Brian's idea of allowing agents is a TERRIBLE idea
I was just able to listen to WTKA round table with Brian on-line (the downloads were screwed up yesterday) and I was particularly intrigued by Brian’s passionate defense of allowing pay-for-play using NFL agents.
While I don’t disagree with everything Brian was espousing, I really don’t think Brian has really thought this through and how much of a disaster that scheme would be.
From my point of view, I see many huge potential pitfalls, including but not limited to following:
- Once you let agents in, they will control the system like they do in prep basketball. And I am not talking about just funneling kids to particular schools (which will most certainly happen), they will also take over the athletic departments. Do you think the agent will be happy if the clients that they represent do not receive “proper” playing time or if play calls do not showcase them? They will threaten the coaches will pulling current players and future recruits if coaches do not do as they are told. This already happens to some degree in pros where agents threaten to guide future free agents away from the team if the agent does not get what he wants. And that is with the team paying the salary. Just think about what will happen when the agent is the one who is playing the salary. This would be a disaster.
- Brian also posits that NCAA would be able to put in safeguards to prevent shady practices like fronting salaries and making the players pay for it later if they never make it in pros. Now, I am not a lawyer, but organizations like NFL can certify agents and have some say in contracts because they have collective bargain agreements with the players’ union. There will be no such union as NCAA is not paying anyone and players don’t have unions. As an independent entity, the students would be free to sign whatever contract they want. There will be a host of shady characters who will take advantage of these vulnerable kids and abuses will be rampant, including…
- Here is something I am sure Brian never thought of – gambling. You know what would be a GREAT way for an “agent” to make money from even no name players from SW Missouri and EW Iowa State? Force players to throw the game for gamblers. You are already paying these players. How are you going to prove that they are paying them to throw the game when they are already paying those guys “for future earnings potential”? Unless it is something blatant, there is a huge opportunity for gamblers to shave points here and there to make this very profitable and very, very difficult to prevent.
That is just three off the top of my head. There are probably dozen other scenarios that are probably even worse that I have not thought of.
I can may be see just allowing people to hire athletes for endorsements as long as the contracts are registered, but allowing agents (and agents only) seems like a colossally bad idea to me would eventually kill NCAA sports as we know it.
September 27th, 2013 at 4:58 PM ^
Good points - hope you don't get banned....
September 27th, 2013 at 7:48 PM ^
Yes, be warned! Gameboy has just started the five-year process by which chitown got banned. We'll call it BREAKING BANNED.
September 27th, 2013 at 8:25 PM ^
September 27th, 2013 at 9:38 PM ^
September 28th, 2013 at 9:53 AM ^
He said his IDEA was terrible. If you can't open up for a criticism of ideas then this place becomes nothing more than a home for yes men and women. We become nothing more than sheeple.
I am on the side of no agents, no money transfers, and no wages. I personally don't give two craps that athletic departments are pulling in all these revenues. Revenues go up because consumers enjoy the product and are willing to pay more for it. Tamper with the product too much and revenues can go down.
Leads me to my next point, I don' t watch the NFL. I am huge football fan but hate the NFL. Few organizations exist where winning is the prime objective. Others give it lipservice but some can only do so much because they are restricted by capital. Capital is what is needed to sign those big names and win the games. Our school has some advantages but not enough to become a consistant juggernaut and not enough for others to rise. You bring in a pay scale then you might as well restrict the college games to 30 teams because the others have no chance.
Scholarships are enough PERIOD! I am sure my story is not unique but I worked three part time jobs to pay for my school while I was in school. I didn't get a FREE education because I do not have a lick of talent. The athletes get a great four year education and do not have to pay a dime for it. I am not even sure if Devin is paying for his post-grad degree.
If anything increase the allowance for food and housing. Clothing is cheap, so you won't get any sympathy there. Cars are not cheap but these kids are getting the equivalent of a YEARS salary to pay football. Also, they are working toward the opportunity of getting a life's worth of wages for one year, something that your average student doesn't get.
No money transfers! If they start getting money then college football will be no more. I question constantly how much Americans value sports. If we value it so much that we pay 18 year olds a salary on top of a free education with the potential to sign an nfl contract then I will have no problems spending my time elsewhere and I will invite anyone and everyone else to do the same.
Too many people are under the assumption that we NEED college football. We don't! I used too live to watch the NFL every sunday. I would cut out the articles and study the stats religiously. I have paid attention to that game for nearly ten years now and my Sunday afternoons are wonderful. If we are not careful then people will have no issue with enjoy their Saturdays by doing something else.
September 28th, 2013 at 10:03 AM ^
What is up with some people's reading comprehension?
September 28th, 2013 at 12:08 PM ^
Sorry sometimes I miss it.
To go with my previous post:
I am not moved by the argument that athletic programs are making a bundle while college athletes are poor. All college kids are poor. I practically ate Tuna Helper for an entire year and my treat was buying a half gallon of ice cream with syrup. If you think athletic departments make a bunch of money then try the entire academic institution. Michigan has a HUGE endowment and none of the college students are granted a stipend just because revenue increases.
September 28th, 2013 at 1:19 PM ^
I'm not a huge fan of paying players, and I completely disagree with Brian's position on agents. But I do think the players should be given a stipend for expenses beyond the training table, and they should have some small "walking around" money each month. And I also think that star players that actually do sell uniforms and benefit the university should be entitled to a cut of that money (after they graduate). But there is a difference between football players and all other students (including scholarship athletes in all other sports except basketball). Football players are responsible, collectively, for revenue increases to the school, other students are not.
September 28th, 2013 at 7:41 AM ^
I also agree and I brought up a good point in a thread (or two) yesterday that players should have the option to either sign a letter of intent for a four yr sholly or an endorsement deal and pay their own way through school. The stipulation either way is that they are student athletes and have to maintian the minimum Gpa one way or another to remain eligible. If a player signs the deal for the scholly he can still sign endorsements later. The stipulation is that the scholy already used has to be paid back and the rest of his time at said school is pay for play. These kids are provided the ultimate platforms to showcase their abilities.
September 27th, 2013 at 4:57 PM ^
In re: to your third point, you know what would be a GREAT way for currently unpaid players to make money, even no name players from SW Missouri and EW Iowa State? Throw the game for gamblers.
EDIT: Also, downvoted for the purposefully inflammatory title
September 27th, 2013 at 10:53 PM ^
Sure it grabs your attention but then it backs up the statement quite well.
September 27th, 2013 at 5:00 PM ^
I sure am going to miss college sports when everybody "fixes" it.
September 28th, 2013 at 2:05 AM ^
September 27th, 2013 at 5:00 PM ^
Enjoy the trip to Bolivia, but yeah you are right.
September 27th, 2013 at 6:23 PM ^
will be sycophants.
:-)
Seriously, I really really hate this idea. The AAU/Caliparization of college basketball has been the ruination of the sport, for me, and seeing it happen to football too is just about my worst nightmare. Calipari's entire career has been built on creating what I guess you could call a positive investment environment for agents and I don't think any amount of compliance enforcement or registration of agents will keep that from happening to football too if we head down this road.
September 27th, 2013 at 11:18 PM ^
people think that posting a dissenting opinion is ban worthy? Am I missing something here?
September 28th, 2013 at 12:40 AM ^
only missing people being dumb
September 27th, 2013 at 5:03 PM ^
September 27th, 2013 at 5:53 PM ^
I don't see how the rules of cheating in college athletics would not still apply:
1. Everyone gets paid
2. User a burner
3. Cash only
This fixes nothing and gives agents access. Plausible deniability isn't restricted at all, its worse because of the access.
September 27th, 2013 at 8:06 PM ^
September 27th, 2013 at 5:05 PM ^
Judging by what has taken place over the past week, this will not end well for you, even though you are right.
September 27th, 2013 at 5:07 PM ^
September 28th, 2013 at 12:10 AM ^
September 28th, 2013 at 7:31 AM ^
How is it regulated though? Are agents going to open up their books for the NCAA? Truck drivers can keep inspectors off their back with two sets of books, most of these agents are attorneys. Does this stop boosters from spending money to attract recruits? No I don't think it does, it just more than likely complicates things for the athletes. Does the NCAA magically get subpoena authoritiy, audit authority, what?
September 27th, 2013 at 5:08 PM ^
McFarlin, my have you grown.
September 27th, 2013 at 8:31 PM ^
McFarlin.
September 27th, 2013 at 7:34 PM ^
September 27th, 2013 at 5:11 PM ^
Judging from your avatar, however, you look like a little kid. And your pad level is turrible.
September 27th, 2013 at 5:12 PM ^
September 27th, 2013 at 5:14 PM ^
Regarding point #1, I don't think an agent could threaten to pull a player who is on scholarship if the sit out one year rule is still around. I don't think it would create anymore attrition than what there currently is at the moment.
September 27th, 2013 at 6:28 PM ^
...the coaches will know that if they don't play ball this time, no future players will be available from the agent.
It won't take long for pipelines to develop. You'll know it's happened, too, because the agents and players will follow the coaches from stop to stop a la Calipari.
September 27th, 2013 at 8:40 PM ^
September 28th, 2013 at 8:03 AM ^
Most high school players will NOT HAVE AGENTS. Period.
Do I need to repeat that? MOST HIGH SCHOOL PLAYERS WILL NOT HAVE AGENTS.
Lets say that Hoke got a bad reputation for doing something some agent didn't like. (Whatever) Jabrill Peppers is a life long Michigan fan who signs with this agent who does not like Hoke. Q.E.D. Peppers is not going to go to Michigan because the agent he picked doesn't like Hoke? Doubt it.
Could it happen with an occasional blue chip recruit? Maybe.
Solution? Agents after freshman year only. Heavily persecute (I know what word i used and meant it) rule breakers.
Oh yeah, and 99.9999999999999999999999999999% of high school players would never get an agent anyway. Nobody is going to pay a 18 y.o. a $300000 advance based on their development in 5 years. Questions?
September 27th, 2013 at 5:15 PM ^
Amateurism is an obsolete concept, scam, sham (take your pick) - especially with top football and basketball programs now transformed into multimillion dollar businesses and coaches raking in millions.
The hypocrisy of it all is obscene.
And it's impossible to enforce anyway.
College football will survive the end of the NCAA's abusive and immoral monopoly and an end to its exploitation of college athletes.
September 27th, 2013 at 5:41 PM ^
these are sports, to the coaches, they are jobs, to the players, they are an opportunity. Attempting to call something that generates money a business is a misnomer. The "business" does not create a profit, the money is plowed back into the athletic department or spent on newer equipment or facilities and instead at most schools it runs in the red overall as the big revenue sports fund the rest. Yep, a few coaches make a lot of money, most do not. Yep, a few players scam the system, most do not. Your focus on the few trees causes us to miss the forest. My memory tells me something like 2% or so of college football players make a pro roster. So, stop focusing on Johnny Manziel and think about the other 98%......It is not a business to them, it is a sport they play and enjoy that provides them with an education for their efforts.
September 27th, 2013 at 8:27 PM ^
September 27th, 2013 at 8:55 PM ^
It is not a business to the fans or alumni, and if this board has taught me anything it is that Michigan football is not a business but a unique tradition to most people. GE and Domino's are businesses, nobody ever went to the University of GE and spent their days rooting for the fighting light bulbs......So Dude, whenever Dave Brandon or some coach treats it like a business I note the masses rise up and condemn them quickly!
September 27th, 2013 at 9:38 PM ^
September 27th, 2013 at 11:41 PM ^
and as the son of a fan, alumnus(x2), booster, and member of an advisory committee of an academic department, from where I sit, our tradition has increasingly become part of a deeply shameful business, and it cannot be fixed soon enough.
September 27th, 2013 at 5:27 PM ^
1. NCAA could work with the NFL and the NFL could tell agents that any shenanigans = a ban at the NFL level. Also, NCAA could develope some oversight (ha!) of their own and make it an NCAA violation to deal with dirty agents.
2. See #1 if the NFL says you can't recoup the money if the player never makes it in the pros the agents aren't going to cut of their noses to spite their face.
3. Again, if only NFL certified agents are allowed to be agents they're not going to risk their big money maker (the NFL) for a little bit of gambling money.
The funneling thing already happens... say hi Ted Ginn and Archie Collins! I guess you could try to make a rule where they couldn't sign with an agent until after the player starts classes but the funneling would still happen regardless.
It'd be in the best interest of the NFL to provide some cover for this so they don't end up with damaged goods when these guys make it to their league.
September 27th, 2013 at 5:59 PM ^
Also, I guess I don't see why no one talks about what would probably be the easiest way to do pay for play. Just let boosters legally give money to players. I mean it would have to go through Compliance somehow but I would think it would be easy enough to track. I mean they're probably going to have to withhold some of the funds because once it's legalized the IRS is going to want their share but this would legitimize a process that we already know happens and it would seem to level the playing field somewhat for dirty programs who engage in this vs. those that currently try not to.
I mean you'd have to figure out a way penalize those boosters that don't follow the rules (maybe the IRS can help with that) but even so I would have to imagine that some of those who currently do this against the rules would be happy to do it legitimately and not have to worry about getting their team an NCAA banhammer (as unlikely as that may be).
September 27th, 2013 at 6:19 PM ^
- Nike Ducks
- Aon Wildcats
- Victoria's Secret Buckeyes
- BP Capital Cowboys
- Under Armour Terrapins
- Colonial Bancorps Tigers
- Yum Brand Cardinals
etc...
I can't wait.
September 27th, 2013 at 6:21 PM ^
Man... The Dominos Pizza Wolverines aren't even in the top 7!?
September 27th, 2013 at 6:35 PM ^
I'm sure the perqs from Domino's would have a lot of appeal to players but matched up against what Wexner has to offer...no, probably not. And the money's nothing compared to Ryan's, when he realizes he can stop wasting it in Manchester and use it where his heart is.
Besides, we're still struggling with our o-line.
September 27th, 2013 at 8:01 PM ^
September 27th, 2013 at 6:22 PM ^
Also, I prefer the Value City Buckeyes. Has a better ring to it.
September 27th, 2013 at 9:33 PM ^
...but you won't bring in the big names with the promise of a marketing job at Value City.
Wexner can do better than that.
(But now that I think about it, Limited Buckeyes really does have a nice ring to it, doesn't it?)
September 28th, 2013 at 10:10 AM ^
for Victoria's Secret Buckeyes will be great fun! Not sure the pads will be covered, though.