Meet the Bag Man

[DancingRabbit]

Saw a twitter thread about Freeze's interview with Finebaum. Besides one Reb deflecting, it was a long thread of skeptics with one posting this article.

http://www.sbnation.com/college-foot...-man-interview

[RougeDawg]

Has anyone received any "concrete" info on Yates being one of the primary slush fund contributors? O know of a couple specific players they've personally "Sponsored". Just wondering if anyone else has heard of this family being connected.

[Really Clark?]

I just always thought it hilarious that Godfrey wrote the article.

[Thompson92]

I just always thought it hilarious that Godfrey wrote the article.

It's funny, because it's an interesting article (and definitely about OM), yet Godfrey has been one of the most deflectionary and delusional of the bunch. I generally like SB Nation, but he sucks

[SailingDawg]

I think it's sad that there are grown men willing to throw money around for a college football team like that.

[TrapGame]

This would actually make a good series on HBO.

[IMissJack]

3-1 Aggies Sorry wrong Thread...

[fader2103]

One line that I can't stand in that piece is. The bagman doesn't view it as a crime. If you don't, don't hide.

[DancingRabbit]

An article came out this week about Tunsil having a pre-arthritic ankle that played a role in his draft slide.

Got a chuckle from this take:

[Johnson85]

One line that I can't stand in that piece is. The bagman doesn't view it as a crime. If you don't, don't hide.

??? It not being a crime is irrelevant as to whether the NCAA can punish for it. More importantly, there is nothing morally wrong about it, even if states have made a law regaridng interfering with amateurism.

[msstate7]

??? It not being a crime is irrelevant as to whether the NCAA can punish for it. More importantly, there is nothing morally wrong about it, even if states have made a law regaridng interfering with amateurism.

Not abiding by the rules isn't morally wrong? I don't know about that. Do you think the Florida qb who took steroids for a competitive advantage was morally wrong? What about rolling bats in baseball?

[Really Clark?]

??? It not being a crime is irrelevant as to whether the NCAA can punish for it. More importantly, there is nothing morally wrong about it, even if states have made a law regaridng interfering with amateurism.

There is nothing morally wrong with cheating? Ultimately they are doing it for a competitive advantage over someone else. That's why it started to begin with. The justification that people tell themselves now to make it ok doesn't change the heart. People confuse the debate with the money that schools and the NCAA make on amateur sports. That's is not the issue because boosters cheat at sports that make no revenue as well. The issue is people in their heart are cheating, buying players for a competitive advantage. The subject has become so cloudy because of the amount of money made on college football. A legitimate payment structure accross the board is an honest debate, although with so few schools actually making money the questions of who is making what and how the revenues are actually spent, has to be a part of the debate. But in their heart of hearts, that is justification, a lie they tell themselves to make cheating ok in their eyes.

[Johnson85]

There is nothing morally wrong with cheating? Ultimately they are doing it for a competitive advantage over someone else. That's why it started to begin with. The justification that people tell themselves now to make it ok doesn't change the heart. People confuse the debate with the money that schools and the NCAA make on amateur sports. That's is not the issue because boosters cheat at sports that make no revenue as well. The issue is people in their heart are cheating, buying players for a competitive advantage. The subject has become so cloudy because of the amount of money made on college football. A legitimate payment structure accross the board is an honest debate, although with so few schools actually making money the questions of who is making what and how the revenues are actually spent, has to be a part of the debate. But in their heart of hearts, that is justification, a lie they tell themselves to make cheating ok in their eyes.

Actually, a focus on rules that the members of the NCAA are uninterested in enforcing is the lie people tell themselves to make the ridiculous pay constraints ok in their eyes.

If the NCAA and its members want to have amateur sports, they could do so and cheating at that point would be morally wrong, but where the NCAA members (or at least those with the most influence) want professional sports with a low salary cap disguised as amateurism concerns, participating in the black market that the NCAA itself countenances does not raise any moral problems.

[Really Clark?]

Actually, a focus on rules that the members of the NCAA are uninterested in enforcing is the lie people tell themselves to make the ridiculous pay constraints ok in their eyes.

If the NCAA and its members want to have amateur sports, they could do so and cheating at that point would be morally wrong, but where the NCAA members (or at least those with the most influence) want professional sports with a low salary cap disguised as amateurism concerns, participating in the black market that the NCAA itself countenances does not raise any moral problems.

Tell Redmond and our probation that those rules are not enforced. Just because people choose to forget that the NCAA still punishes for improper benefits to recruits, doesn't mean they don't do it. And just so you don't forget, it was someone with a connection to another SEC school that turned us in for Redmond.

ETA. If nobody cares about competitive advantages by buying players and really are just looking out for their financial well being, why turn us in for such a little amount of money? That's the lie, the other schools do care.

Until the rules are off the books and/or never punished for pay for play in recruiting across all of Football, it is cheating. That is why it's not in the open and it is a black market. You are blurring the lines of stipends or concerns of what some student athletes bring to a major university financially. This is talking about buying recruits before they ever generate one penny for a school. Completely different issue.

[blacklistedbully]

I find it funny that, lost in the debate about paying athletes in college, is the other headline about the massive debt a typical college student incurs upon graduation.

College athletes don't have anywhere near the challenges pro athletes do. College athletes, in fact not only get their tuition meals, room & board, etc paid for, but they get to be at the top-of-the-food-chain socially in school, with all that goes with that. The ones who actually have a shot at being pros also get invaluable training to help them succeed at the next level. If that training helps them land a multi-million $ contract, what's that worth?

Sure, some schools make a lot of money, sure the NCAA makes a lot of money, but so does McDonald's. Should all their employees be compensated based on the total revenue, rather than minimum wage?

The ones who go pro aren't the ones who need to be paid. The ones who don't are the ones for whom the free education is more than enough for what they contributed.

[Taog Redloh]

Anybody notice that he specifically says some JUCO guy is watching football at the Union?

[blacklistedbully]

And there's this from the article:

"If we could take a vote for these kids to make a real salary every season, I would vote for it. $40,000 or something. Goes back to mama, buys them a car, lets them go live like normal people after they work their asses off for us. But let's be honest, that ain't gonna stop all this. If everyone gets $40,000, someone would still be trying to give 'em 40 extra on the side."

If anybody thinks paying these kids is going to stop cheating, they are naive at best.

[Really Clark?]

And there's this from the article:

"If we could take a vote for these kids to make a real salary every season, I would vote for it. $40,000 or something. Goes back to mama, buys them a car, lets them go live like normal people after they work their asses off for us. But let's be honest, that ain't gonna stop all this. If everyone gets $40,000, someone would still be trying to give 'em 40 extra on the side."

If anybody thinks paying these kids is going to stop cheating, they are naive at best.

I agree. I am in favor for a descent stipend for ALL student athletes because they do have limited time and benefits the university as a whole. But not massive amounts that some of these kids supposedly get for signing ($100-200,000) and any amount given to the atheletes should be less the cost of the scholarship as well. Tuition, room, board, etc.

[starkvegasdawg]

An article came out this week about Tunsil having a pre-arthritic ankle that played a role in his draft slide.

Got a chuckle from this take:

Great edit.

[Johnson85]

And there's this from the article:

"If we could take a vote for these kids to make a real salary every season, I would vote for it. $40,000 or something. Goes back to mama, buys them a car, lets them go live like normal people after they work their asses off for us. But let's be honest, that ain't gonna stop all this. If everyone gets $40,000, someone would still be trying to give 'em 40 extra on the side."

If anybody thinks paying these kids is going to stop cheating, they are naive at best.

You're not going to stop cheating if you keep trying to reat each athlete as being worth the same amount; you're still asking for a balckmarket that way. Setup something analogous to a salary cap and actually enforce it, and you will drastically cut down on the cheating.