mogrits on 
AParker on 
Willy Mac on For those of you who don’t follow college football year-round, then don’t worry, because you probably are not reading this right now and it doesn’t matter anyways. For you non-dorks, then you probably have been hearing all about “Agent-gate”, or as I call it, “Come up with a less generic name for this story-gate”. Anyways, the reason I bring this up is because I’m pretty sure I know why all of this has become such a problem, and to whom exactly we can point our Fingers O’ Blame at for this mess: The NFL, the NFL Player’s Union, and most importantly, the NFL Draft.
“But Block C, we love the NFL and the NFL Draft, and don’t really know what the hell a Player’s Union is, so why are you blaming them for college kids talking to and/or taking money from agents?” Good question, trusty reader and the answer is simple, for which I will try and explain shortly.
Sports Illustrated recently came out with their 2010 Fortunate 50, which is a list of the fifty highest paid athletes based on the athletes’ salary plus endorsements. In the Top 15, there were only three NFL players and coming in at number nine was the most obvious, Peyton Manning. He’s a really great player and he will sponsor anything, so Peyton being the highest paid football player is understandable. But do you know who the second highest paid football player was last year? The number one overall pick in 2009’s NFL Draft, Matthew Stafford. That’s right, a guy who never had taken a snap in the NFL, a guy, who had at the time of the signing of his contract, had never proven to even have the ability to play in the league, yet he is the second highest paid athlete in football. In fact, Matthew Stafford’s base salary was higher than any other player in the NFL. Higher than three-time Super Bowl winner Tom Brady. Higher than four-time MVP winner Peyton Manning. On top of that, there are three other players from last year’s draft on this list. At number 28 was Oakland’s seventh overall pick, Darrius Heyward-Bey ($21.5 million), number 33 was St. Louis’s second overall pick, Jason Smith ($20.5 million), and number 48 was the Jets’ fifth overall pick, Mark Sanchez ($17 million). That baffles the mind beyond insanity.
And there in lies the root of our agent problem. These agents come to college athletes and can promise these kids that they can be the highest paid player in the pros without even having to play a down. And as of right now, these agents are 100% percent correct when they make these promises. So, this is where the NFL, the NFL Player’s Union, and the owners have to strike a new clause in their upcoming Collective Bargaining Agreement that puts a cap on rookie salaries based on draft position. The NBA has this rule in place and how often do you hear about college basketball player’s getting in trouble talking to agents? Never (however illegal recruiting is an entirely different beast). MLB has a rule similar to this and you never hear about problems with agents in their sport, and baseball players make more money than players from any of the other sports.
So, if the NFL were to implement this rookie cap, then agents can no longer promise unheard of amounts of money to these college players, which in turn makes their sales pitch hollow. It would not get rid of the problem, but it would help keep the vultures at bay. On the other hand, it might backfire and cause agents to resort to even dirtier tactics to sign the soon-to-be pros. But you do have to look at the NBA and MLB and take note that they don’t have any agent problems like college football and they have rookie caps that seem to work fine. If they don’t do this (which I’m fairly sure they will), not only will this problem continue, but it will benefit the NFL. It would help teams who end up crippling themselves by paying tons of money to high draft picks who turn out to be busts (cough ….. Jamarcus Russell ….cough) and especially to help crappy small market teams free up cap space for free agents, since they have troubles signing free agents anyways (cough …… Buffalo …….cough …….. Cleveland ……cough ……LeBron James …….cough ……..just wanted to find a way to mention his backstabbing ……cough). In other words, it’s a win-win for everybody, so why wouldn’t they do it?
On a side note, I wanted to congratulate Sakerlina on their recent Baseball National Championship. It only took your school 120 years to win the school’s First ever men’s national championship, which puts the Gamecocks on a pace to win the first school football championship around the year 3348. It’s too bad that by then, the earth will probably be overrun by zombies or robots, or worse, zombie robots.
"I found it funny that when I googled 'zombie robot', that a picture of Celine Dion came up in the results.
1Riggs
on Jul 29, 2010 at 8:19 am:
This is one of my favorite reads in a while, and that’s not just because the zombie-robot thing . . . okay, it’s the zombie-robot thing.
2tyge
on Jul 29, 2010 at 8:26 am:
I agree with you to a point. This agent problem isn’t as big of a deal as ESPN would have you think it is. Every year, the top 15 players in the draft combined make more money than the rest of the draft combined. That is absolutely ridiculous. They need to adopt a rookie wage scale similar to what they have in the NBA. However, how many players can these agents realistically promise that payday to? Probably about 40-50 (32 legit first rounders plus around 15 other guys with first round potential). This amounts to a very small percentage of college players. Does that mean there isn’t a problem? Of course not, but the problem isn’t as wide reaching as some would have you think. A lot of these kids are looking to get paid, and if it doesn’t come from an agent, it will come from somewhere else if you catch my drift.
Do you really think that college basketball doesn’t have an agent problem? Really? Are we talking about the same sport where kid’s are going to college for a semester and then not going to any classes to focus on basketball? Really?
3Sambo
on Jul 29, 2010 at 1:38 pm:
Yes, but those 40-50 players are the best players on the best teams, meaning that the best schools have the most to gain from their play, but the most to lose b/c of these agents going after their players, and it only takes one player to screw it up for everybody (i.e. Reggie Bush).
And yes, the one-and-doners are a problem, but that’s expected when schools recruit them, but the guys who go high in the draft but also stay in school two, three, and four years don’t seem to get in trouble with agents, at least, I’ve never heard of any.
4Beau
on Jul 29, 2010 at 6:07 pm:
Rather wait 3348 years for a football title than win one tainted one that my rival’s fans are gonna constantly remind me of it’s shadiness. Colin Cowherd even cracked on you guys yesterday and how long you’ve been celebrating that “championship” in 1981.
BTW, pretty amusing to scroll down and see how consistent the blog entries were…and then right around the time the Gamecocks sent the taters packing in Omaha…again…they stop. lol
5Chili
on Jul 29, 2010 at 6:18 pm:
@4 First of all, it would be “its shadiness” not “it’s shadiness.” Nice education, there.
You lost me when you quoted Cowherd. Colin Cowherd, seriously?
Why the quotation marks? Oh, I see you are trying to negate its relevance or legitimacy. The NCAA has taken no action against that team, not even demanding real or air quotes be placed around said title when discussing it. Anyway, Sakerlina has a long history of its own issues in football (steroids, et. al) and never even managed to win while cheating.
As for the baseball entries, they were constant as long as Willy Mac was in Omaha. Are we really expected to cover Sakerlina’s wins?
Also, why are you here?
6Beau
on Jul 29, 2010 at 7:19 pm:
Oh good grief. Spelling errors? Really? I’m already ahead in the this exchange. When your rebuttal begins with spelling corrections, you’re struggling…
Have some more quotation marks…
“On November 21, 1982, the football program was placed on probation for a 2-year period to include the 1983 and 1984 seasons. This sanction was enforced on the program by the NCAA Committee on Infractions due to a lengthy history of recruiting violations to gain an athletic advantage that had taken place from 1977 through the Tigers’ 1981 National Championship season and into 1982, under the administration of two head coaches, Charlie Pell and Danny Ford. The Atlantic Coast Conference imposed a third year of conference penalty.
Over 150 documented violations were found to have been committed under NCAA bylaws in the categories of improper recruiting inducements, extra benefits to student-athletes, ethical conduct, improper financial aid, improper campus visits, improper transportation and entertainment, improper use of funds, improper employment, improper recruiting contact, and distribution of cash to players by members of the coaching staff.[1]
As a result of these violations, Clemson was barred from participating in bowl games following the 1982 and 1983 seasons, and barred from appearing on live television in the 1983 and 1984 seasons. Also, the number of scholarships that the university could allocate to football players was restricted to 20 (from the normal limit of 30) for the 1983-84 and 1984-85 academic years. The Tigers, however, were allowed to keep their 1978 and 1981 ACC titles as well as the 1981 national title.”
Allowed to keep those titles. Wow, you guys must be so proud. LOL!
No, you didn’t hafta to cover our wins…but it is pretty amusing to see baseball coverage, baseball coverage, baseball coverage…nothing…it’s like the rapture occured and Clemson baseball disappeared into thin air.
7Willy Mac
on Jul 29, 2010 at 8:14 pm:
Actually to tell you the truth, I covered what, one week of baseball? You can check the record, we’ve been pretty much absent for most of the warm weather months.
Also, dude, seriously. You seem to have that same sourness that accompanies gamecock fans everywhere. Eww. Yucky. Take the attitude, and your tire retreading buddies and crawl back to what ever messageboard you came from.
8Chili
on Jul 29, 2010 at 8:39 pm:
I should probably just move on from this whole thing. Anyway, I think his main points are that we cheated to win the title in 81 that we still talk about incessantly and that we gave inadequate coverage to the losses to the Gamecocks in baseball. Surely there’s some truth to all of those, but what title winning schools didn’t have their own issues? Until Clemson experiences some kind of great success (ACC Title, BCS bowl victory, BCS Championship) I don’t think it’s ridiculous for ’81 to still be the measuring stick and a point of conversation. I still hear Sakerlina fans blabber on about “Black Magic” all the time, so what? Again, though, don’t sit here and reference Colin Cowherd. You’re better than that, Beau, surely. That guy is a cunt, and nobody from the Pacific Northwest should have their opinion on college football taken seriously by anyone, especially not Southerners.
9Sambo
on Jul 29, 2010 at 9:07 pm:
Clemson Football Championships – 1
Sakerlina Football Championships – 0
Scoreboard.
10Daniel
on Jul 29, 2010 at 10:55 pm:
MOVE ON. WE WON THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP IN 1981. 29 years have passed since then…Pretty safe bet it won’t be taken away by the NCAA.
How about you go have your best season ever ended by NAVY. That was what, ’84? Got your first bowl win 11 years later? Most recently, Gamecock football was last seen losing to the powerhouse that is Connecticut in some who-gives-a-shit bowl game.
And yes, to address the other Cock talking point, I realize the SEC is a more difficult conference than the ACC but it’s your own fault you can’t compete in it. Being in a powerhouse conference does not make you a powerhouse program.
11Douche.O
on Jul 30, 2010 at 7:49 am:
@4
I give all due credit to South Carolina winning the College Baseball World Series, good job dicks……errr, Cocks. With that said, please don’t come on to our message board talking shit about something damn near thirty years ago. Clemson doesn’t have to rub that national championship in Sakerlina’s face, we just point to our record against you;
65-38-4
I think that speaks for itself. Run along now, I’m sure there is some glue to be sniffed or a spot at ITT to be applied for, you must not waste time.
12Willy Mac
on Jul 30, 2010 at 10:08 am:
@11 – Tigernet humor equals frowny face
13Douche.O
on Jul 30, 2010 at 11:57 am:
@ 12- Sorry I will try to step my game up. I have never seen said Tigernet, however I will refrain from cheap, cock related humor.
14Willy Mac
on Jul 30, 2010 at 7:31 pm:
13 – Oh no, cheap cock related humor is fine if you stick to dick jokes. Sorry for being so forward, it just made me have that tickly feeling in the back of my throat when I read it.
15A770Tiger
on Jul 30, 2010 at 11:58 pm:
Beau, congrats on your team’s win and first title. That being said, if you have enough brain matter to research our history why in the world weren’t you smart enough to pick an institution better than Carolina? They picked a chicken as a fucking mascot! The fans revel in calling themselves cocks–of course, we enjoy calling them that too. They eat their own mascot on a sandwich if their football team scores 21 points. Their stadium sits among dilapidated fair grounds. Lou Holtz and Steve Spurrier haven’t been able to win with them. They hide behind their conference brothers’ reputation. They parade around a rooster on a stick. Damn son, you seem to be fairly literate, but you went full fucking tard in making yourself a cock. That is your fault, not ours. So, find a 12-step program or call Doctor Phil to help you overcome, and quit trying to make yourself feel better by projecting the negativity of your dumb-ass mistakes onto us. Your team won a title after more than a century of trying, way to go, now get the cock out of your mouth, your head out of your ass, quit hating on us, and learn Tiger Rag as a first step to joining an institution you can be proud of. Oh, and GO TIGERS!!!!!