This is a very interesting piece that ran on the SB Nation Longform site a few months back. I highly recommend it.

 

Meet The Bag Man

Good article.

 

One point that mentioned is coaches having committed recruits go on a visit to another school and try to recruit the other prospects.

 

A Tennessee recruit was sent home early from either Bama or Auburn this weekend for doing just that.

Very interesting article.

 

I wonder if this kind of activity will change college football into more of a pay to play plan. Or if that would even matter.

Very interesting article.

 

I wonder if this kind of activity will change college football into more of a pay to play plan. Or if that would even matter.

 

It would probably remain in place, but not be as lucrative. Maintenance payments would likely dry up, but signing bonuses would remain huge and probably swell in the vacuum.

Good stuff! :thumb:

I've read the article before, and perhaps its because of my doubting nature, but it just doesn't pass the smell test to me.

Very interesting article.

 

I wonder if this kind of activity will change college football into more of a pay to play plan. Or if that would even matter.

 

Kind of like the guy said. If you give them $40K salaries, someone else will give them $40 more. I don't have a problem with that, it's a free market.

I've read the article before, and perhaps its because of my doubting nature, but it just doesn't pass the smell test to me.

 

 

What parts are you skeptical of?

What parts are you skeptical of?

 

If this was anywhere near as prevalent as the author indicates, wouldn't there would be a big number of players that have out of the woodwork and reported it? Sure, there have been some players that have alleged that they were paid money to attend such and such college. Just think about it: how many kids become dissatisfied and leave programs, often times angry at the schools and coaches. If the practice is as rampant as the author would have me believe, I just believe we'd be hearing about it from a lot more from players.

 

Furthermore, don't you think that at least some supporters dropping $10,000-15,000 a year are going to become dissatisfied with having to stay in the shadows, or would have a true change of moral heart, etc. and decide to fully disclose the matter (instead of doing so in the manner he did)? Heck the bag man source is obviously fine with what he's doing, so it doesn't seem to me that he made the disclosure to the author in the hope it would end the practice. So what would be the motivation for the source to tell all this stuff to the author?

 

Get the NCAA to start paying athletes $40,000? Yeah perhaps. But to me at least, the source seems to relish his role as the bag man. Besides, the source said that even if the NCAA started paying the athletes, this stuff would continue on anyway. So what exactly is the motivation of this source (and supposedly other sources) to tell the author about the practice?

 

Author may have the highest integrity in the world, but unless and until I met him and got to know him really well, I wouldn't automatically assume he does. Perhaps the Glass/New Republic incident is impacting my reasoning.

 

Or perhaps it's my cynical nature caused by being an attorney! Or perhaps it's because of all the allegations of cheating I heard when I was on the KHSAA Board. Obviously some cheating does occur but I don't think it's anywhere near the level alleged. If Mueller and Beatty illegally met with parents and players living in other districts to recruit them (as some have alleged over the years), you don't think that just one of those parents or players would have been smart enough to have the meeting/conversation recorded and then turn the recording in to the KHSAA or the local news? Ky as you are probably aware is a one-party consent to secret recording state.

 

Again, it all may be true. The sources may all be completely honest and the same with the author. I have no idea if the article is legit and I'm certainly not alleging that the sources or author are dishonest. But something just doesn't set right with me.

If this was anywhere near as prevalent as the author indicates, wouldn't there would be a big number of players that have out of the woodwork and reported it? Sure, there have been some players that have alleged that they were paid money to attend such and such college. Just think about it: how many kids become dissatisfied and leave programs, often times angry at the schools and coaches. If the practice is as rampant as the author would have me believe, I just believe we'd be hearing about it from a lot more from players.

 

Furthermore, don't you think that at least some supporters dropping $10,000-15,000 a year are going to become dissatisfied with having to stay in the shadows, or would have a true change of moral heart, etc. and decide to fully disclose the matter (instead of doing so in the manner he did)? Heck the bag man source is obviously fine with what he's doing, so it doesn't seem to me that he made the disclosure to the author in the hope it would end the practice. So what would be the motivation for the source to tell all this stuff to the author?

 

Get the NCAA to start paying athletes $40,000? Yeah perhaps. But to me at least, the source seems to relish his role as the bag man. Besides, the source said that even if the NCAA started paying the athletes, this stuff would continue on anyway. So what exactly is the motivation of this source (and supposedly other sources) to tell the author about the practice?

 

Author may have the highest integrity in the world, but unless and until I met him and got to know him really well, I wouldn't automatically assume he does. Perhaps the Glass/New Republic incident is impacting my reasoning.

 

Or perhaps it's my cynical nature caused by being an attorney! Or perhaps it's because of all the allegations of cheating I heard when I was on the KHSAA Board. Obviously some cheating does occur but I don't think it's anywhere near the level alleged. If Mueller and Beatty illegally met with parents and players living in other districts to recruit them (as some have alleged over the years), you don't think that just one of those parents or players would have been smart enough to have the meeting/conversation recorded and then turn the recording in to the KHSAA or the local news? Ky as you are probably aware is a one-party consent to secret recording state.

 

Again, it all may be true. The sources may all be completely honest and the same with the author. I have no idea if the article is legit and I'm certainly not alleging that the sources or author are dishonest. But something just doesn't set right with me.

 

I think you're being rather idealistic about this given the obscene amount of money that has entered into college football in recent decades, and the extreme pride that would motivate certain people to help out their favorite team any way they possibly can. With as much money and pride is at stake, corruption is impossible to uproot among the extremely well-connected. I would surmise that in most cases, there are also understandings that by accepting this dirty money, there will be consequences for whistle-blowers and their families.

If this was anywhere near as prevalent as the author indicates, wouldn't there would be a big number of players that have out of the woodwork and reported it? Sure, there have been some players that have alleged that they were paid money to attend such and such college. Just think about it: how many kids become dissatisfied and leave programs, often times angry at the schools and coaches. If the practice is as rampant as the author would have me believe, I just believe we'd be hearing about it from a lot more from players.

 

Furthermore, don't you think that at least some supporters dropping $10,000-15,000 a year are going to become dissatisfied with having to stay in the shadows, or would have a true change of moral heart, etc. and decide to fully disclose the matter (instead of doing so in the manner he did)? Heck the bag man source is obviously fine with what he's doing, so it doesn't seem to me that he made the disclosure to the author in the hope it would end the practice. So what would be the motivation for the source to tell all this stuff to the author?

 

Get the NCAA to start paying athletes $40,000? Yeah perhaps. But to me at least, the source seems to relish his role as the bag man. Besides, the source said that even if the NCAA started paying the athletes, this stuff would continue on anyway. So what exactly is the motivation of this source (and supposedly other sources) to tell the author about the practice?

 

Author may have the highest integrity in the world, but unless and until I met him and got to know him really well, I wouldn't automatically assume he does. Perhaps the Glass/New Republic incident is impacting my reasoning.

 

Or perhaps it's my cynical nature caused by being an attorney! Or perhaps it's because of all the allegations of cheating I heard when I was on the KHSAA Board. Obviously some cheating does occur but I don't think it's anywhere near the level alleged. If Mueller and Beatty illegally met with parents and players living in other districts to recruit them (as some have alleged over the years), you don't think that just one of those parents or players would have been smart enough to have the meeting/conversation recorded and then turn the recording in to the KHSAA or the local news? Ky as you are probably aware is a one-party consent to secret recording state.

 

Again, it all may be true. The sources may all be completely honest and the same with the author. I have no idea if the article is legit and I'm certainly not alleging that the sources or author are dishonest. But something just doesn't set right with me.

 

 

I know what you are saying with that. With the situation where you used Beatty and Mueller, or where someone might talk about a Scott County or Trinity basketball transfer, I think it's like this: when a big time school wants a kid, they would never be stupid enough to have a coach or someone like that directly contact the kid. You could have a liaison show up to some middle school games wearing your team's gear, have some third party "feelers" who may or may not be acting with your knowledge or at your discretion, but it all leaves a level of plausible deniability.

 

It's kind of like the bag guy said about the coach not really knowing exactly what to "help the program", but they have a good idea that someone is probably doing it. Like he said about what can happen with the bag men getting disheartened with the coaches, "we'll see how good of a recruiter he really is when we stop doing what we're doing".

 

Reasons you probably don't hear about it happening more:

 

#1.) Look at his point about who they pick... mama's are always the best. Mama's don't want to hurt their babies. Also, like he said, avoid the Uncle looking to be an agent and trying to start a rap label.

 

#2.) His point about keeping it in the family and keeping your guys on the payroll. No bounty systems so you are still getting paid if you are the guy who is playing hurt and so you don't cause jealousy on the time. Meeting face to face and giving small increments. That way you build trust between the bagman and the player. It's also always leaving something on the table, and that way, they could at least have an idea if someone was about to go to the media because they'd probably throw ultimatums out and all that. Once a kid starts throwing out ultimatums, then that's going to give you some time to plan a course of action to discredit them.