Let Them Eat Bag
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.
The criminalization and control of drugs is deffintely an issue steeped in racism. I just hate the paternalism that comes along with this line of argumentation.... we must CONTROL them.
because I have no idea why my post took you in this direction. I'm Latino so I definitely understand what you're talking about, and I appreciate that you acknowledge that racism seeps into everyday life, most often subconsciously.
However, if I may be plain-- your shit is way off base. My question was about a legal matter and foolishness of young kids. Not, uh, American Nazis or something?
April 10th, 2014 at 10:36 PM ^
April 11th, 2014 at 11:12 AM ^
currently going through rehab and councelling is not black.
April 10th, 2014 at 11:13 PM ^
How is this racist? Do only people of color like to get high? Is that what you are suggesting? If so, I think the finger you're pointing is in the wrong direction.
I'm nearly 22 now, but I definitely made the mistake/insult in my youth of using my Dad's "Hey son, here's 30 bucks for some food this week!" And bought some booze or pot. Obviously, that is a little different, but is an example of how young people think about money that they didn't earn at all.
I think I am PRO compensating players somehow. I just wouldn't want the university to be responsible for funding a kegger or something that ends up badly. I don't know if they would be liable, just something I thought of.
Drug references are almost always correlated with minorities, while excused for non-minorities. One is a crime and should be controlled and the other is a "youthful indiscretion." It is defintely a dog whistle that should be called out.
But I think you just made an entirely different point and then called me a racist because I said that young people like to get high . . .
One of us introduced color to the equation. One of us didn't.
Sorry not saying you are racist. I just hate the logical jump form "Give money to kids" to "they will buy drugs!?!?!????."
I apologize if that came off as harsh. I just hate that kind of jump in logic because it is often based off of some deeper racist stuff. So again, apologize for being shrill, I just hate that logical leap.
The only person in this thread hearing (or blowing) any "dog whistles" is you.
if you give me money, i'll buy drugs. it's debatable whether or not i'm still a kid though.
I doubt I would have worked and study as hard as I did being poor! I would probably buy both legal and illegal drugs and party a lot. My performance would suffer. If kids got too much cash, I could see many not handling it well. It was kind of funny to see most of the kids who dropped out of school had rich parents. They never had to work hard and never found time to study, college was just one big party for them.
i'm as pro-affirmative action anti-racist drug laws as they come, but he made no reference to race whatsoever and there's a lot of evidence that whites use illegal drugs at a higher rate than any other. it was an honest "let's keep the kids focused on football" angle.
Various permutations of this are why we can't ever talk civilly about
"Drug references are almost always correlated with minorities, while excused for non-minorities."
This is imflammatory, political, unprovable (or do you have a source for this?), and untrue.
I talk about drugs in my line of work from time to time, but it has nothing to do with the ethnic origin of the people involved. Usually it has to do with me working with addicts or ex-addicts or children of people who are in prison for crimes related to use and/or dealing. Some of them are white, and some of them are not, and it really doesn't make the slightest bit of difference.
So watch it with the blanket statements.
You are jumping to conclusions, and come off as overly defensive. Nobody brought up race at all, this is all you.
Sorry for the iPhone screw up split post.
Of course it could end badly. So could giving a 50 year old person liquid cash. I don't think that's a great reason not to prevent it from happening though. By all accounts, these kids are getting the money already and I haven't seen hundreds of drugged out teenagers on the field every Saturday.
April 11th, 2014 at 10:01 AM ^
The sanctimonious nature of commenting in the Michigan fan base plays right to the very accurate stereotype of us - on this issue and the issue of unionization.
The rules we hang out hats on are backed by completely bankrupt morals. Those rules are based on a system in which vast exploitation of labor occurs without any attempt at addressing that exploitation - whether it be via health care guarantees, 4 year scholarships, or revenue sharing.
I'm going to take this to a ridiculous level. Philosphically, we allow rules to be broken if they are unjust, immoral rules. We fought against British regulations and Jim Crow apartheid because we knew those rules to be corrupt and unjust. It is time we admitted that about our favorite TV show.
Also... if I have to hear "but this will change the game........................................" I will strangle a small puppy.
Let the puppy live!
April 11th, 2014 at 11:45 AM ^
I was pissed off at you for the immediate leap to racism above. (Almost all the people I know who did drugs are white. So my initial read of the comment about youth mis-prioritizing extra cash for recreational drug purchases was in a non-racial context, and I am a white person.)
Anyway, your ranting comment here actually is spot on. You could even expand it to the University in general. The whole place is a giant money grab while selling the sanctimony of bettering the lives of all through education. If Education of the masses was the true goal (versus maximization of capital - as a proxy for profit in the non-profit environment), all this money they are collecting wouldn't go to more non-teaching staff, and more gold plating of facilities, and instead go to more needs and merit based scholarships. (Imagine if people going to college were given reduced tuition for actually being good students? The horror!)
The same is now true in the football and basketball world. It used to be a fair deal. Now, we are faced with the maximization of capital on all sides, and while some of the benefit is transferred to the athlete in the form of better facilities, they are not getting a fair share and are being unfairly restricted in getting it. and are then sent packing with a degree of questionable value and no compensation for health issues stemming from the sport they played after their eligibility (and marketability) has expired.
Anybody who has been a student at UM and paid attention to what the big time athletes around them were driving, wearing, and where they were living would know that UM has some kind of unofficial bag men. It has been this way as long as I can remember back to the 80s and I'm sure existed before that.
Granted it is does not appear to be as flagrant as it seems to be Down South and as Brian said, perhaps I do wish they were better at being "boostery"!
I have no doubt UM has it's bag men, probably like every single B1G school. However, I do believe there is a culture around certain programs that make it more prevelent, like in the SEC. I have to believe that with UM's huge alumni base and football program, if it were known it was completely acceptable to provide under the table payments to players, UM would not be blind-sided by sudden recruiting turns away from them. I.e. I think UM could out-bid pretty much anybody if they wanted.
bag men are willing to allow crap recruiting classes, and mediocre seasons, if it means Hoke loses his job.
there is a much higher correlation to our record the last couple years. I'm just saying if Hoke kept up his winning ways from the 2011 season we would have landed 80 percent of the top recruits who turned us down. Unless the 2014 record improves to 9 or more wins, kids are going to think Hoke will not be around and Michigan will forever be a 4 to 5 loss team.
We are boostery, problem is we also have that stupid accademic requirement that the $EC does not seem to have. So we can pay all we want, and probably do, it is still only for a limited pool.
The counter to that is all the time Bacon spent hanging out with Denard and Devin for Three and Out. The shiny stuff I see the players with is school-provided apparel.
Current student. The only really "nice" things I commonly see players with are expensive headphones. I also know of many players that live out in Ypsi in order to save cash. I'm not saying that bag men aren't happening, I'm just saying that its not like I'm seeing players rolling to class all blinged out and stuff.
Police: Thousands Stolen From OSU Roommates Hawk, Mangold
April 11th, 2014 at 10:53 AM ^
a lot of that comes from the bowl game gifts too.... They get like $500 of swag each year from that.
Preacher telllin' the truth and it hurts...
"I'm so glad Michigan doesn't do that" applies to competing on an equal playing field, as several others pointed out, not this "NCAA athletes must have parents with money or be poor" idea you seem to be arguing against.
Equal signing bonuses for BCS-level teams (equal for all players and teams), fine. A stipend that reasonably allows them to visit home and have parents visit for games and go out every so often, fine. Equal stipends for off-campus housing for upperclassmen, fine. Meal plans at all the dorms anytime, fine.
The entire bagman article amounts to a story about bribery. When you pay someone against the established rules to affect their decision, that's bribery. It's not a law, but it doesn't have to break a law to be corrupt and inappropriate. It's still against the rules governing college football.
I hope Michigan always follows the spirit and letter of the rules agreed upon. I'm OK with players getting some money to allow them to be regular college students - but - I still want them to be college students, go to college because they want to be there, and to live by the rules. If you have a problem with the education part, point your sights toward the NBA and NFL because the NCAA didn't make those rules.
The argument you make seems to disregard the main reasons we're "so glad Michigan doesn't do it." I just don't think it's fair Ivan Drago got to take steroids and Rocky didn't.
OK, so, the question is then, why all the secrecy? So, let's say I'm an SEC fan. We've established that,
1) everyone's doing it
2) the NCAA is a powerless gimp, unable to investigate or enforce anything they claim to call a rule
3) on the rare occasions when they do, we, that is, Joe Bama Fan, don't give a shit, because yeehaw Roll Dayum Tahd, just win baby, etc. etc.
Given these, why don't people just come out and say, yup, I'm Johnny McWannaBe from Mississippi, I have ten Ole Miss players on my payroll and here they are, and if the NCAA asks me or them we'll just deny it. Oh, and I'm friends with Tommy McBigDick and he's a Mississippi State booster and he does the same thing, and he'll deny it all in front of the empty suits as well. Why all the secrecy, shame, and mafia tactics?
You've been kind of obnoxious in this thread, but I would actually like to see this. The SEC has effectively done this already; what you propose would be a massive, needed realignment in big-time college sports.
Frankly, the worst that could happen is that the SEC could get expelled from the NCAA. Then they could just play an SEC football season with paid players, crown the conference champion, and declare themselves the best college football team in the country... and they'd be right.
That's just it. The absolute worst thing the NCAA could possibly do to the SEC - death penalties all around! - would just cause the SEC to take their ball and go home. So why not just take the obvious final step? I think the answer is: because one person doing it can't be sure that everyone else will follow.
April 11th, 2014 at 12:52 AM ^
Part of me worries that it would take much less than a deathy penalty to trigger a SEC exodus from the NCAA... maybe this is causing them to look the other way, any enforcement could destabilize the Ass'n.
the SEC would take their 14 schools and leave the NCAA. What would be the point? However, there have been discussions of a larger defection including the ACC, SEC, B1G, Big12, and PAC12.
the BCS schools will all leave the NCAA together. That's basically a given at this point.
Other than not sanction any of their events or something? I mean if they admitted it, the NCAA can actually do a lot. The NCAA is impotent because they cannot compel the bagmen to talk.
Because if you admit it the NCAA actually CAN do something about it. The reason the NCAA is impotent on this is because they cannot compel people to talk. They could ask a known bag man if he gave money, he could say "no," and that would be that. He is not under oath and they have no way of proving that he's lying.
But if they actually say what's going on, the NCAA has evidence and has proven that it will act on it. Disproportionately, even. The NCAA overreacts to certain things precisely because it cannot react properly to the worse stuff that it knows but cannot prove is going on.
The university would find some way to either get the booster to show, or cut him off from the team.
Comments