A quick rant about college football

It's a slow news day out here as we all finish digesting our Thanksgiving leftovers and watch the market inexplicably march higher, so I thought I'd take this opportunity to do a little ranting about this uniquely peculiar college football season.

I was a little busy watching my Wahoos get destroyed by their rival on Saturday, but when I woke up on Sunday morning I was bombarded with stories telling me that an Alabama-LSU rematch for the national title was essentially locked up. Good to know. I could've sworn we already saw that game, fell asleep for 5 hours and woke up to see that LSU had won, 9-6, at Alabama's stadium. Yawn. Why not try again and see if we can get it right?

Nevermind the fact that--as Stewart Mandel points out--Oklahoma State has a stronger resume in just about every regard, or that the very concept of a rematch lays waste to the BCS' claim that "Every Game Counts". And please ignore the fact that it's completely ludicrous that a team that couldn't even play for, let alone win its conference title is now a virtual lock for the title game, whereas an LSU loss in that very same SEC title game that Alabama couldn't qualify for... could knock them out of the national title picture. Huh? Yeah, I'm confused too.

And yet, championship game hijinks aren't the only screwy thing going on in college football right now, or that requires my ranting. You see, out west in the Pac-12 (formerly the Pac-10), things are getting even weirder.

To bowl or not to bowl? That is the question UCLA, the Pac-12 Conference and the NCAA will have to answer should the Bruins lose to Oregon on Friday in the Pac-12 title game. 

The Bruins (6-6) finished the regular season bowl eligible but would need to ask the conference to petition the NCAA for a waiver to play in a bowl game should they drop below .500. 

Yes, in a bizarre twist of fate, the team that slipped into the conference title game through the back door is now a 30-point underdog in that game and is very likely to lose bowl eligibility simply because it qualified for the Pac-12 title game. 

"It’s a unique situation," quarterback Kevin Prince said.

So if you're keeping track, that's two teams--LSU and UCLA--that could conceivably get penalized because they qualified for their conference title game (LSU better hope it doesn't lose to Georgia in the SEC title game, or else things are gonna get REALLY messed up over in BCS Land...), and one team (Alabama) that seemingly gets the benefit of the doubt no matter what.

Conferences love these title games because of the extra revenue they generate, but they're increasingly becoming a nightmare for the teams involved. In a system that's as screwed up as the BCS, playing games against tough opponents can only hurt you (unless you're Boise State, but let's leave that alone for now), and you therefore want to minimize them at all costs. And yet, winning a conference title now requires adding one more difficult game to the schedule, one more game that can easily cost you a chance at the ultimate goal of a national title.

What we essentially have here now, with the major conferences all moving toward conference title games, is a de facto playoff round--lose your conference title game, and you can kiss your national title hopes goodbye. However, in this case, a team like Alabama can counterintuitively "earn" a playoff bye simply by losing its regular-season home game to LSU.

Ironically enough, losing to LSU may have been the single best thing that Alabama could have done in order to ensure a berth in the national title game--and that, for lack of a better phrase, is seriously fucked up. If we're going to keep this current BCS system that refuses to include a playoff and insists on cherry-picking the top two teams, we have to remove the conference title games from the equation. Oh, we can keep playing the games, that's fine. But they need to be glorified exhibitions--we can't let them have any bearing whatsoever on who gets to play in the playo--excuse me, in the BCS title game.

And another thing... by the time Alabama does finally play in a game it didn't deserve to be in, it won't have played a game for OVER SIX WEEKS. No other sport in the world does that, and it's a big part of the reason that teams so often come out rusty and flat in the BCS title game. What if we played the World Series on Thanksgiving? Would anybody even watch? Why am I still talking?

Whatever. I hate the BCS. Give me a playoff. And let me enjoy watching meaningful college playoff games for the next 5 weeks, instead of garbage like the Idaho Potato Bowl and the GoDaddy.com Bowl. And please hurry--I'm getting tired of Nick Saban's smugness already.

[ESPN]

Cam Newton puts a new spin on an old debate

Since I've written extensively about the contradictions and inconsistencies in NCAA policies, I can't in good conscience ignore the Cam Newton situation that's (very slowly) developing at Auburn. If you're not up to date, the New York Times provides a reasonable summary (with links to prior articles) of the events surrounding the Auburn quarterback (and current Heisman Trophy frontrunner).

Newton’s recruitment is at the center of an NCAA investigation, as three people publicly brought allegations that he was being shopped to Mississippi State for a six-figure amount...

For the NCAA, the Newton case brings up issues and concerns that it has spent decades trying to quell. And the problems are playing out in public in real time, as if it were a continuing soap opera narrated by Twitter.

The allegations that Newton’s father asked for money to sign him cut at the core of the organization’s amateur ideals. The perception that players can be bought and sold for such an exorbitant price recalls lawless days that NCAA officials hoped had long passed...

The allegations that Newton cheated academically three times at Florida before leaving the university is a blow to the NCAA’s effort to show that its stars are actual student-athletes.

Then there is the role of Kenny Rogers, the so-called recruiter who has financial ties to the NFL agent Ian Greengross. Rogers said on a Dallas radio station that Cecil Newton Sr. was looking for $100,000 to $180,000 for his son to play at Mississippi State. If that is true, and the deal was being cut through a person tied to an agent, it would be another black mark for the NCAA in a season in which troubles with agents have been nearly as big of a story as anything that has happened on the field.

Clearly, this thing is a multi-part soap opera that cuts to the core of nearly every major issue that haunts the NCAA. Most importantly, the implication that teams may have considered (or provided) cash incentives in their recruiting activities places a new spin on the old agent-player dynamic.

If you'll recall from my previous posts on the topic, I'm a big fan of pointing out the hypocrisy of college coaches and their strong words regarding professional agents. To wit,

Alabama coach Nick Saban famously referred to agents as "pimps" in the wake of his program's agent-related controversy this summer, saying:

"I don't think it's anything but greed that's creating it right now on behalf of the agents," Saban said in a rant at the SEC media days. "The agents that do this – and I hate to say this, but how are they any better than a pimp?

"I have no respect for people who do that to young people. None. How would you feel if they did it to your child?"

This, from a man who is scheduled to be paid $4 million per year through 2017 for coaching these same kids. Look in the mirror, Nick.

There is, in my mind, little difference between a professional agent and a college coach. Both receive financial benefits directly tied to the performance of young athletes. Both provide some sort of counseling (teaching, negotiating, contract advice, whatever else) to the athlete in return for those financial benefits. Both engage in aggressive recruiting activities to retain the services of the highest quality young athletes, and both have incredible financial incentives to do so.

Why, then, would we think that only agents like Josh Luchs would go so far as to pay players to sign with them? I've always assumed that a pay-for-play scandal at a major NCAA school was inevitable, and whether or not the Cam Newton story becomes that scandal is somewhat irrelevant. The important point is that it's completely plausible given the nature of the landscape in collegiate athletics--sports fans and the media hardly even seem surprised by the allegations.

What's more troubling is that it's Newton, not the schools or the NCAA, who seems to be facing the most scrutiny from the media. This double standard has of course sparked significant anger (and predictable screams of racism), with Hall of Fame running back Tony Dorsett referring to the situation as "a modern-day lynching" and columnist Jason Whitlock referring to the reporters of the Newton story as "slave-catchers".

The "lynching" accusation is easily dismissable as a man (Dorsett) in search of media attention, but the "slave-catchers" accusation warrants further discussion, as was provided over at Deadspin. I think Whitlock is wrong in his characterization, because regardless of the media's spin on the story, it is the attention placed on the issue that is ultimately important. The more informed the public becomes about what's going on in the NCAA behind the scenes, the better equipped they will be to evaluate the justness of the laws and policies in place. It is the people, not the media, who will ultimately make the decision as to whether or not to pressure the NCAA to change its policies.

The media's job is to make the issue known to the public, and they have done that. Now it is the public's job to take over the fight (or elect not to). If I had to guess, I think that they will indeed take action, and it will be to the benefit of future student-athletes (if not directly Cam Newton). College athletics are rapidly approaching a major point of conflict that will shape the future of the NCAA and universities in general. How the media chooses to portray Cam Newton while it's happening is largely irrelevant in the big picture--for his part, he's more likely to emerge from this mess as Reggie Bush (Super Bowl champion) than as Maurice Clarett (ex-con). For now, he's merely a very talented player who's caught in the crossfire of a very heated debate.


[New York Times]

Agents and the NCAA

Today's turning into a sports-heavy day, but given my past posts about the NCAA, there's no way I can ignore this article from this week's Sports Illustrated. There's not much new here if you've been paying attention to the budding issues at North Carolina, Georgia, and elsewhere, but it definitely adds a new perspective to the issue and makes it that much more clear how widespread the problems are.

Written from the perspective of former sports agent Josh Luchs, the article begins:

I will never forget the first time I paid a player.

There are moments you will always remember, like your first kiss or your first home run or the day you met your wife. For me, the first time I broke an NCAA rule to try to land a client is just as indelible.

Luchs goes on to recall decades of abuses of NCAA rules, doing a good job of describing the (behind-the-scenes) landscape of collegiate athletics. It's alternately infuriating, saddening, and thought-provoking, and it gives voice to a largely silent minority (agents). What I find most striking is how Luchs draws parallels between himself and college coaches--both are "recruiters", and both can and do bend NCAA rules for personal benefit. It's worth asking whether there's really any difference between a coach and an agent at the end of the day.

Rather than rant anew about old issues, I'll just excerpt here what I wrote before. It's as apt here as it was then.

This is only the latest in a long line of recent news items focusing on "improper contact" between players and agents. Alabama coach Nick Saban famously referred to agents as "pimps" in the wake of his program's agent-related controversy this summer, saying:

"I don't think it's anything but greed that's creating it right now on behalf of the agents," Saban said in a rant at the SEC media days. "The agents that do this – and I hate to say this, but how are they any better than a pimp?

"I have no respect for people who do that to young people. None. How would you feel if they did it to your child?"

This, from a man who is scheduled to be paid $4 million per year through 2017 for coaching these same kids. Look in the mirror, Nick.

Former USC coach Pete Carroll, for his part, escaped from USC before it could be sanctioned, in order to sign a 5-year, $33 million contract with the NFL's Seattle Seahawks. He will face no punishment for what happened at USC under his watch, in the same way that Kentucky basketball coach John Calipari has twice escaped programs (UMass and Memphis) immediately before they were sanctioned. Coaches, athletic directors, and NCAA officials continue to be all too quick to blame individual agents and players for illicit behavior, without even addressing the possibility that their own policies and conduct may be to blame.

We could rush to judgment on Luchs and question his motives for publishing his story now. But Sports Illustrated went out of its way to contact the people Luchs mentioned in his article, and the majority of those who were willing to comment confirmed Luchs' version of the events. So regardless of his motivations, the man clearly speaks the truth. And that's not good for the NCAA.

[Sports Illustrated]

An issue that won't go away

Yesterday, New Orleans Saints running back Reggie Bush--in one of the greatest you-can't-fire-me-I-quit moments in recent memory--forfeited the 2005 Heisman Trophy that he earned while playing for the USC Trojans. He becomes the first player in history to forfeit his award or have it stripped by the Heisman Trust, which has presented the award to the top collegiate football player since 1935.

Bush forfeited the trophy under extreme pressure from the Trust, which--despite its denials--was clearly on the verge of stripping the award due to Bush's improper receipt of gifts from an agent while he was at USC. There is further speculation that USC will also be forced to vacate its 2004 national title as the NCAA continues its investigation into the matter.

This is only the latest in a long line of recent news items focusing on "improper contact" between players and agents. Alabama coach Nick Saban famously referred to agents as "pimps" in the wake of his program's agent-related controversy this summer, saying:

"I don't think it's anything but greed that's creating it right now on behalf of the agents," Saban said in a rant at the SEC media days. "The agents that do this – and I hate to say this, but how are they any better than a pimp?

"I have no respect for people who do that to young people. None. How would you feel if they did it to your child?"

This, from a man who is scheduled to be paid $4 million per year through 2017 for coaching these same kids. Look in the mirror, Nick.

Former USC coach Pete Carroll, for his part, escaped from USC before it could be sanctioned, in order to sign a 5-year, $33 million contract with the NFL's Seattle Seahawks. He will face no punishment for what happened at USC under his watch, in the same way that Kentucky basketball coach John Calipari has twice escaped programs (UMass and Memphis) immediately before they were sanctioned. Coaches, athletic directors, and NCAA officials continue to be all too quick to blame individual agents and players for illicit behavior, without even addressing the possibility that their own policies and conduct may be to blame.

From their actions, the NCAA (and auxiliary organizations, like the Heisman Trust) continue to make it clear that the single worst violation a player can commit is to try to get a piece of collegiate athletics' ever-growing revenue pie. For comparison, recall that another Heisman-winning USC running back is currently serving time in prison for multiple felonies (murder not one of them), but has never been asked to return his award. In the eyes of the NCAA and Heisman Trust, armed robbery is apparently of less concern than gifts from agents.

I think about this issue in much the same way that I think about underage drinking. A rule is put in place that is somewhat arbitrary by its nature, but that engenders strong feelings among certain special interest groups. While nobody actually believes that the rules are particularly effective at preventing the targeted behavior, the rules' existence nevertheless creates a moral battleground that defines the public discourse. This is not healthy, and in fact prevents any informed discussion on the topic.

Player-agent contact, like underage drinking, continues to rage on college campuses across the country. Instead of trying to have an honest conversation as to why, we simply shun Reggie Bush for breaking the rules--and punish current USC players who had nothing to do with the situation--without considering if the rule was just to begin with.

This is just one more example of a reactionary policy creating more problems than it solves. By creating rules and heavily punishing athletes for breaking them, we are not actually doing anything to address the underlying inequities that create the behavior in the first place. All we have accomplished is to delay the broader conversation, which will only become that much more difficult once we are finally forced to have it. In my opinion, it will come sooner rather than later.

[Huffington Post]