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-football/2014/4/10/5594348/college-football-bag-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:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ci25GiEUoAAaB8v.jpg:large

[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:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ci25GiEUoAAaB8v.jpg:large

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.

[Johnson85]

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. Tell cam newton that those rules are enforced. The NCAA had iron clad proof that Cam knew not only that his dad was shopping him around, but knew the numbers involved. They didn't enforce the rules because the members with influence don't want the rules enforced. They only want to use them to limit their costs and create a competitive advantage against those schools that aren't able to successfully wield influence.


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. WTF? Why would you think nobody cares about competitive advantages? That's exactly why some college football players are worth paying, because a lot of people 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. I'm not concerned with what some student athletes bring to a major university, I'm concerned that people are willing to voluntarily pay them, and essentially for profit programs have what is in effect a salary cap so ridiculously low that not even the programs want it enforced uniformly. My concerns would go away if the NFL wasn't able to enforce an age limit, and the NCAA actually got serious about enforcing amateurism rules.

[Really Clark?]

Tell cam newton that those rules are enforced. The NCAA had iron clad proof that Cam knew not only that his dad was shopping him around, but knew the numbers involved. They didn't enforce the rules because the members with influence don't want the rules enforced. They only want to use them to limit their costs and create a competitive advantage against those schools that aren't able to successfully wield influence.

WTF? Why would you think nobody cares about competitive advantages? That's exactly why some college football players are worth paying, because a lot of people do care.

I'm not concerned with what some student athletes bring to a major university, I'm concerned that people are willing to voluntarily pay them, and essentially for profit programs have what is in effect a salary cap so ridiculously low that not even the programs want it enforced uniformly. My concerns would go away if the NFL wasn't able to enforce an age limit, and the NCAA actually got serious about enforcing amateurism rules.

That was an unique situation that had to move too fast with a national contender and Heisman hopeful on the line. It was wrong but there were a lot of politics involved with that. And we were told to stfu by the league and the league was pissed about us talking. It was wrong and if Auburn was not undefeated at the time, I think things might have played out differently, IF payments were discovered. You can't pick an isolated incident and say the NCAA doesn't ever enforce the rule when you have several other cases of impermissable benefits to recruits (which is what we are talking about in relation to the OP) resulting in penalties to the athlete and school since the Camgate.

I don't understand your second point. You stated most schools, especially the power schools don't really care about players being paid. Especially some salary cap situation, which again is more about players on campus. The article is about buying recruits. I said that schools and boosters do care. At least care about rouge amounts that is out of line. Of course if that is the case, why turn in Redmond? Or the many of other recruits that get popped for amounts less than $10,000 (ironic that is also amounts that doesn't raise the IRS and Feds attention which is another can of worms that needs to be addressed). "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." That is your statement and I disagree that members of the NCAA are uninterested in enforcing the rules. Most are not actively pursuing getting investigations going about other schools buying players but they do keep records of who is doing what. Why else has everyone going apeshit over UNM? They care about rouge schools and they care about sloppy rule breaking and unfair competitive advantage through buying recruits.

ETA. Remember this debate we are having is over whether it's morally wrong to cheat by buying players. You said it's not morally wrong to buy recruits to obtain a competitive advantage over other teams eventhough it is against the rules of the organization you agreed to adhere to and while they may not be able to always enforce the rule they have and still do as of today. Example, UNM investigation.

[blacklistedbully]

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.

If they could, "enforce it" under your scenario, they could, "enforce it" under the current scenario. Nothing...absolutely nothing you have said would make cheating less likely. Those who play at least close-to-the-rules would be at a disadvantage to those who don't.

All you're talking about doing is, in effect, raising the minimum wage from free education, room & board, to that plus a salary. The moment you add a salary, you might as well be in the Arena Football League.

[blacklistedbully]

The average annual cost of a public college education, including room & board is around $21k to $35k, depending on in-state vs out-of-state. Football players have a season that runs 5 months, including fall camp. If you add in off-season workouts, you're pretty much looking at what amounts to about 3-4 months off.

Considering these kids are getting an education as well as training to help them get to the next level if they are capable, I'd say that's a pretty decent, "paycheck" when it allows them to get it by continuing to play a game that they love.

Some people feel strongly the athletes should be paid on top of that because the school makes so much off of them (though this is not true for the vast majority of schools). Well, how about the students who buy the tickets, or who go on to create media-demand that help generate those $? Should we pay the students who aren't playing as well? I mean, they are also contributing to the bottom line, nez pa?

How about the cheerleaders and the band?

The more you increase the cost of college athletics, the more you empower the schools who have more money, because there is no way in hell instituting a salary cap is going to stop unethical cheating by the programs that can afford it.

[Johnson85]

If they could, "enforce it" under your scenario, they could, "enforce it" under the current scenario. Nothing...absolutely nothing you have said would make cheating less likely. Those who play at least close-to-the-rules would be at a disadvantage to those who don't.

All you're talking about doing is, in effect, raising the minimum wage from free education, room & board, to that plus a salary. The moment you add a salary, you might as well be in the Arena Football League.

There's a huge difference between enforcing the rules around a close to market price versus an arbitrarily set floor. Do you really think the NFL and NBA don't enforce their salary caps?

And the minimum wage wouldn't be raised. It'd be the same as now, which is basically what walkons get. You might also see partial scholarships arise depending on how everything is structured and how teams valued production.

[Johnson85]

The average annual cost of a public college education, including room & board is around $21k to $35k, depending on in-state vs out-of-state. Football players have a season that runs 5 months, including fall camp. If you add in off-season workouts, you're pretty much looking at what amounts to about 3-4 months off.

Considering these kids are getting an education as well as training to help them get to the next level if they are capable, I'd say that's a pretty decent, "paycheck" when it allows them to get it by continuing to play a game that they love. That's a pretty decent paycheck, but way, way below market for a lot of them obviously.


Some people feel strongly the athletes should be paid on top of that because the school makes so much off of them (though this is not true for the vast majority of schools). Well, how about the students who buy the tickets, or who go on to create media-demand that help generate those $? Should we pay the students who aren't playing as well? I mean, they are also contributing to the bottom line, nez pa? Students who buy tickets and are media consumers are consumers/customers, just like in other industries. Schools should do what they feel maximizes the chances of achieving their goals.


How about the cheerleaders and the band? Does the NCAA prohibit cheerleaders and band members from getting paid? I assumed not, but if so, let schools do what they want with them, just like they do with non-athletic students.


The more you increase the cost of college athletics, the more you empower the schools who have more money, because there is no way in hell instituting a salary cap is going to stop unethical cheating by the programs that can afford it. Not sure it would increase the cost of college athletics. Might make it cheaper for teh schools that are already not making money. They can focus on having amateur athletics. For teh schools that are making money, you'd probably see money flowing from facilities into player compensation, so it might not result in that much more cost.