).  That way, you don't necessarily bankrupt Purdue because Michigan is flush with cash.  This gets reevaluated  every year.

This is very basic outline, but I'm sure these grown men and women could figure something out.

snarling wolverine

February 24th, 2017 at 4:09 PM ^

 

Pay these kids some money for making millions for the school.

 

So a $250K scholarship and a degree from a prestigious institution (almost all Power 5 schools are pretty solid academically) and the networking opportunities it offers - that's all  peanuts?

One could also ask whether it's truly the individual players bringing money to the school or whether the programs themselves have achieved an identity bigger than any single player, and that that is what fans are paying for.  

I like all of the guys on our team, but I didn't specifically buy season tickets to watch any one player.  I buy the tickets to watch the team, whoever is out there representing Michigan.  From my perspective, individual players bring value insomuch as that they can help the team win (which is what I hope to see), but beyond that I see them as part of something bigger than themselves.  

To me, the bigger issue has to do with the health coverage they receive and whether they can be allowed to return to school on scholarship after they finish, which I do think should be part of the deal.

 

bronxblue

February 24th, 2017 at 4:38 PM ^

Again, students on academic scholarships can go get jobs.  They can get additional payment for working for the school in a variety of capacities.  They can go get jobs during the year or in the summer.  Nobody seems particularly bothered by that.  And they have the same access to networking, academics, etc as the athletes, but with fewer restrictions.

And I don't buy for one second that people don't care who is on the team, because when Michigan is bad they can barely give away enough tickets to fill the stadium.  And yet now, when the team wins, people are wearing jerseys and buying merchandise.  You still see Charles Woodson jerseys at games, and he hasn't played for nearly 2 decades.  Those players are part of the team, and even if they are fungible in the macro sense, why shouldn't they be able to enjoy a small piece of the money they generate for the school?  And who does it hurt at Michigan for the AD to share it with these guys?  I certainly wouldn't care what happened to my money after I paid for my ticket and watched the game.

And of course they should receive ongoing medical care, or at least the opportunity to receive it for some prescribed time.  But that brings into account unionization, and jebus that's another can of worms that isn't worth opening.

snarling wolverine

February 24th, 2017 at 5:10 PM ^

 

And I don't buy for one second that people don't care who is on the team, because when Michigan is bad they can barely give away enough tickets to fill the stadium.

 

Whether the team wins is important.  I said as much above.  But from my perspective the specific individual players are only valuable insofar as they contribute to the program winning.  Speight's shoulder injury for IU never caused me to rethink going to that game.  I don't go specifically to see him, or anyone else, play.  I go to see Michigan play.

Actually I'd say the most marketable star - by far - in the program is Jim Harbaugh.

 

 

bronxblue

February 24th, 2017 at 5:18 PM ^

I take issue with how this statement

Whether the team wins is important.
is treated as divorced from this one
But from my perspective the specific individual players are only valuable insofar as they contribute to the program winning.

You like watching a winning team, and you are more inclined to spend money on teams that do. The players that are responsible for those wins at least as much as the head coach, though, are deemed inconsequential because why? This feels like cognitive dissonance to me, a marginalization of the players wearing the jerseys because saying "I root for the laundry" doesn't disrupt the outdated notion that NCAA football and basketball are all about amateur student-athletes playing for pride and honor instead of a billion-dollar industry that lets guys in suits collect $500k checks come bowl season. Paying Wilton Speight a small piece of the revenue the AD collects largely from the results of his efforts on the field doesn't seem like some terrible thing to me, but like unionization for players, there is a faction around here that just cannot fathom this becoming a reality despite it not affecting them in any meaingful way. As always, Michigan already has your money when you pay for tickets, yet when they spend it on a Beyonce video during halftime of a game nobody seems all that bothered.

snarling wolverine

February 24th, 2017 at 5:43 PM ^

Bronxblue, your posts come off a bit paranoid.  You always seem upset about some mysterious enemy fifth column, lurking within the MGoCommunity, that must be destroyed.

I am OK with players receiving compensation for being on a team.  I happen to think that admission to U-M (something very few would have gotten without sports), a full ride, free tutoring, free coaching, lots of free gear, and awesome networking possibilities post-graduation is pretty good compensation.  

Brian has said that his family paid for his tuition, which might explain why he seems to think little of the scholarship part of the package.  Most of us weren't as lucky as him - we've had to pay our own way, and that makes us less likely to scoff at the idea that a full ride worth $200-250K (for an out-of-state player) is a good deal.

 

 

 

 

 

bronxblue

February 24th, 2017 at 7:46 PM ^

First off, I'd like to know the other 4 columns involved here.  I guess Brian is the Executive and the mods the Judicial, but I'm not comfortable calling Wolverine Devotee the Media.

I guess I read so many comments that come across as naive and, frankly, tainted with paternalism and some bitterness that these athletes, who are already getting something "for free" in the form of a scholarship, should dare get something else because I didn't, or the vast majority of the school body didn't, or whatever.  And honestly, and I mean this with full sincerity, nobody here is going to change their minds one way or the other.  It's pretty clear they are entrenched ideas.

I see all these arguments about "free" tuition, room and board, etc., and it's all based on two fallacies, at least in my eyes.  One, that being an athlete is itself "free", that all the practices, traveling, physical and mental wear-and-tear, isn't a trade-off.  Do you refer to scholarship students as getting "free" tuition?  How about students who receive reduced or no tuition because of military service?  Before anyone tries to make the strawman argument that I'm equating military service and football like I'm a former TE for the Hurricanes, I'm simply pointing that there are numerous ways for people to not have to pay for their tuition and yet are usually not restricted in obtaining additional compensation either at the school or outside.  Scholarship athletes "work" for the school because the results of their efforts generate revenue for the school, at least in my eyes.  Again, your mileage may vary on that.

Second, the valuation of what is "enough" to give to athletes is deeply personal and varied, which is fine for bar room conversations but not helpful in coming to a resolution objectively.  I mean, you believe access to academics and networking is enough; to me, I think you can add on $12k a year for certain athletes and that's sufficient.  Otherwise figure you could add $100k and that would be appropriate.  These are all based on personal valuations, and that's fine.  But objectively, there clearly is a (black) market for athletes to receive additional compensation for their services.  Hell, Ole Miss made it an art form.  

I look at Jim Harbaugh making millions of dollars and the reason he is paid that amount rests largely on him convincing young men to play football for him, and for those young men to be better at it than the ones at other schools.  I'm not paying to watch Jim Harbaugh stand on the sidelines in khakis, I'm paying to watch the athletes on the field or court.  And to me, my valuation of their service, includes each of them getting a couple of pennies from the $90 cable bill I pay each month to Cablevision.  

It feels like the tide is moving toward college players getting some additional compensation.  It's probably going to be a stipend, not a full "free" market for recruits.  But just like how you feel that the bar is perfectly set now, I think it should be placed somewhere else.  If that makes me paranoid because that doesn't jive with someone else and I voice my disagreement, then so be it.