Jim Tressel and the Wise Monkeys: When Players Try to Get Paid, Who Should Be Blamed?
by D-Sing on Jun 2, 2011 1:11 PM CDT
Email
Print[UPDATE No. 1: Bumped back to the top of the page with an announcement: we have asked D-Sing to become an author for the site, and this was his first of what we hope will become many weekly looks at today's major issues in college football. Everybody welcome D-Sing to the Rock M masthead!! Let us know if you want the official polo or the watch.]
[UPDATE No. 2: There is no polo or watch.]
My son turns four just after the first game of this coming season. Unless some weird recessive genes kick in, he probably won't be playing Division 1 FBS football when it's time for him to go to college. (And unless some other things about the game change, he won't be playing football at all. But that's another topic.)
If he does somehow manage to become a football star, though, my wife and I will have to be very careful in the vetting process. We'd want him to go someplace where he can be successful, a place where he'd enjoy the campus life (but not too much), a place where he can get a good education in a field he wants to study. And selfishly, it would need to be somewhere his mother and I would enjoy visiting a few time a year.
I'd want him to play for a good coaching staff. I want his position coach to be someone we really connect with and that he connects with as well; a coach that we'd trust our son with.
I'd want his head coach to be someone we could connect with as well; he should also be someone we would feel comfortable entrusting our son with.
Oh, and that coach should also be brilliant during game days and have a little of the three wise monkeys in him the rest of the week.
Yeah, the three wise monkeys. Mizaru, Kikazaru and Iwazaru. "See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil."
I mean, what program doesn't want a head coach that sees nothing going on that's wrong, hears no malfeasance and doesn't say a word about wrongdoing because, well, there's nothing wrong.
Isn't that how this is supposed to work? Aren't head coaches supposed to be kept out of the loop when players are driving fancy cars or showing up with a lot of tattoos when you know that said players isn't from a background that can afford new cars or (literally) thousands of dollars of tattoos.
I have one tattoo. It's not small, and it's on my right bicep. I live in a not that cheap part of the country, and my simple tattoo cost $100. Even allowing for things to be cheaper in Columbus, Ohio than they are in Las Vegas, there's no way that somebody on the Ohio State coaching staff shouldn't have caught on to the fact that their players—many of whom are from disadvantaged or highly disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds—suddenly had half or full sleeves of ink.
It's not like they were saving up refund checks from their scholarships.
Yes, Ohio State is an easy target because they are in the news right now. But look around at any of the FBS programs. Don't tell me that athletes aren't trading on their name recognition. Given the way that the system is setup for some of them now, it's the only thing that they have to use.
Does that make it right? No. Even if the rules that are in place are crappy, that doesn't mean you have the right to go around breaking them and flaunt the fact that you're breaking the rules.
But for a coach to act like the three wise monkeys, or even worse, act shocked that there is gambling going on in here, is even more worrisome to me. Does all of the detail work that goes into film study and game planning, the work of hiring a staff and working on recruiting, helping to gladhand alumni and do media appearances...does all of that detail work and micromanagement leave one blind to the fact that players are accepting graft from a variety of sources?
The question, I guess, is this: Who should ultimately be held responsible when players get in trouble for selling memorabilia and merchandise? Does it strictly depend on who is doing it? Or, if it's been going on for almost a decade and the coach(es) either actively or inactively turned a blind eye to what was going on, do people higher up the chain need to be held accountable?
FanPosts may be posted by any RMN member and may not reflect the views of the management staff of Rock M Nation or SB Nation.
34 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
How much higher up the chain can it go?
There’s no one at an individual institution with more financial liability to the health of the program than the coach. I think it can be argued all day without a final resolution whether or not coaches can feasibly be expected to know every single thing that goes on within their program (this is where strong compliance staffs come in). But by taking the head coaching position, you have effectively assumed control of your entire domain, and that responsibility is non-negotiable.
RockMNation.com (@rockmnation)
Fighting mob mentality since 2007
I agree with this to a point...
but my question concerns members within the athletic department. I don’t know how it works, but each and every AD has compliance officers that are supposed to be familiar with NCAA rules (or at least most of them). It seems to me that this is akin to the internal affairs positions that exist within police forces. Shouldn’t they be the ones that look into these things, or start asking questions? They should be aware of stipend levels and cost of living in their towns, and how it relates to their players. I know that this may seem tough, and there’s lots of players involved, but come on. Trends can be followed, and if certain individuals are following or starting trends, that’s a flag. And questions need to be asked.
What do you mean I can't retire at 32?
Questions definitely need to be asked.
But that means responsibility seems to be “lower” on the chain than head coaches, and that’s where the culpability comes into play. They’re responsible for the people who should be responsible, even if it’s not direct oversight.
RockMNation.com (@rockmnation)
Fighting mob mentality since 2007
by RPT on Jun 2, 2011 1:58 PM CDT up reply actions
I don't know if it's lower...
I see compliance as being a separate chain altogether. Or it should be, if it’s going to be a watch dog off all these programs. Never the less, I have the same feeling as Dave…my kids won’t be football players unless the get my grandfather’s height and not my knees. Thank the maker my wife and I are geniuses.
What do you mean I can't retire at 32?
I think it starts with compliance, but ultimate responsibility must fall on the coach and/or AD.
Just like in the corporate world, compliance/internal audit is a separate function, but when something goes wrong, the responsible chief officer gets the ax. If problems exist company-wide, the CEO might get canned as well.
In Ohio State’s case, perhaps the compliance team reported everything to Tressel (chief football officer) and/or Gene Smith (CEO). Or maybe the compliance team turned a blind eye. Either way, Tressel and Smith are responsible for having procedures in place to make sure this doesn’t happen.
Personally, I find it unbelievable that Tressel was the only one with any culpability.
And, can I say..
FINALLY someone in the roundtable who invited me to their wedding?
Shoot, and I didn’t even meet you until your wedding (hmm… maybe there’s causation there).
Rational Mizzou Talk, whether you like us or not.
congrats!
now, be better than tepper. that’s all i ask.
D-MONEY
by stlcardinalsfang on Jun 2, 2011 1:34 PM CDT reply actions
I think the blame falls on more than one group.
Athletic department higher-ups, coaches, and the folks closest to the players personal lives should be held responsible. And of course, players should be punished, as well.
Congrats D-Sing, I’m looking forward to your work on RMN.
"I like to think of myself as Miguel Paul. Generally disappointing and a waste of space, but every once in a while, WOW."- ghtd36
I agree - folks closest to the players, like their parents
And to a great extent, the parents are to blame. They are not involved enough, haven’t set up a system of checks and balances, can’t communicate properly with their children, buy into the everyone else is doing it cop out… so on and so on… I see it as my responsibility to be that figurehead in life for my children and when they go off on their own… I still have their backs…
Quick question:
With all the talk around the college sports landscape about paying athletes and/or increasing scholarship value, has there ever been any thought given to simply giving the athletes the liquid value of the cost of their scholarship? I know this completely challenges the notion of amateurism, but would anyone favor a system in which the athlete got a check worth the amount of the scholarship, allowing them to decide to put it all in tuition, spend freely, divide it up, take loans, etc.?
RockMNation.com (@rockmnation)
Fighting mob mentality since 2007
by RPT on Jun 2, 2011 2:38 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Very interesting...
…that would possibly create a huge incentive to attend a school out-of-state so that your tuition is hiked and you get a bigger check for the scholarship. Or athletes going to expensive, elite-education schools to get paid more. The rise of Harvard, Yale, et al as athletic powerhouses gasp
/IknowtheystillhaveGPAstandards
/butI’mjustsaying
I dunno man...hockey?
Ivy League schools do not offer athletic scholarships IIRC
I’m sure that they compensate their athletes with generous academic scholarships, but that’s all under the table.
Ivy League isn't FBS
I don’t believe any of the talk is focused on FCS schools.
What do you mean I can't retire at 32?
And I think that to be fair, every athlete would have to be compensated at the value of out of state tuition
Just to make the playing field level.
That's not a bad idea at all
If a kid then wants to take student loans (like much of the population must to complete college), it’s on them. They’re still being appropriately compensated, but they can choose to do what they want with it. I never thought about these situations in such terms, but I like it.
I think paying them anything is terrible
and here’s why. There is currently a divide in the amount of press and love that football and men’s basketball get vs. other sports, for the most part. So, you’d HAVE to pay those two more than any other program you have. Further, and this is only an example, but where Blaine or Spoon or Chase or Maclin may have deserved a check for all they brought into the AD, I don’t feel that other players on the team do. So now you have a football players that are not getting exploited at near the level as others…or, you have Chelsea Thomas, who will be getting exploited this weekend, but won’t be getting anything, cause softball doesn’t bring in revenue.
Does any of this make sense? No. But I believe in this. Football and men’s basketball student athletes get free tuition, housing, food, fees, tutors, clothing, high end training facilities, and slightly enhanced medical care. I don’t have statements in front of me for any of this, but I bet that’s about 40 grand a year.
What do you mean I can't retire at 32?
I completely agree, but that bias still exists in the current system.
It’s the difference in full and partial scholarships, with full rides being much more rare in many of the non-rev sports.
RockMNation.com (@rockmnation)
Fighting mob mentality since 2007
by RPT on Jun 2, 2011 3:07 PM CDT up reply actions
exactly
the real downfall to the plan is simply AD/NCAA would have to come out and say “Men’s Basketball and Football are no longer amateur programs, and those players will be compensated for any and all marketing endeavors they are a part of.” So the last commercial that the football team did with Coach? No more.
What do you mean I can't retire at 32?
I agree for the most part
but those football and basketball players have exponentially more pressure on them than a Mizzou baseball player, a Mizzou gymnast, or a Mizzou tennis player does. There’s much more press following you, more visibility, etc.
I think the NCAA’s—better put, the BCS schools—plan to pay the full cost of things is a pretty decent fix. Also, I actually agreed with Beebe in one of the Links today that things are likely even better than they ever have been; with more press and more pressure, we just hear about transgressions a lot more than ever before.
Your numbers are conservative
http://www.themaneater.com/stories/2010/7/7/study-athletics-see-big-money-spending-arms-race/
The whole notion of paying college athlete’s more than they already get is completely absurd. It’s college. If they want to develop their game and get an education, keep them here. If they are pro-ready, send them on their way. But pay them more? Come on. The brand name athletes I see on Mizzou’s campus always have nice rides and plenty of bling.
I guess if we are going to start paying our athletes, then go ahead and take away their academic requirements. It’s not like they go to class anyways.
the problem with the "send them on their way theory"
is that you can’t go to the NFL or the NBA without waiting after high school. The idea that these kids should just go play in Europoe is pretty absurd. I don’t know the answer to paying college kids or not, but I don’t see how they NFL or the NBA can keep them out. The NBA has no excuse. There are plenty of kids who are talented enough to make it straight out of high school. Are their busts? Absolutely, but there are busts now too.
The NFL has the argument of “they’ll get killed by the grown men we have” argument. But really, if the kid isn’t physically developed enough, don’t draft him. Isn’t that the free market. I realize that Maurice Clarett is the ultimate villan/bad guy these days, but he got a raw deal. At college, sees a ruling that says he can leave, leaves, ruling gets overtturned, he can’t go back to college and he can’t go to the NFL. Insanity.
Can't see the schools ever going for that
Right now they ‘pay’ for these scholarships through the athletic scholarship funds they have set up. I assume that if the TSF couldn’t cover the scholarships the academic side would just write off the tuition costs. No money would ever be exchanged there, they don’t pay it out and they don’t collect from students.
If you start paying the students the school now has to come up with that money up front to give to the players. Then they have to go back and try to collect it all. In one of the articles this morning, Deloss Dodds was talking about increasing scholarships would cost an extra million a year for Texas. Imagine if the schools actually had to pay that money to the students each year. How much would they need in the reserves to give to every athlete on campus? The second issue I see is that you then have to get these players to pay it back to you. How many of these guys think they are going pro and will just pay back the money later? Now you have athletes who owe your school money that you will never be able to recollect.
I agree that something probably needs to be done about the student athlete scholarship situation, but I see bad bad things in the future if you just give the students the full value of it in cash.
Oh, I can't see them ever going for it either.
I’m just spitballing at hypotheticals.
RockMNation.com (@rockmnation)
Fighting mob mentality since 2007
by RPT on Jun 2, 2011 3:07 PM CDT up reply actions
so, under this scenario, would the player still be eligible for academic scholarships?
in addition to their liquid payment of their full ride.
D-MONEY
by stlcardinalsfang on Jun 2, 2011 3:13 PM CDT up reply actions
That's how it is now.
A full room and board scholarship covers tuition and room and board (pretty much the same amount as tuition). The university pays the full amount to the cashiers office and the cashiers office gives the athletes a check for the room and board, so basically half of their scholarship goes into their pockets
That leaves the student-athlete with the option to take out additional loans for living expenses.
i see i'm not smart enough for this thread,
but i would like to say i’m glad to see d-sing join the ranks of the vastly underpaid around here. very well constructed, looking forward to many more of the same quality in the future. :-)
Start a fire for a man, keep him warm for a night. Light a man on fire, keep him warm for the rest of his life.
by threadkiller on Jun 2, 2011 4:48 PM CDT via mobile reply actions
I'm humbled
that my first post has generated this much conversation.
And no congrats necessary; I was just glad to be given the opportunity.
To piggyback off of something RPT said about being given the liquid value of the scholarship up front, I don’t know if that would ever be feasible simply because I think that the tax situation alone would complicate things for some of these players and their families. Granted, there might be a lot of accountants nationwide that would relish the opportunity to scoop up new clients, or maybe some savvy business schools would be able to set up some kind of help for these student athletes that are suddenly flush with cash.
It would make for some good capstone potential for finance or accounting majors at the very least.
Pigskin Punditry
Follow me on Twitter
"All I've had today is, like, six gummy bears and some scotch." ~ Sterling Archer
as an accounting major, i say "no thanks!"
aiming to please the robot since 2011
by stlcardinalsfang on Jun 2, 2011 6:43 PM CDT up reply actions
You can argue that school officials higher up the food chain are being held accountable.
I don’t mean that an AD is going to lose his job over player misbehavior but systemic corruption is usually something that any AD should be worried about. When a program gets hit with sanctions and scholarship reductions, sooner or later, alumni and donators are going to start asking questions and quite often the AD’s performance will be included in that.
I will also point out that I always get a chuckle when I hear people throw out the term ‘free market’ when discussing the possible payment of college football players. Lets not forget that the overwhelming majority of the programs in the BCS, and all of the ‘traditional powers’, are public universities. If the college football ‘arms race’ were to result in an open expediture of money it would likely kill college football as many tax payers would revolt because the money they are paying into these institutions would be used to field what are now, unargably, professional sports teams. Teams in states like Arkansas and Alabama, who lack professional sports franchises, might survive but in Missouri, with the Cardinals, Royals, Chiefs, Rams and Blues, you could expect a very vocal attack on any sport which pays, or allows a third party to pay, their student atheletes.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
