Cheating Article - Good Read

Donate To GopherHole

Tough article. There is clearly a problem that continues to go on as people aren't getting caught. Perhaps a couple players later will admit receiving money about 5 years later after they supposedly "graduate" from school. Haven't a clue how you deal with all the "hidden" deals.
 

Thanks for posting. Would love to see a similar story about college basketball because for as dirty as football can get I have no doubt the world of college basketball is 100 times seedier. In football it is tough to build a championship around 1 player, that is not the case in basketball.

But I am sure all those great players go to Kentucky just for the tradition with nothing changing hands behind the scenes.
 

I believe every single word of that story. Especially about Auburn...they are one of the first thoughts that comes to into my mind when the term "dirty program" is mentioned.

We poke fun at Bielema & rightly so most of the time, but I'd love to have an off-the-record conversation with him some night over a few beers. Having been both in the SEC & Big Ten, I bet he has a few stories to share.
 

Sad but true. I always tell this story but I swear it's true...when I was in grad school in Lincoln, NE I saw what the players were driving. I parked in the lot right next to their practice facility and it was full of Escalades and high end cars. CFB has become the biggest farce in all of sports.
 


So who do you think MAY be the biggest cheater(s) in the B10 that last 15 years? I just don't think we have SEC type issues, but if I had to guess who bends the rules a bit i'd say Dantonio @ MSU, RichRod @ MI, and Zook @ Illini.
 

Fascinating read, thanks for posting BarnBurner.

I don't think this will ever change and paying athletes a nominal amount as has been discussed at length, won't do it either.

With coaching contracts getting crazier and crazier, the financial upside for coaches to keep winning at all cost only rises.

Go Gophers!!
 

LesBolstad said:
So who do you think MAY be the biggest cheater(s) in the B10 that last 15 years? I just don't think we have SEC type issues, but if I had to guess who bends the rules a bit i'd say Dantonio @ MSU, RichRod @ MI, and Zook @ Illini.
Click to expand...

It's the helmet schools no doubt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

I love how they hold up Charlie Strong as an example of doing things the right way in an article about cheating. This is the married guy who allegedly had an affair with a booster's wife while at Louisville. I know that's not the type of cheating the article was speaking about, but let's not pretend the guy is a martyr who died on the cross of integrity.
 



MNVCGUY said:
Thanks for posting. Would love to see a similar story about college basketball because for as dirty as football can get I have no doubt the world of college basketball is 100 times seedier. In football it is tough to build a championship around 1 player, that is not the case in basketball.

But I am sure all those great players go to Kentucky just for the tradition with nothing changing hands behind the scenes.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. Tar Heels anyone?

I tire of the farce that is the "level" playing field. It doesn't exist.
 

A friend is a cousin to a highly recruited former HS running back here in West Texas (several years ago). He said that his cousin got a call from the pre-Strong coaching staff and said that if he came to UT, he'd be "taken care of" in every way-cars, money, cush job, you name it. This was a call from a booster who was working on behalf of the UT staff who had already been working on the player. He ended up going to Oklahoma State. Just the way things are in some of the major programs, it seems. :(

Btw, if you want to see how the sausage is made, read "Meat Market."
 

It happens everywhere, even down into the lower level colleges where you wouldn't expect it.
 




With virtually no downside to cheating (for themselves) and enormous financial incentive, notoriety, power, there are undoubtedly more than enough people willing to break the rules. I dont know that there has ever been an anonymous survey of former players by one of our intrepid journalists. I would certainly read such a book.

Along with performance-enhancing drugs, academic stuff it is obvious this stuff goes on, the only question is to what extent. Nobody likes to think heir guy is a cheater. There were so many who believed Lance Armstrong was clean because they would not allow themselves to believe otherwise. Too good of a story. Who is dirty? Some of the coaches out there seem, to me, a bit slimy (Franklin, Ferentz), while other develop a careful persona (Kill) and a few may be genuinely pure (perhaps Claeys, Kill?)
 

LesBolstad said:
So who do you think MAY be the biggest cheater(s) in the B10 that last 15 years? I just don't think we have SEC type issues, but if I had to guess who bends the rules a bit i'd say Dantonio @ MSU, RichRod @ MI, and Zook @ Illini.
Click to expand...

Let's not speculate and ruin reputations, totally not fair and my guess is that Dantonio is one of the cleanest.
 

HoustonTXGopher said:
Let's not speculate and ruin reputations, totally not fair and my guess is that Dantonio is one of the cleanest.
Click to expand...

Reputations aren't ruined on a board.
Coaching decisions aren't made on a board.
AD decisions are not made on a board.
This is a football "fan" board.
This board has no influence whatsoever on Minnesota football, let alone college football.

Dial er back, boy.
 

I find it interesting that people view this stuff as so nefarious. The ONLY reason people deem paying players as so wrong is because the NCAA determined it was. Its not illegal, and in pretty much every aspect of life people get perks for being better at what they do than others. Somehow people view players being given cars to drive or some cash on the side as 'wrong' even though there's nothing really wrong about it beyond the fact that the NCAA said it was. Sure there's the argument that all parties agreed upon the rules before entering but that ignores the fact that there is basically no other alternative for a talented football player to benefit from that talent even though people with talent in areas other than athletics can benefit without cap or penalty all throughout their college years
 

oleboy41 said:
I find it interesting that people view this stuff as so nefarious. The ONLY reason people deem paying players as so wrong is because the NCAA determined it was. Its not illegal, and in pretty much every aspect of life people get perks for being better at what they do than others. Somehow people view players being given cars to drive or some cash on the side as 'wrong' even though there's nothing really wrong about it beyond the fact that the NCAA said it was. Sure there's the argument that all parties agreed upon the rules before entering but that ignores the fact that there is basically no other alternative for a talented football player to benefit from that talent even though people with talent in areas other than athletics can benefit without cap or penalty all throughout their college years
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with whether it's "wrong", it's just not a sustainable business model to pay 18-20 year olds to play football or basketball. If there were profit to be made, someone would have done it. The fact that there are zero professional leagues in the U.S. where you can play either sport and be paid tells you everything you need to know.
 

oleboy41 said:
I find it interesting that people view this stuff as so nefarious. The ONLY reason people deem paying players as so wrong is because the NCAA determined it was. Its not illegal, and in pretty much every aspect of life people get perks for being better at what they do than others. Somehow people view players being given cars to drive or some cash on the side as 'wrong' even though there's nothing really wrong about it beyond the fact that the NCAA said it was. Sure there's the argument that all parties agreed upon the rules before entering but that ignores the fact that there is basically no other alternative for a talented football player to benefit from that talent even though people with talent in areas other than athletics can benefit without cap or penalty all throughout their college years
Click to expand...

I'm a true believer in amateur sports. College sports only makes sense if amateurism is strictly maintained. If pay-for-play is officially introduced to college athletics, then the whole college sports model should go in the dumpster; that isn't what Universities are for.
 

dpodoll68 said:
It has nothing to do with whether it's "wrong", it's just not a sustainable business model to pay 18-20 year olds to play football or basketball. If there were profit to be made, someone would have done it. The fact that there are zero professional leagues in the U.S. where you can play either sport and be paid tells you everything you need to know.
Click to expand...

That's a claim you can't back up since nobody has had to do it. There clearly IS profit to be made and the schools don’t need to pay players to make it. And your last sentence makes no sense at all. No league prevents players from playing in multiple sports by rule so I have no clue what point you’re struggling to make
 

I've said many times that CFB is simply entertainment, and if you want to be a fan of the game, you more or less need to accept that it is a sleazy, underhanded business, like many forms of entertainment. You can't pretend it's something it is not.
 

everybody knows my name said:
I'm a true believer in amateur sports. College sports only makes sense if amateurism is strictly maintained. If pay-for-play is officially introduced to college athletics, then the whole college sports model should go in the dumpster; that isn't what Universities are for.
Click to expand...

That idea doesn’t hold up to any real scrutiny. Amateurism is essentially just a farce when it comes to the major sports as is. If you TRULY want amateurism then you’d be in favor of more severe caps on not just practice time but weight training and film study time. You’d be in favor of no road games during the week that would cause players to either miss class or have to travel at times that hamper their ability to be present for class and focused the next day. You’d also have to allow for players to make money the same as any other student which means that if someone else wants to pay them for whatever reason they could, just like literally every other student on campus. I don’t believe most people are TRULY ‘believers’ in amateur athletics, they are just fans of college sports the way they are and don’t want them to change because allowing players the freedom everyone else has turns it into every other capitalistic market where those that navigate it best will truly dominate. If Iowa’s boosters are willing to cut players checks for $50k and ours top out at $25K, we’ll never win that battle. Not only that but the mirage of amateurism (that really isn’t there) goes away and everyone has to accept that they’re basically watching semi pro ball which I guess kills the vibe for some even though they for some reason thought they were paying $50-$100 for seats to an amateur event.
 

highwayman said:
Like the one north and west.
Click to expand...

They were doing it even when they were a D2 school. I knew people who went there at the time.
Their cousins to the north were as egregious as anyone with their hockey team.
 

oleboy41 said:
That's a claim you can't back up since nobody has had to do it. There clearly IS profit to be made and the schools don’t need to pay players to make it. And your last sentence makes no sense at all. No league prevents players from playing in multiple sports by rule so I have no clue what point you’re struggling to make
Click to expand...

It absolutely is a claim I can back up. What do you mean "had" to do it? Who's stopping anyone from trying? There's no law that says you can't pay 18-year-olds to play basketball or football. No one tries because there is no profit to be made. Entrepreneurs don't care what the NCAA's model is - if they could do it better and make a profit, they would. Venture capitalists don't go, "Aw, shucks, the NCAA exists, I guess I will forgo this wildly profitable business model and let them keep doing their thing. I don't enjoy making money." Venture capitalists make failed investments all the time. They aren't afraid of trying something with a low probability of success. The fact that no one has even TRIED the business model is hard evidence that the probability of success is at or close to zero.

I'm not "struggling" to make any point. There are no professional leagues in the U.S. in which young men graduating from high school can be paid to play either football or basketball. Were you not aware of this?
 

dpodoll68 said:
It absolutely is a claim I can back up. What do you mean "had" to do it? Who's stopping anyone from trying? There's no law that says you can't pay 18-year-olds to play basketball or football. No one tries because there is no profit to be made. Entrepreneurs don't care what the NCAA's model is - if they could do it better and make a profit, they would. Venture capitalists don't go, "Aw, shucks, the NCAA exists, I guess I will forgo this wildly profitable business model and let them keep doing their thing. I don't enjoy making money." Venture capitalists make failed investments all the time. They aren't afraid of trying something with a low probability of success. The fact that no one has even TRIED the business model is hard evidence that the probability of success is at or close to zero.

I'm not "struggling" to make any point. There are no professional leagues in the U.S. in which young men graduating from high school can be paid to play either football or basketball. Were you not aware of this?
Click to expand...

This is just because the top leagues (NFL and NBA) have agreed not to take kids right out of high school. They could change their minds any time. This can absolutely happen in hockey and baseball.

There is also nothing stopping anyone from starting a pro league that would pay kids out of high school (or younger for that matter) if the market would bear it, but the fact is, upstart football and basketball leagues are generally a failing proposition. The AFL and ABA (to some extent) were the last.
 

anyone else getting the feeling that dpoll and disco are just agreeing angrily? ;)
 


discochris said:
This is just because the top leagues (NFL and NBA) have agreed not to take kids right out of high school. They could change their minds any time. This can absolutely happen in hockey and baseball.

There is also nothing stopping anyone from starting a pro league that would pay kids out of high school (or younger for that matter) if the market would bear it, but the fact is, upstart football and basketball leagues are generally a failing proposition. The AFL and ABA (to some extent) were the last.
Click to expand...

Right...that is exactly my point. People care for some reason and insist that football and basketball players get paid. They would be paid if there were a market to bear the cost of their services. There isn't, so they aren't.
 

dpodoll68 said:
It absolutely is a claim I can back up. What do you mean "had" to do it? Who's stopping anyone from trying? There's no law that says you can't pay 18-year-olds to play basketball or football. No one tries because there is no profit to be made. Entrepreneurs don't care what the NCAA's model is - if they could do it better and make a profit, they would. Venture capitalists don't go, "Aw, shucks, the NCAA exists, I guess I will forgo this wildly profitable business model and let them keep doing their thing. I don't enjoy making money." Venture capitalists make failed investments all the time. They aren't afraid of trying something with a low probability of success. The fact that no one has even TRIED the business model is hard evidence that the probability of success is at or close to zero.

I'm not "struggling" to make any point. There are no professional leagues in the U.S. in which young men graduating from high school can be paid to play either football or basketball. Were you not aware of this?
Click to expand...
Your original post was poorly worded which is why your point wasn’t clear. To more accurately address it, you are correct that someone theoretically could start a league and target high school/college aged athletes. However to act as if its as simple as opening up a gas station across the street from another one is silly and you know it. Profit doesn’t come from the workers, it comes from the consumers and for such a league to be profitable one would need to very quickly convince consumers to watch it at a high level. It was also, theoretically, be in direct competition with the NCAA which has, oh, a hundred years of tradition and a 100% market share largely made up of fiercely loyal customers due to the emotional nature of alma maters and state/regional schools. Its not a reasonable business to attempt to start which is why nobody has done it and it’s a silly reason to argue that its not sustainable to pay players in any way. Just because one company has a monopoly doesn’t mean changes can’t or shouldn’t be made.
 

oleboy41 said:
Your original post was poorly worded which is why your point wasn’t clear. To more accurately address it, you are correct that someone theoretically could start a league and target high school/college aged athletes. However to act as if its as simple as opening up a gas station across the street from another one is silly and you know it. Profit doesn’t come from the workers, it comes from the consumers and for such a league to be profitable one would need to very quickly convince consumers to watch it at a high level. It was also, theoretically, be in direct competition with the NCAA which has, oh, a hundred years of tradition and a 100% market share largely made up of fiercely loyal customers due to the emotional nature of alma maters and state/regional schools. Its not a reasonable business to attempt to start which is why nobody has done it and it’s a silly reason to argue that its not sustainable to pay players in any way. Just because one company has a monopoly doesn’t mean changes can’t or shouldn’t be made.
Click to expand...

You're unwittingly arguing against your own point. The brand loyalty, tradition, consumer following, etc. that have been built up over time was on the schools' dime - exactly as you said, over 100+ years. They bore the risk and deserve the reward. Now guys like Nigel Hayes think they have earned a share of that reward without ever bearing any of the risk. If the owners of the resources (the schools) choose voluntarily to share those rewards with the players, that's their prerogative, but to insist that they be forced to do so is absurd. It's not the NCAA's fault (nor that of its member schools) that they offer by far the best package for 18-year-old basketball and football players.

Who said that competing against them would be easy? Not me. Do you think what Henry Ford, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, etc. have done was easy? Someone could start a league to directly compete with the NCAA, be rich and forever famous as a legend. No one does, because it is virtually guaranteed to fail. And apparently, that's the fault of the NCAA, and by god we're going to force them into an unsustainable business model because the poor athletes "deserve" so much more. Give me a break.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom