Let Them Eat Bag Comment Count

Brian

image

They probably didn't mean for his hat to look like a butt

A slow April day in the middle of the college football wasteland had a bomb detonated on it when Stephen Godfrey and SBNation published an in-depth article on the shadow economy of the SEC, wherein people get paid by other people to play football for school X.

"I had this one kid, great player, good guy. Never got in trouble, but never did much on the field. But he's calling me all the time. 'Hey, the sunroof in my car is leaking,' he says, so I tell him to come meet me. $150. Two days later it's: 'Hey, I'm going out this weekend with a girl, can you help me?' $200. Next week after that he's got $300 in parking tickets. So one day I go to meet him to give him money and I ask, "Hey man, aren't you a business major? Have y'all learned what ROI means yet? It means return on investment, and at this rate I'm going to need to start seeing some touchdowns.'"

The article is fascinating and you should go read it now. I'll wait.

Now, let's talk about how much we care about this. I do. I've got a sneer or two in me left when I see kids at Clemson and Ole Miss whose recruitments did 180s away from Ann Arbor. There was a recruit in the last five years who Michigan led for; his sudden decision to go somewhere else was financially motivated and that was an open secret amongst that recruiting class. As a guy who wants to see his football team win games, that kind of thing still grates my gears.

But that's all at this point. It's just partisan crybaby stuff. I regard it as a character flaw. (The tatgate thing was different since Tressel lied to the NCAA multiple times. You can't do that and expect to keep your job, even if you lied about stupid rules that make no sense.)

So I don't care, you know, morally. The NCAA's prohibition on kids taking money is not only asinine but (obviously) unenforceable. It also serves no purpose other than to concentrate wealth in the hands of administrators. Whenever I get in discussions about these sorts of things with the dwindling number of people on the side of amateurism, the conversation usually boils down to this:

ME: I guess I just don't see why rich guys giving some of their money to poor people is such a problem.

THEM: But then they'll have money.

ME: I'm unclear on why that's an issue.

THEM: But then they'll be influenced.

ME:

Around here we like to say things like "I'm so glad Michigan doesn't do that." I think it's time to stop that. The rule is arbitrary, the system inherently corrupt, and if Michigan has a shadow network of boosters my main problem with them is that they're not good enough at being shadowy and boostery. The basketball recruits other schools have swooped in on aren't picking these other schools because of the coaching, man.

I'm over it. And you should be too, because the attitude about I'm So Glad We Don't Do That that's so pervasive around these parts is almost certainly false. I'm So Glad We Don't Do That As Much doesn't have the same horse height. Very averaged-sized horse, that. That's a horse that you can see your lunch getting eaten from only.

And in the service of what?

"Last week I got a call. We've got this JUCO transfer that had just got here. And he's country poor. The [graduate assistant] calls me and tells me he's watching the AFC Championship Game alone in the lobby of the Union because he doesn't have a TV. Says he never owned one. Now, you can buy a Walmart TV for $50. What kid in college doesn't have a TV? So I don't give him any money. I just go dig out in my garage and find one of those old Vizios from five years back and leave it for him at the desk. I don't view what I do as a crime, and I don't give a shit if someone else does, honestly."

Everywhere else in society, an 18 year old who works really hard at something is financially compensated for it and most of them do not… I mean… why am I even arguing about this? If you're the kind of person who thinks that young people doing dumb things with money is a threat instead of, you know, life, you probably start arguments with "Speaking as a parent." Anyone who starts arguments with "Speaking as a parent" wants you to turn off your brain so they can feelingsball you. They are my mortal enemies, speaking as a person who can formulate an argument.

The aura of paternalism that hangs over objections to letting players get theirs is suffocating. "But if they get money they'll…" They'll what? They'll still be under the thumb of a drill sergeant of a football coach desperate to remain in his good graces lest the faucet turn off. They will be the same, just with fewer things to stress about.

They might waste it. They might not. I just don't care anymore. Let them have their five hundred dollars.

Comments

Mgodiscgolfer

April 10th, 2014 at 3:22 PM ^

I doubt the NCAA would do anything about this. Now had they been extra practice time during summer workouts the shit would hit the fan. We simply can not stand by and watch a team get an extra 15 min of practice time while other teams don't...

stephenrjking

April 10th, 2014 at 3:24 PM ^

I care. I don't care about needy families getting help, grandparents getting a tractor fixed, etc.

What I care about is that teams that actually try to follow the agreed-upon rules of the game are punished for not breaking them. Michigan has, by all appearances, at least tried to do things the "right way."

Our reward is to watch programs who don't care enjoy a generation's worth of inflated success. 

Let the kids have the money, fine. But what is going on is still unethical and wrong. At times like this I begin to think that the system needs to get blown up, and that I don't really care if that does mean irreperable harm to the sport. 

And if it turns out that the blind eye the NCAA turns toward this stuff is not (as most, including myself, believe) due to incompetence but an actual deliberate act of overlooking stuff it knows it can't deal with, the Feds need to get involved. Like, criminal conspiracy to deprive paid employees of proper rights indictment involved.

Do I sound annoyed? I think I am. 

stephenrjking

April 10th, 2014 at 4:03 PM ^

What rich dudes? Amateurism rules may be an anachronism from a different time, but in that time there wasn't all that much money going around but these rules certainly do trace their origins to that time. 

Are you saying that someone like Bo Shembechler felt it was crucially important to do things "the right way" not because he had a sense of integrity but because he really just wanted to keep all the money to himself and away from his poor, exploited student athletes? C'mon, that's idiotic. 

Are you arguing that Michigan and its fans are, in fact, guilty of exploiting our athletes because this sort of thing is not encouraged here? Do you put your money where your typing fingers are and buy them lunch whenever you can?

BlockM

April 10th, 2014 at 4:11 PM ^

1. Today =\= Bo's time. $$$$$$$$$$$...
2. I have no idea whether there were bag men hanging around U-M during Bo's tenure or not.
3. Yes, it would be awesome if everyone adhered to the stupid rules, but I'm not about to call a kid taking money so his single-mother sister can go to rehab "unethical."
4. I love Michigan sports, but I don't care enough about their wins on the recruiting trail to put my money behind it. If there are people that do, that's fine with me.

stephenrjking

April 10th, 2014 at 4:38 PM ^

1. Today =/= Bo's time, but today's rules are extensions of rules that have existed since Bo's time, and Bo cared about them. The "Rich guys making the rules" are actually bureaucrats continually tweaking rules meant to uphold rules and principles that have existed for decades. And there certainly was a lot of cheating going on in Bo's time.

2. Me either. 

3. I didn't call them unethical. I explicitly stated that I don't care about the people taking the money; it's the system of people giving it (and, specifically, the University Athletic Departments that are letting it continue) that I have a problem with. It is an unethical system. If, in fact, Michigan makes some kind of attempt to not let this go on. I am aware, of course, that some stuff may occur here too.

4. I made my point about you putting your money up becuase your previous post seemed, to me, to imply that not giving these kids a cut of the money they were producing was ethically problematic enough that it required existing rules to be violated. Perhaps it was just a harsh reaction, which is understandable, but that's where my money comment came from.

 

west2

April 11th, 2014 at 9:07 AM ^

To me this is more about creating a level playing field among college sports and then designating divisions that everyone is theoretically equal. One point about Bo's era is they allowed college teams greater numbers of scholarship players (120?) allowing the powerhouse programs such as Michigan, ND, OSU to stockpile talent. Then I believe in 1977 the NCAA limited scholarships with the intention of leveling the playing field and creating parity. Now there are leagues-SEC-that allow practices that give them an advantage in stockpiling talent which was detailed in an extensive SI article a couple of years ago. Of course the money issue has pervaded college football throughout it's history and is not a new problem. The amateur question really was dealt with by the Olympics and by removing that artificial designation they leveled the playing field as we have seen in hockey and basketball. It's time to do the same in college football. Pay the kids, it can be nominal and restricted but let's level the playing field. If you want to maintain the integrity thing at Michigan then maybe M should play in DII or DIII. If you don't like that option then let's drop the pretenses and do what's needed to put the best team on the field.

wolverine1987

April 11th, 2014 at 10:08 AM ^

This phrase gets tossed around all the time, yet I see no evidence for it. Is the fact that coaches and AD's are rich  "corrupt," or does that simply reflect how popular the game is? Just because some people are rich does not mean there is corruption. And since even the most diehard player union advocates agree that athletes are already compenated and that we are just looking for ways to give them more compensation, what excatly is the problem and corruption? No one at the NCAA is rich either, so to excuse them of that is lacking evidence as well--the money that rolls in from TV contracts goes back to the schools. The NCAA is simply trying (and failing) to enforce standards that were agreed upon 80 years ago, when BTW, there was zero money to be made.

Brodie

April 11th, 2014 at 4:46 AM ^

Amateurism as an ideal in athletics is very, very, very much related to class and money. It began in cricket and rugby, which were codified and played almost exclusively by the idle rich. From there it was propagated by the cadre of elites behind the Olympic movement and from there to the nascent NCAA. In each case the logic was the same... these sports were gentlemen's pursuits and if you couldn't afford to play them without being compensated for it, you didn't deserve to play in the first place.

Mgotri

April 10th, 2014 at 3:25 PM ^

For me the "I'm so glad Michigan doesn't do that" thing is more because it is keeping within the rules than anything. Of course, if they aren't going to enforce the rules then why aren't we doing doing it better?

iawolve

April 10th, 2014 at 3:52 PM ^

after the fact, seemed to have some effect during the fact according to the stories we heard about him. You could read that guy into the SB Nation story. I would rather have us stay away from the mess, because, at sometime, somewhere, somebody talks and I want nothing to do with it. 

FreddieMercuryHayes

April 10th, 2014 at 3:34 PM ^

As the bag man said it in the article, if the NCAA decided to pay their athletes $40,000 legally, then bag men would still be trying to get athletes an extra $40,000 on the side.  The only way to solve that would be to pay the college athletes so much money bag men's incentives wouldn't even matter.  And, frankly, I just don't see that as being feasible. 

FreddieMercuryHayes

April 10th, 2014 at 3:54 PM ^

Well, first, if the payments are legal, then they're not bagmen.  Second, somehow I don't think the answer to the problem is MORE unregulated and under the table payments.  Hell, even most professional sports don't do that; even they usually try and regulate this stuff to keep a more even playing field amoung teams.

FreddieMercuryHayes

April 11th, 2014 at 12:19 PM ^

I'm not sure of this, but if a company only gave an endorsement deal if a player decide pd to sign with team X, I'm guessing the NBA would also care about this. But the NBA and college football are different animals. For one, because an NBA player has much less control over where they play than a college recruit, so providing endorsements for play would happen much less. Companies are hardly ever going to know where a player will end up considering the draft, trades, etc.



I imagine loyalty to a pro sports team is less motivating to their rich fans than college as well. I don't think Nike is only going to give endorsements to Phil Knight's favorite NBA team's players (also bad business), but I sure as hell believe he would give endorsements to any football recruit Oregon wanted. And if you make endorsements legal, but not cash payments, then your making the field even less even, because your saying only rich alumni with companies set up to give endorsements can pay their players and not universities who, say, just have rich alumni with lots of cash lying around. In this theoretical world there will be bidding wars between Oregon and Maryland for the top prospects they wanted.



Of course, if one doesn't care at all about teams starting with a more equal playing field, certainly the MLB or Premier league come to mind, then they won't care about this at all. If one does care, then you're still in the same boat; bag men and unregulated payments will continue to influence the decisions on where players play until players get paid legally enough that bag men's payments are so small it won't influence them, or the under the table payments/endorsements have to become so large that boosters/companies won't be dolling them out without careful thought.

Yeoman

April 10th, 2014 at 7:33 PM ^

"No one is going to care if I give Lebron James a 5-year-old TV or fix his grandfather's tractor."

Probably because that's an infinitesimal fraction of Lebron James's annual earnings, about like offering a college player a stick of chewing gum or letting him use your lighter once. If you offered Lebron $50 million under the table if he agreed to sign with your favorite team, I think the NBA might take an interest.

FreddieMercuryHayes

April 10th, 2014 at 4:09 PM ^

Completely disagree.  While nice facilities will help as compared to your already established recruiting 'peers', but it's no comparison to cold hard cash, or cars, or anything along those lines.  Hell, nice facilities probably aren't even as important as winning or putting kids in the NFL.  You think Northwestern is going to be in the top-10 in recruiting after they build the beach side facility?  They may see a slight bump compared to their usual equals on the recruiting trail, but that's all.  How about if NW starting offering $20,000 straight cash?  I think that would bump their recruiting a lot more..

BlockM

April 10th, 2014 at 4:15 PM ^

They're still perks. Not every kid is going to be offered $50k as a high school sophomore, so they'd need to decide based on the factors that matter to them. If you're looking for a job and one company offers you $50k and another offers you $50k and has much better facilities/coworkers/managers/whatever, you'd take the second if all else is equal.

MI Expat NY

April 10th, 2014 at 6:16 PM ^

I'm not naive enough to think that it would completely eliminate taking money, but if kids were making money from the school and taking extra on the side jeopardized that in addition to their scholarship/playing time less kids would be taking handouts.  

Would there be those kids that still needed to be paid?  Yes.  Would some "bag men" still need to feel important and do this sort of thing? Yes.  But I think there would be less of it and the playing field would level a bit.

uminks

April 11th, 2014 at 2:31 AM ^

willing to  outbid other schools for the services of the top athletes will reign supreme. It would be a strange new world in college sports if top athletes are offered multi-million dollar contracts to play 4 years at a University for both football and basketball. So much money would go into paying star athletes that other programs of an athletic program would suffer.

PeterKlima

April 10th, 2014 at 3:41 PM ^

I am a parent. So, speaking as a parent, I think that I would like my son to get paid for working hard and not to be exploited. Speaking as a parent, I feel these NCAA violations are similar to marijuana laws in that they serve no real purpose other than to protect certain industries that shouldn't need protection.

Speaking as a college football fan, though, I want my team to have the same shot at recruits. Either allow it or enforce the rules, but this B.S. of having rules on the books that are constantly violated without repercussions only hurts people like John Beilein who try to abide by the rules, no matter how stupid.

So, what is it? Get rid of the rules or actually police them for everyone? The worst answer is not to answer.

P.S. - Speaking as a parent, I do not want to "feelingsball you" and that sounds like some level of sexual assault anyway.

maizenbluenc

April 11th, 2014 at 8:51 AM ^

Bring this behavior above board. Reality is we are headed for so division of big boys splitting off from the rest of FBS football anyway. Can we just get to where these guys are paid (maybe even signings bonuses and expense accounts centrally funded by boosters), they can get endorsements, we are allowed to give them no work summer jobs and buy them lunch, and they are allowed to freely sell their stuff and autographs, etc. and construct the remainder of the biggest schools into a playoff system and be done with it already?

It is a different era than when Bo took over. We need to move on. If people want amateur sports too, we should add club football at UofM.

Reader71

April 10th, 2014 at 3:42 PM ^

My concern has always been about the team dynamic. I'm all for the schools paying kids, so long as it's a standardized wage and its equal to all players. A stipend.

What I'm not comfortable with is the idea that the star QB might make more than the career backup kicker. Logically, I know the QB has more value to the company, but there is just something gross to me about it. Its so professional, so decidedly anti-college-football that I just can't get behind it.

Another issue is that some schools will be able to outbid others. Again, I just can't get behind that. Even the NFL has a salary cap.

I know its feelingsball, but I played college ball and loved it, and I just wish that other guys get to have that same wonderful experience.

Gobgoblue

April 10th, 2014 at 3:50 PM ^

what about a bond or something that accrues the athlete's income based on branding/etc. that they can access after graduation/declaration for the draft?  Wouldn't deter boosters at all, but at least that way maybe Brian Cleary doesn't see Gardner roll up to practice in a Maserati every day. 

Ali G Bomaye

April 10th, 2014 at 5:07 PM ^

I can sympathize with your sentiments regarding the egalitarianism of college football.

The thing is, at least at the BCS-conference level, that ship sailed a long time ago.  As the SB Nation article makes clear, star players just about everywhere are already receiving benefits roughly proportionate to their expected performance.  If payments are legal, then the only difference is that they can receive them from upstanding boosters, out in the open, rather than dealing with shady guys under the table.  And even if we pretend that no players are getting paid, you're still going to see Devin Gardner's jersey at the M Den but not Kenny Allen's.  Why shouldn't Devin see a cut of what is essentially his name being sold?

Also, you talk about some schools being able to outbid others as if that isn't already a thing.  You think a prospect gets a different feeling when he walks into the locker rooms at Alabama or Oregon than he would at Purdue or some MAC school?  The only difference is that players will benefit more directly if they get the money rather than having it spent on putting an Xbox in every locker.

Reader71

April 10th, 2014 at 8:49 PM ^

My brain is with you. My heart just isn't. Again, I think the players should be paid, I just don't like the whole mercenary deal.

And I know other teams pay their guys. Michigan doesn't. I take a bit of pride in the fact that some top guys turn down SEC money and come to Michigan. I don't fault the guys who take the money, but I do have respect for the guys who want to come to Michigan despite the lack of a payout.

GoBLUinTX

April 10th, 2014 at 9:17 PM ^

I think it has been made quite clear, right here on this blog, right here on this specific thread, that Michigan is part of the game.  Now, does Hoke know, or does he think he's losing recruits left and right because of bad luck?  I don't know and I guess we'll never know for sure.  But there it is, the allegation has been made and well, that story can never be untold.

Reader71

April 10th, 2014 at 10:22 PM ^

I was on a few Michigan teams and I never saw it. It could have happened, I'll grant you that. And it might happen now.

But I had an Xbox, and about a quarter of the team hung out in my dorm to play it. I don't think it was common at all, if it existed.

GoBLUinTX

April 10th, 2014 at 11:04 PM ^

I'm not so much concerned about a bit of petty cash here or there, I'm concerened about the potential for corruption...that, and I'd hate to be told that The Victors is as fake as Santa Claus all in the same year.

Speaking of which, you didn't happen to find that XBox in your locker, did you?  Next to that empty glass of milk and cookie crumbs?

Reader71

April 11th, 2014 at 2:28 AM ^

Nope. My parents bought me a laptop computer to help me with my studies. I traded it for an Xbox and did my computer work in the fishbowl.

I'm being 100% honest when I say that I never saw so much as a hint of impropriety in my years on the football team.

In fact, I came from a fairly well-to-do family, so I often had a few bucks to spend. 75% of my team mates acted like I was Bill Gates when I would spend $50 at Touchdowns. All-Americans looked at me like I was Warren Buffett. They had to ration their $20, but the good thing is that we didn't generally have to pay a cover charge, so they could buy a girl a drink.

I am absolutely dumbfounded that people are certain that Michigan football players are ("were", really; they could be getting paid now, for all I know) getting any sort of loaded handshakes.

GoBLUinTX

April 11th, 2014 at 2:49 PM ^

Stephen Godfrey confirmed that Michigan has a bag man network. 

If we believe what he has said about the SEC, there is no reason not to believe his confirmation about Michigan.

He also said that Illinois will soon be on the rise.

On the other hand he said that a high level administrator at one of the B1G schools emailed him to say thanks for reporting his story.

maizenbluenc

April 11th, 2014 at 9:11 AM ^

here, go watch the Fab Five 30 for 30, or google Charles Woodson and the alleged 10,000 plus he received from an agent.

I do think the Ed Martin scandal and subsequent probation made Michigan more restrictive about this type of activity. However that happens to cooincide with the beginning of the Buckeye streak, and Tressel locking Ohio up. So it really makes you wonder.

It is obvious to anyone, that the SEC has outbid the B1G and Michigan specifically for big names several times in the recent memory. So it appears the B1G in general is more above board.

That said, the only way to re-level the playing field in the top tier is to provide compensation and olympic model perks to the players (thus reducing the impact of bag money), and actually persecute the below board bag money stuff.

 

uminks

April 11th, 2014 at 2:41 AM ^

paying enough! There may be some gifts and payments but in no way does it compare to schools in the SEC or even some schools in the B1G. I think 8-4 and 7-5 regular season records are turning more recruits away. Top recruits want to play for top winning programs. If Michigan would have finished 10-2 the last two seasons we would have landed many of the top recruits we lost out on.

Brodie

April 11th, 2014 at 4:29 AM ^

I don't know why it's cool that some schools can afford to build multimillion dollar practice facilities or pay their coaches $6 million a year while others can't but the idea that Texas could outbid Alabama for a quarterback's talents is somehow gross. 

I mean, like, we're Michigan fans. All of us. I don't really give a shit if Western Michigan isn't able to compete if there's money in the game. Michigan can, that's what really matters... let the other schools and the other kids get on with it in a lower division like thousands of other students at hundreds of other schools do already.

Gobgoblue

April 10th, 2014 at 3:44 PM ^

I was talking about this with some buddies the other day.  What if the players got paid in the form of a card/account where they could only use it on like groceries, eating out, maybe local retail shops, etc.  

Just something to curb a situation like, "Hm what should I do with this $50 I just got . . .  buy an 8th or go get some cooking essentials . . .  Now I know I added his number to my contacts somewhere . . ."

MGoNOLA

April 10th, 2014 at 3:51 PM ^

1) This is racist and super parternalistic. 2) I think the whole "buying an 8th is super illegal" ought to be enough of a deterent. If they violate the law... they violate the law. 

Also, nothing stops young kids from making this mistake currently... and that is without any additional money.