Bill, no question in my mind that the so-called "Bagman" has existed for years in NCAA sports, primarily football, and basketball. I also think that it's difficult for us old schoolers to appreciate what is really going on in college athletics. When most of us fans say, that never happens here, we are probably not being very realistic. Sad but true and I also think it is very difficult for the average fan to truly relate to how many of these kids have grown up in poverty type homes. The more I read and try to educate myself on the weakness of the system, paying college athletes is probably the answer? Our current structure does not work anymore!
I agree Don. There have been some movement in that area as college football players are now given some money as a stipend deterred by each school. I agree that us oldie goldies probably can't comprehend all the big money spent in college sports these days, especially the bit two football and basketball.
Don, you may be right. One thing that I am curious about is the direct connection to the school. The author does not outline if he is taking direction from the coaching staff or are these guys following up on the recruiters and working their magic on their own. The story about the athlete sitting alone in the student union watching tv because he cant afford his own, does resonate. I have always worried more about boosters operating independently because even if a school did want operate cleanly, a single avid booster could get you in trouble without your knowledge. I'm also sure this is not restricted to the SEC.
KP, I am absolutely sure that none of this is unique to the SEC. And you raise some very good questions. It has always bothered me that one of our scholarship players could not afford to take his girlfriend out. However I do think that the money granted each player every semester now goes a long way to helping that type thing. I doubt us fans ever get to know all that goes on in the background and that is probably not a bad thing.
George, in a sense I think you are correct. There is way too much money at stake for the "adults" to let pure amateur athletics exist. The pretense that the contract of "you play in exchange for a free education" has been corrupted and probably always was. I used to take pride in the fact that passionate young Alabamians grew up and played football for Alabama but now with nationwide recruiting that is no longer true. Oh well, I still enjoy the game but with health concerns and corruption, I fear the game that I have grown up loving is not going to be around a whole lot longer.
I always thought this was part of being a student, scholarship or not, athlete or not. I wasn't owed any handouts so I could woo the fairer sex. From what I've been reading, maybe there's too much institution-supported wooing already.
yeah I agree, I didn't have much money in college to spend on anything even taking a girl to dinner or a movie. So that never really bothered me that a few football players might be in the same financial straits . Today's football player if he pays attention leaves college with a degree and no student loan debt. Also colleges all give them a stipend to cover the additional costs not covered by the scholarship. At a school like Notre Dame or Duke or Northwestern or Stanford there are students who leave with 100-200K of debt. Athletes leave with zero debt. But as far as paying them, I would be against the Universities paying them more than what they now get. It's been pointed out many times that would lead to them being employees of the University and that opens a whole can of worms and also there is no way that you can only pay Football players and Basketball players, you would absolutely have to pay all the other athletes at the University. While there is no perfect way to do it, I guess going with the Olympic Model and just letting the athletes earn money by however they can earn money. That will certain bring a lot of potential issues that can affect the competition. If it's legal for athletes to accept endorsement money, sign things for money, take appearance fees, etc. Then it opens the door to legalize the bagman. I can certainly see wealthy boosters offering a lot of money for the highly rated players, hiring them/paying them for stuff as an enticement to attend their school. Agents will be able to sign kids and give them advances on future earnings from the NFL/NBA etc. Kids as young as 12 and 13 will be approached to sign deals and take money from shoe/apparel companies. Their contracts will demand they attend certain colleges. ND is an UnderArmour school, a kid who signs with Addidas will not be allowed to attend ND. it's going to create a whole different kind of mess for the most part. But kids will get paid. Oh and the average athlete, he's not going to get paid and he'll still struggle if he comes from a poor family to take his girlfriend out to dinner.
KP gets it. I'm not buying into the premise that these kids are doing without. See too many of them with big shiny watches, $1000 suits and $500 headphones. Not to mention thousands of dollars worth of body art.
I don't think anybody thinks we have a pure sport and haven't for a long time. But if anybody thinks the problems will go away if we just let the players earn what ever they can outside of the scholarship, is kidding themselves. It's going to change the sport. You can say well they were already getting the money anyway, but once it's out in the open it will ratchet up the arms race. I don't envision it all being good. I think it will only be good for some players, most of them will get nothing.
Here's what I do wonder about if the NCAA goes to the Olympic Model and allows athletes to earn outside income. How it will affect recruiting. I have no doubt that at Texas there are boosters ready and willing to funnel money to players to sign with Texas. It might be a deal to appear in promotions for their business, or pay them for their autograph, I don't know what forms all this outside income will take. I would assume it could just be a straight cash payment. I have no doubt every SEC team has boosters ready and willing to step up and help to get players for their team. USC has lots of wealthy boosters. Ohio State, Michigan, Clemson, FSU, the list is pretty big of teams who will be able to compete. I don't know if ND has a lot of boosters who would pony up the money, we have a large fanbase for sure and I'm pretty sure there are lots of wealthy people in that fanbase, but ND has traditionally kept those people at arms length. At Texas we have a Foundation of Boosters called the Longhorn Foundation. A lot of money is collected from Boosters who want access to athletic programs, Texas A&M has the 12th man, ND has alumni clubs all over the country but they really don't have the same focus. So I'm not sure they can be tapped for money to pay athletes. I think the net result is going to be the rich getting richer and if you are a 5* kid you're going to get a nice payment from somebody to go someplace. I don't see the big money trickling down to the vast majority of players, but some will probably. It's going to affect recruiting, just how I don't know. I don't think it's going result in say Vanderbilt Alums outspending Alabama. Kid will still want to go to top programs and win, but it is going to change some things. Unintended consequences.
I wonder if the whole Oregon football team will have shoe contracts, not the same contract but based on their recruit ranking and how bad the Oregon staff want the player. Phil Knight has poured tons of money into the Oregon football program, this will just be another way for him to help out! I'm guessing they will be 1 year contracts and renegotiated based on the on the field production!