Bryant Gumbel

[Leroy Lizard]

“Finally tonight, a few words about crime and punishment. I’m no legal expert, not by a long shot, but I do believe that driving drunk, robbing a convenience store, and hitting your girlfriend are all worse offenses than dealing with an agent. Most people would agree with that I think except, it seems, the folks in charge of college football.

How else to explain the fact that the USC Trojans are currently on NCAA probation while the Florida Gators are not, even though Florida’s program has seen 27 different players arrested during the short tenure of Coach Urban Meyer. That’s right, by NCAA standards, 27 arrests merit not so much as an official reprimand. But dealing with a prospective agent prematurely, as former Trojan Reggie Bush did, gets your program punished for four years.

It’s not just about USC. NCAA investigations are ongoing at the Universities of Georgia, Alabama and North Carolina for the same kind of premature conversation with agents that Bush had. And it’s not just about Florida. Players at Pittsburgh, Missouri, Tennessee, Oklahoma State, Southern Mississippi, UCLA and elsewhere have also been arrested this year. But all of those programs are, by NCAA standards, in full compliance.

Look, no one’s naïve enough to think football’s ever going to be played by a bunch of choirboys. It’s not. But you’d think that NCAA officials could, at the very least, give coaches and athletic directors a reason to be as diligent about illegality as they are about eligibility – and right now they don’t. Until and unless they do, the NCAA’s idea of institutional control is anything but.”

He just doesn't understand the NCAA. It isn't a law enforcement agency.

[delhalew]

It's true...he clearly doesn't understand.

[AlbqSooner]

Jurisdiction is the word you are looking for. Loosely translated, jurisdiction means the NCAA does not have the authority to deal with the specified offenses. The offenses Gumbel attributes to Florida are not within the jurisdiction of the NCAA per se.

By way of example, I submit that failing to pay taxes when due is not as bad as hitting your girlfriend. The IRS has jurisdiction to enforce tax laws. The IRS does not have jurisdiction to enforce laws prohibiting Battery or Domestic Abuse. Hence, the IRS can put your arse in jail for failing to pay taxes when due, but cannot put you in jail for slapping your domestic partner around.

[swardboy]

Bryant Gumbel is still alive? Who knew?

[goingoneight]

While I agree that it's not right kids can be thugs and stay on a team, serve little or no suspension time and guys can quit school to go play professional sports, this isn't really an NCAA thing. It's an administrative thing. I'm all for giving a guy with a DUI a second chance, or even a guy willing to go through rehab and all the things Dusty did before he fell off of the wagon again, but also some things are too much. When you stab someone, pistol whip your girlfriend, rob somebody's store... there's not much hope for you and you deserve at least a year off like Ryan Broyles got for stealing gas. He lucked out in that his suspension could be used as a redshirt year.

[Mississippi Sooner]

Reminds me of the time when everything was unraveling at the end of the Switzer era, and media people were talking about how the Jerry Parks shooting and Charles Thompson drug mess were proof of "lack of institutional control." Even though we went on probation for some serious NCAA infractions, those criminal activities had nothing to do with it. That's not how it was spun by many, though.

[SoonerPr8r]

The athletes breaking the law are getting punished. They are being arrested and fined. If the athletes are getting off easy because they are athletes, that is when the NCAA may step in.

[TMcGee86]

To quote the King, "It's funny how no one wants to fire the English teacher when a kid gets arrested."

[Mark_in_Tulsa]

I still miss Gumbel to Gumbel.

[Soonermagik]

Let's face facts... coaches can't control what players do on their own time. That includes USC, Florida, Bama, OU etc...

Most parents have trouble controlling what their kids are doing in their spare time. How is a coach going to keep a constant watch on 50+ kids all the time?

[Leroy Lizard]

Far more than 50. Even walk-ons generate negative publicity.

Suppose an athlete gets arrested. What is the NCAA expected to do? What if he is found not guilty?

[SCOUT]

To quote the King, "It's funny how no one wants to fire the English teacher when a kid gets arrested."

Genius

[PhiDeltBeers]

Is it the coaches responsibility to keep an eye on his players at all times? I have this discussion quite frequently with a guy at my office (a Tulsa fan). He seems to think it's the coaches responsibility. Good point about the English teacher. So technically, is it the coaches responsibility?

[jkjsooner]

He just doesn't understand the NCAA. It isn't a law enforcement agency.


Agree 100%. The NCAA is concerned with competitiveness and fairness. Someone driving drunk does not threaten the competitiveness and fairness of college athletics.

Someone stealing gas does not threatent the competitiveness either. Someone being given free gas does. It may seem ironic but considering the goals of the NCAA it is completely logical.

He also ignores the fact that USC did not cooperate fully with the NCAA so the institution itself was guilty of problems not just the individual athlete.

[Mississippi Sooner]

The NCAA was first established because Teddy Roosevelt got fed up with the serious injuries and deaths that were occurring in college football.

So, if we start having murders on the field, they should definitely get involved.

[Leroy Lizard]

Someone stealing gas does not threatent the competitiveness either. Someone being given free gas does.


That's a good clarifying example.


He also ignores the fact that USC did not cooperate fully with the NCAA so the institution itself was guilty of problems not just the individual athlete.

USC fans also tend to forget this. The NCAA knows that no institution is perfect. It's how the institution conducts itself when they find out something has gone wrong that makes the difference.

[Leroy Lizard]

Is it the coaches responsibility to keep an eye on his players at all times? I have this discussion quite frequently with a guy at my office (a Tulsa fan). He seems to think it's the coaches responsibility. Good point about the English teacher. So technically, is it the coaches responsibility?

IMO, it is the coaches' responsibility:

1. Not bring in players that have a higher risk of causing trouble.
2. To not place players in a position that invites trouble.
3. Take responsible action once trouble occurs.

This is why I don't bag on Urban Meyer. He can't prevent an athlete from getting a DUI. He can take action once it happens. From what I can tell, he has done his job. (Although I'm not sure about #1.)

What was Switzer's problem in 1988? Possibly #1, but that's about all.

[Mississippi Sooner]

IMO, it is the coaches' responsibility:

1. Not bring in players that have a higher risk of causing trouble.
2. To not place players in a position that invites trouble.
3. Take responsible action once trouble occurs.

This is why I don't bag on Urban Meyer. He can't prevent an athlete from getting a DUI. He can take action once it happens. From what I can tell, he has done his job. (Although I'm not sure about #1.)

What was Switzer's problem in 1988? Possibly #1, but that's about all.

Pretty much, the way I remember it. They'd been bringing in guys from South Central LA. That worked out great in regards to a quarterback that took us to a national championship. Not so great for some of the others.

Charles Thompson, on the other hand, was from Lawton. Sometimes, it's just hard to predict.

[OUthunder]

I thought he was working for the Golf Channel or something.

[Sooner04]

and that's our show for tonight.


Real Sports is a REALLY good show.

[PhiDeltBeers]

IMO, it is the coaches' responsibility:

1. Not bring in players that have a higher risk of causing trouble.
2. To not place players in a position that invites trouble.
3. Take responsible action once trouble occurs.

This is why I don't bag on Urban Meyer. He can't prevent an athlete from getting a DUI. He can take action once it happens. From what I can tell, he has done his job. (Although I'm not sure about #1.)

What was Switzer's problem in 1988? Possibly #1, but that's about all.

My argument with that is: how can the coach be responsible for 100 students between the ages of 18-23? Does the coaches income justify that responsibility over say the English teacher? Then again, I understand that the players are a representative of the coach. I hate it when our players get in trouble, but have a tough time throwing the blame on Stoops.

[Soonerwake]

Pretty much, the way I remember it. They'd been bringing in guys from South Central LA. That worked out great in regards to a quarterback that took us to a national championship. Not so great for some of the others.

Charles Thompson, on the other hand, was from Lawton. Sometimes, it's just hard to predict.

As a student at that time, I'll tell you that the QB from LA was lucky that he wasn't the one on the cover of SI in handcuffs. That whole situation turned out exactly the opposite of the way I remember things back then.

[Soonerwake]

I think we have to be realistic. The coach's job is to win football games. I agree that there are alot of other variables and "duties as assigned", but his job is to win. Period...

[Mississippi Sooner]

As a student at that time, I'll tell you that the QB from LA was lucky that he wasn't the one on the cover of SI in handcuffs. That whole situation turned out exactly the opposite of the way I remember things back then.

Yeah, I remember a picture of Jamelle back then, all decked out and pimpin' in this long fur coat. I thought, wow, that's a disaster waiting to happen.

[TMcGee86]

I still miss Gumbel to Gumbel.

Beach Justice!

[Leroy Lizard]

Pretty much, the way I remember it. They'd been bringing in guys from South Central LA. That worked out great in regards to a quarterback that took us to a national championship. Not so great for some of the others.

Charles Thompson, on the other hand, was from Lawton. Sometimes, it's just hard to predict.

Actually, Charles had been in trouble before he was recruited. Shoplifting and assault, I believe.

Jamelle was from Carson, btw.

[Leroy Lizard]

My argument with that is: how can the coach be responsible for 100 students between the ages of 18-23? Does the coaches income justify that responsibility over say the English teacher? Then again, I understand that the players are a representative of the coach. I hate it when our players get in trouble, but have a tough time throwing the blame on Stoops.

I don't see how your observation disagrees with mine. Nowhere did I say the coach was responsible for the players' off-the-field antics. He is responsible, however, for doing something about it once it happens.

[Lott's Bandana]

Gumbel is the guy who stated on an earlier episode of his same series, after a segment about the RRR...

"Cal/Stanford, Yale/Harvard, even Arizona/Arizona State are much bigger rivalry games than Oklahoma/Texas."

The look on Bernie Goldberg's face after Gumby made that utterance of baffoonery was an absolute Stealth Facepalm.

[PhiDeltBeers]

I don't see how your observation disagrees with mine. Nowhere did I say the coach was responsible for the players' off-the-field antics. He is responsible, however, for doing something about it once it happens.

The reason you don't see how my observation disagrees with yours is because it doesn't. I agree he is responsible for cleaning up any mishaps. I simply stated that my argument on the matter, as a whole, is how can he be responsible for everyones actions? I understand you didn't say that. I just don't understand why some people do.

[StoopTroup]

He just doesn't understand the NCAA. It isn't a law enforcement agency.

See...I disagree.

Gumbel doesn't do this stuff because he doesn't understand what jurisdiction is or that the NCAA isn't a Law Enforcement Agency....he does it because he gets ratings when he does stupid ****. He's plenty smart in the sport of Football.

Your delusional to think he doesn't understand. The guy is very well educated and knows exactly what he's doing. He didn't get to the level he is as a Broadcaster without doing what it takes to make his shows popular. He does this stuff on purpose.


Gumbel is the guy who stated on an earlier episode of his same series, after a segment about the RRR...

"Cal/Stanford, Yale/Harvard, even Arizona/Arizona State are much bigger rivalry games than Oklahoma/Texas."

The look on Bernie Goldberg's face after Gumby made that utterance of baffoonery was an absolute Stealth Facepalm.

I remember that. Nobody makes the Gumby look bad. Not so much for Bernie though....some folks will take him on any time...anywhere....lol

2zlEmq35NJU

[agoo758]

Agree 100%. The NCAA is concerned with competitiveness and fairness. Someone driving drunk does not threaten the competitiveness and fairness of college athletics.

Someone stealing gas does not threatent the competitiveness either. Someone being given free gas does. It may seem ironic but considering the goals of the NCAA it is completely logical.



How is contacting an NFL agent while you're in college threaten the competitiveness and fairness of college athletics?

[StoopTroup]

How is contacting an NFL agent while you're in college threaten the competitiveness and fairness of college athletics?

At the very least...unless the NCAA starts letting Agents contact them...the reputable Agents (I'm not sure there are very many of those) aren't getting fair treatment and the Athletes are probably being lied to also.

Now...at present any kid who might be a room mate of one of these kids, who is getting perks from an agent, isn't getting the perks because of his play, performance or ability...he's getting perks because of who his room mate is. Not every kid is going to get a room mate that is capable of getting perks from an Agent so maybe a rich Uncle wants to just give him perks. Can't do that either. If an agent can give a kid perks...then a booster or a rich Uncle or whoever should be able to do the same.

There's your fairness. Switzer commented on this a long time ago...He thought the Universities had plenty in their budgets to help many of these kids with spending dough while they were in College. Not so said the NCAA. Matter of fact...I believe his views were exactly why the NCAA came after OU back in the day. They don't like being told how to do their business.

[agoo758]

At the very least...unless the NCAA starts letting Agents contact them...the reputable Agents (I'm not sure there are very many of those) aren't getting fair treatment and the Athletes are probably being lied to also.

Now...at present any kid who might be a room mate of one of these kids, who is getting perks from an agent, isn't getting the perks because of his play, performance or ability...he's getting perks because of who his room mate is. Not every kid is going to get a room mate that is capable of getting perks from an Agent so maybe a rich Uncle wants to just give him perks. Can't do that either. If an agent can give a kid perks...then a booster or a rich Uncle or whoever should be able to do the same.

There's your fairness. Switzer commented on this a long time ago...He thought the Universities had plenty in their budgets to help many of these kids with spending dough while they were in College. Not so said the NCAA. Matter of fact...I believe his views were exactly why the NCAA came after OU back in the day. They don't like being told how to do their business.


I don't disagree with a thing you said, but if everyone is with you on that statement, why is there such a backlash on everyone, including agents, who is capable of giving money to student-athletes instead of just saying, "you know what, just let whoever wants to give money to these athletes, just let them do so, it's not a big deal."?

My question that sums up all of this debate is as follows: Other than the fact that it is against the rules, what is morally wrong about giving these players money?

[StoopTroup]

I don't disagree with a thing you said, but if everyone is with you on that statement, why is there such a backlash on everyone, including agents, who is capable of giving money to student-athletes instead of just saying, "you know what, just let whoever wants to give money to these athletes, just let them do so, it's not a big deal."?

My question that sums up all of this debate is as follows: Other than the fact that it is against the rules, what is morally wrong about giving these players money?

Probably because they aren't Coaching a Team to National Championships and being called a cheater? It's the Coaches, athletes and the schools that are unable to speak up on this. I'd like to see a change in the money thing but as far as the agents are concerned....no contracts should be allowed until the player commits and if they want to give some kid money for nothing in return...I say let them roll the dice. I think it would be funny to watch these kids roll them like bums.

[Leroy Lizard]

I don't disagree with a thing you said, but if everyone is with you on that statement, why is there such a backlash on everyone, including agents, who is capable of giving money to student-athletes instead of just saying, "you know what, just let whoever wants to give money to these athletes, just let them do so, it's not a big deal."?

My question that sums up all of this debate is as follows: Other than the fact that it is against the rules, what is morally wrong about giving these players money?

There is nothing morally or even ethically wrong (imo) as far as the agents are concerned. On the NCAA side, however, having agents give players money creates an unequal playing field and destroys the amateurism of the game. If star players are driving brand new cars given to them because of their play, they are no longer amateur athletes.

Why should the NCAA care? Because once you have stars being showered with tons of money, the entire academic environment on campus erodes.

And it isn't just the university presidents that worry. Coaches don't want such a situation because the rich players are tough to coach and the poor players tough to motivate. It's not like the pros where a players' funds can be cut off if they act like jackasses.

[Leroy Lizard]

Your delusional to think he doesn't understand. The guy is very well educated...


:confused:

[stoopified]

Until the NCAA passes a rule that felonyarrests are grounds for automatic dismissal from NCAA member schools , NCAA rules violations get you tossed and crimes may or may not depending on the coach.

[Seamus]

So, if we start having murders on the field, they should definitely get involved.

It's already happened.

The Date: Sept. 16, 2006. The Crime Scene: Eugene, Ore. The Victim: Justice.

Condition: DOA.

[TMcGee86]

I don't disagree with a thing you said, but if everyone is with you on that statement, why is there such a backlash on everyone, including agents, who is capable of giving money to student-athletes instead of just saying, "you know what, just let whoever wants to give money to these athletes, just let them do so, it's not a big deal."?

My question that sums up all of this debate is as follows: Other than the fact that it is against the rules, what is morally wrong about giving these players money?

It's not about morals, that's where Gumble is wrong as well. It's about competitive balance. You allow teams to pay the players and all of the sudden the UT's of the world are at an extreme advantage because of the fact that they have a huge bank. The Boise's of the world can't compete.

The NCAA has decided that they are best served with a level playing field. To put any dollar amount as acceptable would immediately put the poorest schools at a disadvantage.

[Leroy Lizard]

Until the NCAA passes a rule that felonyarrests are grounds for automatic dismissal from NCAA member schools...

What if you are acquitted?

[Crucifax Autumn]

Why am I thinking of Family Guy?

[Lott's Bandana]

Why am I thinking of Family Guy?


Because you're eating Cool Hwhip?

[Crucifax Autumn]

Heh.

There is some in the fridge.

[texaspokieokie]

Actually, Charles had been in trouble before he was recruited. Shoplifting and assault, I believe.

Jamelle was from Carson, btw.

Jamelle may(or may not) have lived in carson, but he went to hi school @ banning which is in wilmington. located @ corner of avalon & pch. not a beautiful city.

OU has had others from banning, but the only one that comes to mind is Stanley Wilson.

[jkjsooner]

Until the NCAA passes a rule that felonyarrests are grounds for automatic dismissal from NCAA member schools , NCAA rules violations get you tossed and crimes may or may not depending on the coach.

I'm not totally against that. I wouldn't be against the NCAA considering it reception of improper benefits any time someone committed theft. That could remove the irony in the situation I described earlier. I would want the NCAA to be only a passive authority in legal matters and require that the player be convicted before the NCAA took action. (Such requirements are not necessary for legal actions that break NCAA law.)

I still say, if the NCAA doesn't do that it doesn't mean they're hypocritical.

[jkjsooner]

How is contacting an NFL agent while you're in college threaten the competitiveness and fairness of college athletics?

First, I'm not against a player contacting an agent as long as no financial agreements are made and no money is exchanged.

I am against agents contacting players simply because there has been a history of agents hanging around / harrassing players on campus and that is something everyone would like to avoid.

As far as receiving money from agents, there is the risk that agents could be proxies for the universities/boosters.

I do agree that the agent issue is a separate issue than most NCAA rules and the reasoning isn't all about keeping a level playing field.

[Leroy Lizard]

Jamelle may(or may not) have lived in carson, but he went to hi school @ banning which is in wilmington. located @ corner of avalon & pch. not a beautiful city.

OU has had others from banning, but the only one that comes to mind is Stanley Wilson.

Both Jamelle and Stanley had similar problems, didn't they?

[Leroy Lizard]

I'm not totally against that. I wouldn't be against the NCAA considering it reception of improper benefits any time someone committed theft. That could remove the irony in the situation I described earlier. I would want the NCAA to be only a passive authority in legal matters and require that the player be convicted before the NCAA took action. (Such requirements are not necessary for legal actions that break NCAA law.)

I still say, if the NCAA doesn't do that it doesn't mean they're hypocritical.

What about possession of MJ? It's a serious crime in some states, not so serious in others.

Felonies are easy. Get a felony, you're out. The NCAA could do something about felonies. But the severity of misdemeanors lies all over the place.