Dumb And Stupid In Oxford, Miss
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.
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:
Last year before signing day, Ole Miss leaked to several media members that the allegations weren’t serious, mostly not football. https://t.co/EVWyRGcHuj
— Dan Wolken (@DanWolken) February 23, 2017
(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?
February 24th, 2017 at 1:43 PM ^
A couple of things.
First, I'm not a staunch defender of amateurism, but I don't think it's feasible to have schools providing what amounts to a salary for students to play sports. I do believe it's reasonable for kids to be able to make a percentage of the revenue being generated for the school. Paying a swimmer at Missouri State the same amount as a football player at Alabama is asking for schools to start shutting down their athletic programs.
Let's say athletes receive the following:
- a percentage of any profits generated from apparel sales (i.e., Michigan and Nike make x number of dollars selling Rashan Gary #3 jerseys, Gary receives 5% of any profits generated).
- money from companies seeking to use their likeness (i.e. EA Sports makes a new NCAA football game and each player in the game receives x number of dollars).
- abolition of the rule that restricts players from making money off their likeness (i.e., if Terrelle Pryor wants to sign 100 jerseys and sell them for 100 bucks a pop, he should be able to do that).
- a stipend that compensates an athlete for being unable to work while they are enrolled at the school (i.e., normal college kids can work minimum wage jobs around campus to pay for things, but an athlete will have so much time dedicated to school/sports that they will be unable to do this).
Those athletes who participate in non-revenue sports will receive the stipend and little else. Big time stars in revenue-generating sports will get the amount of $ that accurately reflects the money they make for the university and outside companies.
That said, will this prevent boosters from still offering a kid 10k to come to Ole Miss? No. It may change the math for a lot of recruits and their families. I'm sure there are people who will rightfully tell me why this wouldn't work, but it's the most workable proposal I've been able to come up with.
February 24th, 2017 at 4:14 PM ^
Regarding apparel sales, they might have to change their sales model because as it is, most jersey numbers aren't easily available. Most of the time there are only a couple of numbers for sale, so fans looking to buy a jersey have to buy one of them. So then you have 2 guys out of 85 making some nice dough while their teammates are unhappy.
I remember in '97 when Scott Driesbach's #12 was for sale, as Nike thought he'd be the starter. Our 3rd-string QB would have been the highest-paid player on the team.
February 24th, 2017 at 1:44 PM ^
February 24th, 2017 at 1:46 PM ^
February 24th, 2017 at 1:58 PM ^
February 24th, 2017 at 7:39 PM ^
Precisely. The university should not be in the business of maintaining a stable of professional entertainers. There are professionals that manage those types of things.
February 24th, 2017 at 1:48 PM ^
Let the Brian and Steven Godfrey twitter war continue.
February 24th, 2017 at 1:55 PM ^
that "dolla dolla bills y'all" is how Wilson ended up at UGA, but now I am pretty certain. Hopefully, as Brian mentions, Ole Miss will shine the light on ALL the SEC/ACC teams (and OSU) and this will lead to sanctions for the programs as well as changes to the NCAA rules allowing them "stipends" to pay players.
Of course, some schools will still circumvent the rules by paying MORE than the allowable limit but whatever. At least the kids are getting paid.
February 24th, 2017 at 2:05 PM ^
and now they're going to be set on fire"
HAHA, no.
They've denied this for years in the face of blatantly obvious reality. What's stopping the NCAA from denying Ole Miss' blatantly obvious reality?
I mean, I know this sounds like a variation of Godwin but we do have a literal, real-world example in that Penn State literally let one of their coaches use their facilities to rape boys in ass and the NCAA was happy to let them keep right on playing football, basically doling out the absolutely lightest possible punishment they think the public would stomach and then tried to weaken that as soon as they thought everyone stopped paying attention.
So, FFS the NCAA is a-okay with kids getting raped if it benefits football. Ole Miss is throwing around hookers n' blow and you're expecting the Death Penalty?
February 24th, 2017 at 2:18 PM ^
February 24th, 2017 at 7:52 PM ^
If you cut out the NCAA, intercollegiate sports is a handful of small schools. The NCAA is pretty much every school you have ever heard of.
February 24th, 2017 at 2:12 PM ^
February 24th, 2017 at 3:57 PM ^
February 24th, 2017 at 2:16 PM ^
Every time Brian goes on one of *his* sanctimonious rants about "the sham of amateurism" I think to myself that he's arguing for the end of college football as we know it. Most distinguished institutions of higher education, including our beloved University of Michigan, don't have a word about athletics in their mission statements. Intercollegiate athletics don't drive these institutions, they are a by-product of them. And I know Brian can bluster on about how much revenue is generated, and how much coaches get paid, but the reality is that most college athletics departments either break even or generate a loss, so it's not like the universities themselves are getting rich. Aside from a modest incremental stipend, which I support, the rules will never allow college athletes to be paid, because as soon as that happens, they will cease to be college athletes.
February 24th, 2017 at 2:53 PM ^
I like this argrument. I have held this point for a long time about this issue. Paying players for playing college football is fine, but what I see the issue being, where would the money come from? I only see the money, in the end, coming from an increase in football ticket prices. What about D2 football players? D3? Womens Cross Country? If you pay players for one sport, you would have to pay for all scholarship athletes. This would most likely bring down a lot of smaller athletic departments down who could not afford to pay their student-athletes. Why not just remove the age restriction for entering the NFL and if players chose to go pro right out of high school, so be it. And if they chose to not go pro right out of high school, then they stay minimum of 3 years in college like today keep the system status quo?
February 24th, 2017 at 2:19 PM ^
Yes, by all means, pay them. Pay them all. College, high school, peewee league. Pay all footbal players to protect them. Because money solves all problems and creates none. And by all means, let's continue to understate the value of the free college education being offered. Have you ever tried to pay college tuition on a blogger's salary? Ah, just wait- it won't affect your lifestyle at all and also won't change your opinion of whether scholarship athletes are compensated.
Also:
Knock-knock. "Hello, Title IX here at the door. Say, you know, pay anyone, pay everyone."
"Right-O. "Water Polo line up to the right. Youth soccer on the left. Intermural disc golf in the middle."
February 24th, 2017 at 2:58 PM ^
February 24th, 2017 at 3:46 PM ^
Like field hockey and wrestling? Which ones? All of them? So you think they're going to keep mens gymnastics around when they have to pay them the same as football players? Wrong.
And what about all the non revenue sports at non P5 schools? Do you think that Eastern Michigan is keeping their tennis team when they can't even afford to pay their football players.
THousands of kids in non revenue sports who have earned their scholarship, and are perfectly happy to receive it in exchange for their athletic participation, will vanish immediately so that Alabama, Michigan, and Ohio State can pay their football players and Kentucky and Duke can pay their basketball players?
That is the heart of the Title IX argument. It isnt that it can't be met - of course it CAN. But doing so will destroy 80% of collegiate athletics.
Oh and by the way, if all football teams pay their players $10k as you suggest, you don't think that getting $50k in a duffel bag will still sway an 17-year old from Tampa to play for Ole Miss? Puh-leeze.
February 24th, 2017 at 4:50 PM ^
February 24th, 2017 at 2:21 PM ^
when your fellow SEC schools (however new they might be), start poking fun at your troubles. I've seen funnier satirical articles, but this is a decent attempt to poke fun at ole miss by the Texas A&M SB nation web site, goodbullhunting.com. Normally, a good satircal piece depends on its subtlety. This piece hits you over the head.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/35b6a15f-1623-32a0-8db2-f4504da71e92/repor…
February 24th, 2017 at 2:30 PM ^
February 24th, 2017 at 3:23 PM ^
February 24th, 2017 at 3:49 PM ^
No.
NoNoNoNoNOOO!
Paying college football players should not be legal.
Title IX, destruction of non-revenue programs (and the scholarships they provide to thousands of kids every year), etc. etc. etc. No one is making these players work as slaves. If they don't like the deal they are getting they can study hard, get admitted to a college, and pay their own way like 99.9% of the kids in America.
Throwing money at the players doesn't fix the problem at all - Having a governing body that is actually accountable and has the power and incentive to police it's member institutions does. Until that happens all the money in the world won't be enough - There will still be private interests willing to pay a five star from chicago whatever it takes to get him to commit. Period.
February 24th, 2017 at 4:01 PM ^
I don't get Brian's constant advocacy of blowing up amateurism in NCAA sports. If it got to the point of open bidding on palyers, it would be no different than professional. Stipend/salary and what not, I agree with, but this is rarely detailed in his anger at amateurism. Yes, the current cheat and pay system is bad also. And no, I don't care for the arguement that UM has more money so we can pay more than most/all others. I would never have the same love for a team that was comprised of millionaires who chose UM because of money.
February 24th, 2017 at 4:11 PM ^
February 24th, 2017 at 4:16 PM ^
These athletes are perfectly free to choose to study hard in high school, apply and get admitted, and pay for their education like 99.9% of the rest of the population. Their scholarship is a two-way contract that is 100% voluntary.
February 24th, 2017 at 5:32 PM ^
February 24th, 2017 at 7:34 PM ^
and think, at a minimum, the NCAA and member institutions have zero business (or even right) to interfere with players' right to endorsement contracts with sponsors. Such is the right of anyone in a free society with the exception of government officials.
Minor usage objection: the idiom "bridge too far" does not mean "going too far" (I've seen Brian misunderstand this as well). A "bridge too far" means an unrealistically ambitious goal that is doomed from the start, however well-intentioned or even noble it may have been in purpose.
February 26th, 2017 at 1:46 PM ^
I am OK with paying them a small stipend for walking around money. I am just saying they aren't being exploited, since they are free to choose to not be "exploited" by quitting the team and paying for college themselves.
February 24th, 2017 at 4:30 PM ^
Dude, I wish I could have been "exploited" with a full ride to Michigan, instead of taking on loans that I am still paying down a decade later.
It'd be nice to put "Michigan football player" on my résumé, too. That has a way of opening doors, funnily enough.
February 24th, 2017 at 4:37 PM ^
February 24th, 2017 at 5:04 PM ^
February 24th, 2017 at 5:00 PM ^
February 24th, 2017 at 5:31 PM ^
February 24th, 2017 at 8:51 PM ^
February 24th, 2017 at 4:27 PM ^
Wait - what is this about players almost getting into fist fights with coaches?
February 24th, 2017 at 5:39 PM ^
and that was one reason Brady Hoke's no visit policy could not stand: it was costing Michigan commits thousands of dollars.I'm sleep deprived at the moment, but it sounds like this is insinuating Michigan commits have received payments on other official visits? and then stuck with Michigan anyway? What am I missing
February 25th, 2017 at 8:34 AM ^
Yeah, this was burying the lede.
How exactly are Michigan recruits missing out on all that cash? Are other schools paying Michigan recruits to simply visit? That seems like an unwise use of bagmen money—you'd think the bagmen would want a return on their investment.
February 24th, 2017 at 5:59 PM ^
February 24th, 2017 at 7:59 PM ^
February 24th, 2017 at 6:57 PM ^
February 24th, 2017 at 7:26 PM ^
Sure, it'll be great using the Big House for intramurals.
February 24th, 2017 at 7:44 PM ^
let the free market handle it. The U's can pay a stipend covering true cost of attendance to all athletes regardless of sport or revenue. Then they step aside and let the free market do it's thing... simply don't deny the right of any athlete to enter into endorsement contracts.
The money will flow to the tiny fraction of superstar players that are in revenue sports and actually generate the ridiculous sums of money to begin with, i.e., the people who generate all those jersey sales and TV contracts, and have the most right to be pissed that someone else is getting rich off their efforts.
This setup allows star athletes from poor backgrounds to support their families instead of taking the first available opportunity to go pro, which might make the difference in at least a few stars staying on and finishing their education before departing for the pros.
February 25th, 2017 at 8:53 AM ^
If you're going to resort to the "free market" justification, then we should allow the star athletes from poor backgrounds to make money without having to go through the ridiculous charade of being a "college student" simply to get that money.
The fundamental problem is a direct result of the NFL using college football as a de facto minor leagues, and it does so by its own rules that prevent players right out of high school to become professionals. The fact that the NFL gets away with this creates the incentive to cheat in the first place, because there is a large pool of players from financially disadvantaged backgrounds who are forced into going the college route because that's the only viable way of training to become a professional athlete. Because they're not in college to get an education but to become professional athletes, the relative educational advantages of one school over another are irrelevant, and their choice comes down simply to who's offering the most cash. That might make good financial sense for them in the short term, but it undercuts the notion that they are "representatives" of the educational institution in any meaningful way—they're simply marketing tools.
I know it's never going to happen because the NFL will never create a meaningful minor league voluntarily, but if it did, within a fairly short period of time we'd see an exodus of top players out of CFB into the minor leagues. While the "quality" of play would probably decrease at the collegiate level because many of the elite athletes would be in the NFL or its minor league, CFB would not suffer greatly in terms of fan enthusiasm, at least among those fans who root as much for the institution as for the players on the team.
February 24th, 2017 at 10:34 PM ^
February 25th, 2017 at 6:23 AM ^
February 25th, 2017 at 10:12 AM ^
February 25th, 2017 at 10:22 AM ^
Allowing the players to use their name and image to produce revenue
1. Allow the players to license their image to approved vendors that align with NCAA/Conference/Schools ethics and overall marketing strategy (Players at Nike school can't go Addidas, no pot marketing, etc). The player can benefit at whatever level they achieve due to their play on the field or other factors.
2. The school is ok with this because for each piece sold they get $x as well so the hope would be increased merchandise sales.
3. All taxed and reported above the table and disclosed annually prior to recruiting deadlines.
4. Continues well after the player graduates - maybe I'd buy a Tom Brady Michigan jersey and if I do Tom should get a bit. Continued loyalty after the fact?
This would allow the stars to be stars. In the event of a kicker with a cult following or a Rudy (who was offside) to take advantage. In fact, I would argue that in most sports it would spread the talent around and more level the playing field. Would Najee want to ride the pine at Bama for three years when he could start to make a name for himself here?
On making the playing field level with the assumption that there are very few $250k whales out there
1. All schools agree to a bounty model in which a major amount of money beyond what is out there today that would be given to the kid if they can report inappropriate actions by a school. Let's say $500k.
2. Obviously there has to be proof and the NCAA would be the investigating arm but all P5 schools could have someone on a judgment panel.
3. If a school gets busted they are responsible for $250k of the penalty. The balance is paid by other conference schools in equal portion. If a conference member school is the one who discovered and reported they are exempt from this payment - encouraging conference partners to turn in shady activity
4. Busted then the kid doesn't play at your school but would be available to sign up anywhere else they choose. I imagine Rashan driving around with $500k in this scenario and Clemson/Acc a little light in the wallet.
Current penalties would still apply for bowl bans, scholarship reductions, etc. Are the boosters going to risk paying stars $50k when this hammer would come down?
Why wouldn't this work?
tl;dr
1. Allow the players and the schools to benefit from their image/performance/history
2. Encourage players and competing schools to report shady behavior when it occurs.
February 25th, 2017 at 10:32 AM ^
February 25th, 2017 at 10:57 AM ^
I think initially the split would favor the school somewhat maybe 75/25 but could see this shift over time. I think there has to bea requirement that while they are in school everything is tied to the school. No Rashan Gary without the block M. This ensures everything goes through and is approved by the Michigan marketing arm and not just an 18 y/o kid and his family. This is an opportunity for the kid to learn brand control.
Don't know about the NFL but I think it's distributed to all and not the specific player.
Comments