re: Confessions of an Agent

Yeah man, it is debatable. Smearing past players' names principally and immediately hurts those people, some of whom are 20 years removed from that situation -- and some of whom are dead and without opportunity to comment on his story. It also hurts players he didn't pay, as well as other agents and/or players who *may* not have participated in the "pay-to-play" game he was playing.

It is confirmed that the guy worked with some pretty big named people. At least some inherent credibility is afforded by his resume. Had he given his story without naming any names, SI, as good journalists, should have gotten the list of his clients and associates and done their own legwork (which they did, albeit with all the beans spilled). Again, he didn't necessarily have to name names -- it is like the little black book kept by a Hollywood madam. She admits she's a whore and we all know she's a whore -- the question is the scope of her whorishness. It scares people to think that she might make that black book public and she's given a forum to make her statement.

Like Guster said, people can get more entertainment value out of having the names included. And like Freek said, the system might really need to be completely overhauled. I'm fine with both of those comments. The truth is what it is, but large, systemic issues should be addressed proactively and with prospective purpose by those who can actually effect change. I think this guy had an opportunity to approach those people, but chose a different path from the get-go.

The fact is that the primary reason he tore other people down is because he is pissed about the way he got booted from that career due to questionable practices and he didn't want his kids to Google "Dad agent scum" and have his picture be the only one that popped up.

I can't see the link.

What was said about Kiper?

quote:

---

The fact is that the primary reason he tore other people down is because he is pissed about the way he got booted from that career due to questionable practices and he didn't want his kids to Google "Dad agent scum" and have his picture be the only one that popped up.

---

I agree with this whole-heartedly, and I do not think he has achieved his goal.

That being said, I do not think his story has any legs without names. Imagine the Mitchell Report, without names. Would anyone have cared if it came out and said 320 previous players used roids, but we won't say their names?!? Of course not.

The agent is about to be interviewed on the Dan Patrick show right now... www.danpatrick.com

quote:

---

Allowing agents to start paying athletes would start the end of college athletics as we know it. Agents would have so much invested in student athletes they would begin making decisions for the athletes. They would most likely have a say in which school would be best for the athlete to give them the the best future payoff. They may even make decisions about whether a player plays injured or not or get enough reps. Money and power and greed would begin to corrupt college sports beyond repair.

---

Hard for me not to agree with this. As far as I am concerned there is no amateur athletics any more. Power corrupts, and in that corruption, money is never too far behind. The kids get a scholarship, but the NCAA, et al get a billion dollars. Paying the palyers at any level at any time opens a new set of problems and a new set of inintended consequences. As for Luchs, it's obvious he didn't spend his waking moments in church at communion posing for holy pictures, but I believe him. He talks like he had the juice, and if you read the whole article, it is impressive about how many people named refused to return phone calls or clammed up. AS for Kiper, I BELIEVE EVRYTHING IN THAT ARTICLE ABOUT HIM. It would be interesting to hire someone who knows nothing about college football, build a Chinese wall, and see if Kiper's ratings don't somehow reveal a correlation between his ratings and his link with any agents. I am guessing yes.

This is the same problem that prosecutors have with offering immunity to a witness. Without the sleazy bastard's testimony, you have no evidence of the crime. You just have to hope your sleazy witness doesn't look worse than the other sleazy bastard on trial.

I find the whole article to be very believable. And yeah, he does come off as a sleazeball but it doesn't damage the credibility of the article IMO.

I have to say; after reading several articles that are out now and listening to Mel Kiper's explanations I think Mel Kiper should be fired.

He was clearly helping this agent sign kids during the recruitment process and it is not a stretch the believe he was getting paid for it.

You can say what you like about the agent but a pretty significant number of players have already confirmed his story and Kiper confirmed the phone calls, if not the motivation.

Pretty sad and ESPN should axe him today.

They will not because there is no integrity there either but it pretty scandalous, IMHO.

quote:

---

I can't see the link.

What was said about Kiper?

---

quote:

---

Gary also used his contacts in the media to help him recruit. In 2000, before a meeting with Stanford defensive lineman Willie Howard, Gary arranged for ESPN draft analyst Mel Kiper to call. Gary and I were talking to Willie in Gary's office when Gary's phone rang, and he put it on speakerphone.

"Viper, how are you?" Gary said. That's what he called Mel, Viper or Vipe. "Viper, I'm sitting here with the best defensive lineman in college football. Do you know who that is?"

"You must be with Willie Howard," Mel said.

Gary used Mel like that all the time. In the agent business, people know Gary and Mel are close, and some people suspect that Mel ranks players more favorably if they are Gary's clients.

---