Link Gumbo 10/13/10 - In Which Josh Jasper Gets TRICKAAAY
by PodKATT on Oct 13, 2010 12:00 AM CDT
in News
Email
Print
Again, not really finding any good McNeese coverage out there. Shout if you know of some.
With the Bama upset last weekend, things have gotten very murky in the BCS picture, and potentially hazardous to the SEC. There is one thing that is certain, however. LSU and Auburn control their own destinies. While Boise St. will likely be #1 in next week's first official BCS rankings, LSU has a shot to jump all the way to the top in two weeks.
The Polls That Matter (SEC Power and the BlogPoll) are running behind schedule I suppose. They'll be posted as soon as they are available.
So what if Les Miles is the destroyer of dreams and chaos incarnate. I think I'll just stick to calling him coach.
Bama receiver Julio Jones fractured a bone in his hand and is questionable this week. Big Whoop. Rueben Randle played with a broken finger at Florida last week without making a fuss and said it only really bothered him when doing down field blocking.
DANCE BREAK!
There's a great draft scouting report on Zod. Here's a video interview with Avery Johnson (Zod's younger brother) about why he chose LSU.
This interview with Brad "Wing It" Wing is a few weeks old, but that's because it came by boat from Australian TV. The Wing interview starts at the 2:50 mark. Seeing International thoughts on college football is an odd experience.
It just keeps getting worse at UNC.
If nothing else, you really ought to take the time to read this SI article about Agents and college players. Marcus Spears shows up at one point, but only in a cameo role.
Reminder:
DUE TO CONTRACT DISPUTES, DISH NETWORK IS NOT CURRENTLY CARRYING FSN, THE NETWORK THIS WEEK'S GAME WILL BE TELEVISED ON. IT IS UNLIKELY THE DISPUTE WILL BE SETTLED THIS WEEK.
44 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Controlling Destinys
You say LSU and AU control their own destinys. That’s true but so does UA and OM.
Our Time
I think he meant
That LSU and Auburn control their own destiny for the national title as an undefeated SEC team trumps all other undefeated teams out.
by cbkao on Oct 13, 2010 2:32 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions
yep
thats what I meant
btw, fixed all the non-resolving links. Still not sure why that keeps happening
Managing Editor/Chief Lackey-And The Valley Shook THE LSU Tigers Blog of the Week for 52,136 Weeks in a Row and Counting
Is it just me or do
others, when clicking the links get to a “page not found” message? About half of these links usually end up there
read the article on agents and players and
that guy comes off (to me at least) as a real dirtbag. Good for him for trying to straighten out his life, but that was basically a 10 year list of namedropping (in a bad way) every player he’s ever broken rules with. Who knows if any of it, much less all of it, is true?
there was an espn(maybe cnnsi?) article a couple of months ago about the 4 or 5 people that work in the NCAA office policing all of this. Totally different perspective, but really interesting. It convinced me that the NCAA needs to seriously beef up that office. They have the money.
Thought the same thing
He comes off as a total dirtbag, and even his “confession” feels dirty, naming names not in a “I want to clean up the game” sort of way but more of a “let’s see who I can rat out to save my own ass” sort of way. I think it was good instincts by the other agent to slowly freeze him out of the business.
But whoda thunk that Keyshawn comes out clean?
Fake Pundit. Real Fan.
And The Valley Shook!
glad to hear i'm not the only one
i heard a bit on mike and mike about this and on another ESPN show – led to the inevitable claim that players should be paid. I’d be interested to hear what you guys think about that.
I don’t buy it. I think paying players (beyond free tuition, free room and board and an additional stipend; plus world class training, medical, teaching and tutoring) is unnecessary. I know a lot of the top athletes come from underprivileged homes, but so do a lot of other students, and they aren’t paid for it. And football (and other sports) involves a huge time committment, but they aren’t doing it for free – they get tuition, etc.
Paying opens up a huge can of worms. One guy on ESPN said, pay them all the same, that will make it above board. No it won’t. They would get paid, and the top athletes would still take more money from agents. And that’s the problem. No system of payment, or a cut from selling jerseys, etc., would solve the problem of some athletes getting more money under the table. The only thing that fixes that is 1) enforcement and 2) penalties to the a) agent b) player c) school.
This is becoming a really long post, but the other claim I’ve never bought is that ‘everybody does it." First, that’s a stupid argument. Second, it’s unprovable, and probably not true. All players that could be given money don’t take it, just like all players that could jump to the pros after their junior year don’t do it. Some schools police agents better and prepare their students better than others.
Anyways, stepping off soap box.
Paying players
It’s one of those issues that is really complex, especially when you talk in practical terms. But one thing’s for sure — it would in no way stop players from trying to make what they can on the side.
by Billy Gomila on Oct 13, 2010 10:11 AM CDT up reply actions
Paying players
Seeing how little it took to bribe players (seriously, $5000 for a first round talent?), I’m all in favor of a stipend. Hell, the members of the band get a stipend, or at least used to. I don’t think paying players would magically clean up all corruption in college football, but paying players a monthly stipend of, say, $1000 for literally making the university millions of dollars doesn’t seem outrageous. In fact, it’s downright reasonable.
Playing for the football team is rewarding, but it’s also tremendously time-consuming, not to mention hard ass work. They bring in millions of revenue to the school as well. I fail to see how playing for the football team is not a student campus job any different than, say, working at David Boyd. I do think paying players a stipend or some small sum would eliminate some , though nowhere near all, corruption. Players want to buy an X-Box. I don’t think that’s unreasonable.
Fake Pundit. Real Fan.
And The Valley Shook!
maybe i'm wrong about this
but i think the players do get a stipend already (I know I read it somewhere on the internet, so it must be true, right?) Maybe that stipend should be adjusted, but that’s something colleges can think about on an individual basis.
In general though, I think student athletes in football and basketball are already set apart enough from the rest of the student body. They frequently live in separate (and much nicer) dorms, eat in separate (and much nicer cafeterias) and expect (and are expected by coaches) to be treated differently in the classroom than other students. It’s a real problem at a lot of schools.
A stipend is reasonable, because the athletes can’t realistically be expected to work an extra job, but I don’t think it should be more than a typical on campus job for a normal student. That would run about $10 an hour for 10-15 hours a week for 15 weeks a semester. That’s between $1500 and $2300, which is I think reasonable. I don’t think any on campus jobs make $1000 a month, but that difference is quibbling.
I don’t have much sympathy for the revenue argument. Quite frankly, with the exception of a handful of schools (including LSU) it’s not true. Most athletic programs lose money, meaning they are subsidized by tuition or tax dollars. I have no desire to see tax dollars or non-athlete tuition going to further subsidize football and basketball players — and I LOVE college football.
I think my last objection is that I don’t want to see college football become more like college basketball and baseball. They are totally screwed up by their relationship with the pros, and while football is clearly affected by some of that, it’s not nearly as bad.
Regardless, schools and the NCAA need to step up and deal with two real problems 1) player corruption in terms of taking money from agents, which would not be stopped by creating/increasing stipends and 2) player corruption in terms of cheating on academics, which is a huge problem at some schools.
In my opinion, they need to start with better enforcement and move on to significantly higher penalties, including penalties to schools. And if schools say they can’t stop it – have them include it in coaches contracts. I’d be willing to bet that if coaches stood to lose money if their athletes cheated, they’d work harder to hold them accountable.
I forgot what the dollar amount is
but they do get a stipend per semester on scholarship. And if they choose to live off campus, they get x amount of dollars cash to go towards room and board.
Not saying you're wrong...
… but I thought they got rid of Athlete Only dorms. Broussard, I thought, is no longer all-athlete. I could very well be wrong about that.
And I don’t believe for one second “most atheletic departments lose money”. First, major football programs DON’T lose money, its the MAC schools and the occassional Vanderbilt that lose money. Secondly, the day I trust public books from any institution is the day I have suffered massive head trauma. there are lieterally millions of ways to hide revenue. It’s how every sports team always claims to be losing money when they open their books, but companies still buy and then sell franchises at hundreds of millions of dollars of profit.
Fake Pundit. Real Fan.
And The Valley Shook!
poseur
i won’t get into – public institutions are lying argument. There’s no facts there either way. But a number of articles were written over the summer about the revenue of the 119 (?) D1 schools and only about five (LSU, UT and Ohio St were the notables) make money every year. A ton of other athletic departments lose money, not just mac schools. It was a major contributer to the possible break up of the big 12 this year.
Between salary expenses and athlete expenses and the facilities arms race, very few schools make enough money to contribute to academics. Doesn’t mean they aren’t worthwhile, but it hurts the argument that athletes deserve more than what they already get, in my book.
The question isn't about the departments
Poseur said “football programs DON’T lose money.” This is unequivocally true. Diving teams lose money; tennis teams lose money; track teams lose money. Add this all up and some departments lose money (although Lord knows I agree with Poseur about not wholly trusting the books – I have a couple hilarious accountant jokes I can share if you’d like).
The net effect is that the football players generate extra revenue beyond the benefits they receive. This revenue gets rerouted to non-revenue athletes. Put simply, the football players and men’s basketball players work their asses off so that the tennis players can be on scholarship. Whether this is a “good” thing or a “bad” thing is a political question we shouldn’t get into, but it is a fact.
Don't Panic.
by 4.0 Point Stance on Oct 13, 2010 3:33 PM CDT up reply actions
4.0 - actually no
Posuer said Athletic Departments don’t lose money – and that, as I understand it, is false. Of course football players generate revenue beyond the benefits they receive – so what. Doesn’t change a thing. They also get more benefits then the forementioned tennis players. The tennis players probably come from homes with more income than most of the football players. So what.
Bottom line, football programs make a lot of money, athletic departments lose a lot of money (on the whole). Athletes in all sports get a lot of perks for being scholarship athletes – and work very hard for those perks. It may be that their stipends should go up somewhat. I wouldn’t be categorically opposed to that. But there’s a big difference between boosting an already existing stipend by $500 or $1000 and actually paying the athletes a salary, or a percentage of jersey sales, or something like that, as is often suggested. I’m categorically opposed to that.
No - I said "major football programs"
I don’t entirely believe that Athletic Departments lose as much money as they claim, but I was clearly stating that football is the moneymaker for other sports.
And I didn’t say “public institutions” lie about their books. I said ALL institutions lie about their “public” books. I don’t believe corporations, agencies, governments, private sports teams, or even universities that claim to lose money. There’s all sorts of accounting to make a moneymaker look like a moneyloser. Never trust “the books”. A good accountant could make Google look like they are near bankruptcy.
And I didn not suggest a percentage of jersey sales (though they absolutely deserve some of that EA money – it is their likeness getting used). I’m advocating a stipend, or a larger one than currently offered.
Fake Pundit. Real Fan.
And The Valley Shook!
i guess i misunderstood your post
i won’t make any claims about institutions lying.
I hold to my claim that extra football revenue doesn’t mean football players should automatically get more $ than non-football athletes.
And I didn’t say that you said they should get a percentage of jersey sales – I said some (by which I meant ESPN people) have made that argument, and I think it is bunk.
I’m fine with athletes getting a reasonable stipend. I think a reasonable stipend should be gauged by how much a nonathlete could make working a campus job. That way, athletes are compensated for their time on the job – and compensated additionally for their athletic skills via scholarships, room/board etc.etc.etc.
“I hold to my claim that extra football revenue doesn’t mean football players should automatically get more $ than non-football athletes.”
You generate more revenue, you get a bigger share. This is true in 99.9% of human endeavors. No idea why amateur athletics should be different.
Don't Panic.
by 4.0 Point Stance on Oct 13, 2010 9:20 PM CDT up reply actions
Because it's FREAKING AMATEUR ATHLETICS
that’s the answer. they are amateur’s – and students. They are working to get an education – not a salary. That’s why they are compensated in tuition/room/board and a stipend – not a salary. That’s what a stipend means. It has a particular meaning related to undergraduate and graduate work that separates it from a salary. Moreover, frequently individuals who have stipends (for athletic or academic scholarships) are specifically prohibited from doing other work for $$.
I’m a huge capitalist, I don’t have a problem with the money these guys make in the NFL – but they aren’t in the NFL.
You don't need to convince me
Frankly it’s easy for you and I to yap all we want because it doesn’t really affect us one way or another. The people it affects are the players. AJ Green isn’t stupid. He knows UGA is making money off of him, and he’s not getting a fair cut. If you want to stop them from cavorting with agents and taking money illegally, you need to start reimbursing them more fairly.
Don't Panic.
by 4.0 Point Stance on Oct 14, 2010 8:59 AM CDT up reply actions
Have cake and eat it too
Let’s dispense with the notion that college football is not a money making enterprise. It’s a money-generating giant, and all talk of “pure amateurism” is just a fancy way of saying the universities get to keep all of the money while the actual workers get nothing. There’s nothing noble in that ideal.
Secondly, after talking about how it’s amatuer athletics, you also point out they are compensated. which strikes me as a poor argument. If they are already compensated, then we are admitting they are not pur amateurs, and all we’re doing is denying them a specific kind of compenation: salary. I think as soons as you admit players are comepnsated, you’ve lost the amateurism argument.
And their compensation sucks. There is no other job in which you do not get paid monetarily. We aren’t a barter economy. I do think a college education is extremely valuable, but to use it as grounds to deny them any other kind of compensation is not right. They have to be enrolled to play, so it’s not like colleges give them scholarships out of the goodness of their hearts.
I think players are being used and taken advanatge of. This is literally a million dollar enterprise, maybe even billion. And the workers do not get paid. To me, that’s wrong. I don’t thin kthey need to be paid like NFL players, but I think a small stipend is the least we can do for players who risk their longterm health for our enjoyment.
Fake Pundit. Real Fan.
And The Valley Shook!
well, i guess we'll have to agree to disagree
I’ll move on after this, it’s getting hard to find this conversation on the front page – but I never suggested that they shouldn’t be compensated. I’m suggesting they should be compensated for what they are – amateur athletes. Look, I compare them to students on academic scholarships. Both athletes and academic superstars are rewarded for their innate skills and hard work by being given money to go to college – a very expensive proposition (at some D1 schools just the tuition could easily be $150,000 over 4 years). Both types of students are expected to work hard for that reward – in the classroom and on the football field.
Again, I never said a stipend is out of line. I specifically said they currently receive a stipend, and it might be a good idea to increase it. I just think that the amount of that stipend should be determined based on what they might make at another campus job – not what they could theoretically make in the NFL. Their current compensation doesn’t suck. At minimum – it’s $8-10 grand a year in tuition (much more at some places) $8-15 grand in room/board; a couple of grand in stipends; fabulous health care and an enormous financial investment in tutoring – at some schools there’s literally one fulltime supervisor for every 10 football players whose only job is to make sure the athletes pass. That’s a big investment in these athletes. Moreover, any that make it to the pros make tons of money, and those that don’t can often be very successful – partly because of their actions on football field – how many athletes have made tons of money later selling X Y or Z to fans of their school?
These guys do risk their long term health – but they get incredibly good health care while they are there – and they do it (many) to get future employment in the NFL. Now, if you want to argue that the universities should be on the hook for their athletes who don’t make it to the pros – but do have ongoing health problems because of their athletic injuries, I’d be very sympathetic to that.
It’s important to remember that these colleges are Non-Profits – and that means something, legally and ethically. I wouldn’t argue with you if you said that coaches, ADs and administrations probably made too much money for working at non-profits – but there aren’t any shareholders or owners that are taking home money made by sales of AJ Green’s uniforms. Any money made goes back to the athletic department, and in some cases, to the academic side of the university.
Lastly, certainly our discussion has no bearing on what will actually happen, but if they start getting paid significantly or a cut of sales – it will effect my enjoyment, and I think the enjoyment of a lot of fans. I don’t really like the NFL. There are a lot of reasons for that, but a big part of it is things like the ridiculous lockouts 2 years into a 6 year contract and the looming NFL lockout. I like college sports – a big part of the reason for that is that the athletes are amateurs and a lot of them are playing for the love of the game – with no real prospects of going pro in their sport. I’d rather not lose that.
I agree
Good discussion. And it’s one we should be having, even if you’re right, it has no bearing on what will actually happen. but isn’t that always the case?
and I agree on not liking the NFL too much. I do want to avoid that.
Fake Pundit. Real Fan.
And The Valley Shook!
I can't wait for Wing to start booming punts.
I think he’s going to be a family favorite. I went to school at PBS, and my step-dad is from Australia.
"I know the quarterback has a strong arm, but...I mean the ball's not gonna outrun ME" --PP7
re McNeese
Dandy Don reports this AM that their starting QB is out with a concussion and their top two running backs are out for the season with other injuries. So, there’s that, in addition to playing one of the best defenses in college football.
back up time
time to give Lee lots of practice throwing the ball and hopefully give Ford and Blue a lot of touches. Fresh legs for Ridley for next week.
According to this mornings' TP Harry Coleman cut from the Saints
:(
Don't Panic.
by 4.0 Point Stance on Oct 13, 2010 9:48 AM CDT reply actions
If he can't make it on the Saints I doubt he can make it anywhere
Their linebacking corps is not good and completely lacking in depth.
Don't Panic.
by 4.0 Point Stance on Oct 13, 2010 3:34 PM CDT up reply actions
Well...
GW has been good for NO – heck, we won a SB finally with him as DC – but lets be honest here; his stance on OLBers makes Corky say “dat’s dupid”.
He wonders why he struggles to stop the run or cover TEs other than with Harper and yet places little to no value on OLBers… Hell, he keeps saying how underrated Shanle is when we all see him over pursue, under pursue, miss tackles, get outran in coverage, absolutely never shed a block, etc, etc.
GW is one step away from trying to run a dime defense full time, so I wouldn’t write Harry out of the NFL completely just yet.
Sorry, rant over!
Williams and linebackers
It’s not so much that he doesn’t want them around, he just wants veterans. Kind of like Larry Brown with vet point guards versus rookies.
I don’t really get it either, but it’s a thing with him. You just have to deal with it.
by Billy Gomila on Oct 14, 2010 11:48 AM CDT up reply actions
Late to the Party here, sorry.
Does anyone else think Mel Kiper should be fired from ESPN.
I saw his interview/rebuttal on Mike and Mike and he sounded pathetic. He basically admitted to the phone calls but then makes a vague ‘I never lost my integrity’ statement.
I agree with everyone above that says the agent, josh what’s his face, come off as a dirt bag but his facts seem credible especially since SI spoke to most of the players named and at least half of them confirmed his story.
The NFLPA is really the only one that can fix (as I suggested during the UNC debacle – 1st offense and you get a $50k fine and lose the right to represent that player, 2nd offense and you are permanently banned from represented NFL players. problem solved) the agents paying students problem but Kiper is supposed to be a professional journalist, how can ESPN continue to employ a guy that is participating in violating the most basic rules of the sport, while corrupting student athletes?
GEAUX TIGERS!!!
I don't think the NFLPA wants to take action
Have to think, if many former college players were paid by agents and all NFL players are former college players, that the idea won’t be a popular one by the players who took the money themselves while in college.
Trying to think outside the box here… what if the NCAA could require players to sign a sort of “contract” if they want to be eligible to play, which thereby appoints the NCAA as their agent while they are playing college ball? I’m no lawyer by far, but I wonder if such a move would then allow the NCAA to bring agents and / or players to court for lawsuits should they get caught taking money?
I dunno – just trying to come up with something that won’t rely on ‘former bad guys’ deciding to take actions to make sure no more people do what they themselves did…
i dont know the legal ramifications
but why can’t the NFL make the sort of fine SouthernMan suggested? Why do they have to realy on the NFLPA (I think Xanathol’s right, they aren’t interested in stopping this).
Good point about the NFLPA but pressure from the NFL or just the NFL doing it themselves as GT said.
I think Satan our former coach who shall not be named had the right ideal when he started banning NFL scouts from their practices until the NFL does something about the agents.
I think if the just the SEC would take that stance the NFL would fix it.
What say you on Kiper?
GEAUX TIGERS!!!
Kiper
I honestly don’t think he’s done anything wrong. He’s admitted to making the phone call, and there’s no ethical violation there. The article then makes an unsourced allegation that this somehow proves “everybody know Kiper hypes certain agent’s athletes…” which is shoddy journalism. It’s an allegation with almost no support: it’s a huge leap to say he went from making a call to he unethically promotes certain players based on their agent, which the article provides no other proof than the “Everybody knows” comments.
Additionally, the one witness against him is pretty unreliable. He’s been convicted of fraud and breah of contract. He’s been suspended for ethics violations, which even by his own admission, he has committed. He’s even committedmore than that. and his allegation was made as part of a campaign to clear his name by smearing others even worse. He’s not the most credible witness on the planet.
Besides, Kiper’s explanations make sense. He is more likely to give an athlete a high ranking if he access to them which gives him a better chance to get an accurate evaluation. the agents that give him access to their clients tend to get better ratings not due to anything nefarious, but because he has better information. and Kiper’s ratings do not influence their actual draft position, so where is the harm anyway? Kiper’s interst in accuracy, not promoting certain players,which gains the player nothing anyway.
Fake Pundit. Real Fan.
And The Valley Shook!
Yeah
The Kiper comments I made to Deadspin made a lot of sense — and he can point to plenty of examples that work both ways. Wichard clients he was high on, and ones he was low on.
One thing that caught my eye was his defense when asked if he’s ever been offered money from an agent. I have a really hard time believe that’s never happened. I can believe he’s never taken it. But not that it’s never been offered.
by Billy Gomila on Oct 14, 2010 11:50 AM CDT up reply actions
I'm not sure if you heard him on M&M but he sounded like he was caught red handed
Not that he just happened to be involved in few phone calls but that pre-arranged calls meant to hype the agent as the man that could get him paid and some of these taking place before and during college illegibility.
And I’m not saying he broke the law but he certainly is not representing ESPN in a professional manner.
To quote CLM, not that ESPN gives a rat’s hind end, but it is pretty shady in my book.
GEAUX TIGERS!!!
ATVS Link Gumbo has failed us!
DUDES!
How could ya’ll not included this link in the Link Gumbo?!?!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on And The Valley Shook
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
SEC Baseball Standings
Last Update: May 19
# - SEC Tournament Seeding
Team Name = Eliminated from SEC Tournament
| West | Conf | Overall | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| W | L | W | L | |
1 LSU Tigers  |
19 | 11 | 42 | 14 |
| 6 Arkansas Razorbacks |
16 | 14 | 39 | 17 |
| 7 Mississippi St. Bulldogs |
16 | 14 | 34 | 21 |
| 9 Mississippi Rebels |
14 | 16 | 34 | 22 |
| 10 Auburn Tigers |
13 | 17 | 30 | 26 |
| |
9 | 21 | 21 | 34 |
| East | Conf | Overall | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| W | L | W | L | |
| 2 South Carolina Gamecocks |
18 | 11 | 39 | 15 |
| 4 Kentucky Wildcats |
18 | 12 | 41 | 15 |
| 3 Florida Gators |
18 | 12 | 40 | 16 |
| 5 Vanderbilt Commodores |
16 | 14 | 29 | 25 |
| 8 Georgia Bulldogs |
14 | 15 | 31 | 24 |
|
8 | 22 | 24 | 31 |
