OT: How Texas A&M paid over $50,000 to get Cedric Ogbuehi back for 2014

[Whitey23]

HOOVER, Ala. -- The biggest recruiting trip Kevin Sumlin and his staff took last winter did not involve any five-star prospect.

Some sites had once listed the guy as a three-star prospect, others had him as a four-star, but Sumlin's Texas A&M staff was way past any of that. They knew they were dealing with a sure-fire starter and likely All-American talent.

That's why the Aggies head coach didn't do the home visit alone when he went to see the player and his parents about a half hour outside of Dallas. It was Sumlin, A&M O-line coach B.J. Anderson, Aggie associate AD for football Justin Moore and veteran director of football operations Gary Reynolds.

But this pitch was different than any that Sumlin or his staffers would give on any other home visit – and it involved the school paying more than $50,000 to reel their blue-chipper back in.


http://msn.foxsports.com/college-fo...-grand-top-nfl-prospect-cedric-ogbuehi-071614

 

[billsin01]

HOOVER, Ala. -- The biggest recruiting trip Kevin Sumlin and his staff took last winter did not involve any five-star prospect.

Some sites had once listed the guy as a three-star prospect, others had him as a four-star, but Sumlin's Texas A&M staff was way past any of that. They knew they were dealing with a sure-fire starter and likely All-American talent.

That's why the Aggies head coach didn't do the home visit alone when he went to see the player and his parents about a half hour outside of Dallas. It was Sumlin, A&M O-line coach B.J. Anderson, Aggie associate AD for football Justin Moore and veteran director of football operations Gary Reynolds.

But this pitch was different than any that Sumlin or his staffers would give on any other home visit – and it involved the school paying more than $50,000 to reel their blue-chipper back in.


http://msn.foxsports.com/college-fo...-grand-top-nfl-prospect-cedric-ogbuehi-071614

This story is ... I don't even know. Absurd, I guess. It's unreal and there are so many things wrong here that I'm not sure where to start. I guess I'll narrow it down to two things:

1) This sort of underscores my whole point that SU deciding to 'operate on a budget' is completely pointless.

2) Is it really student assistance if the kid could go to the draft and be a 1st rounder? Wouldn't that be the exact opposite of 'assisting the student.' Instead, the school blows a ton of cash, the player takes an unnecessary risk and loses a year of his potential NFL career, which is pretty likely to relatively short anyway (based on percentages).

Everyone loses.

 

[TheCusian]

Classic link bait. Lead with the juicy headline to get views.

Actual story is interesting. If it's within the rules? No problem with it.

 

[Full_Rebar]

The fact that it's within the rules to pay that much for insurance to keep a kid out of the draft, yet it isn't in the rules to provide long-term health care or even to guarantee a multi-year scholarship is a problem. Like some of the quotes say, it certainly opens up a can of worms moving forward.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

The only person this transaction makes sense for is the insurance companies. Unless it's an Isaiah Austin type issue I can't imagine them ever paying these out. They'll just keep collecting those insurance premiums. I have a hard time believing the insurance company will willingly dole out the policy for M. Lee because he didn't go in the first round. M. Lee would have had to prove that he would have been a 100% lock which is almost impossible.

That insurance company will lawyer up like the move 'The Rainmaker'. The whole process is flawed.

As a finance guy I give credit to the athletes for attempting to hedge their decisions but I just find it difficult to believe it's cost effective.

 

[texascpa]

The only person this transaction makes sense for is the insurance companies. Unless it's an Isaiah Austin type issue I can't imagine them ever paying these out. They'll just keep collecting those insurance premiums. I have a hard time believing the insurance company will willingly dole out the policy for M. Lee because he didn't go in the first round. M. Lee would have had to prove that he would have been a 100% lock which is almost impossible.

That insurance company will lawyer up like the move 'The Rainmaker'. The whole process is flawed.

As a finance guy I give credit to the athletes for attempting to hedge their decisions but I just find it difficult to believe it's cost effective.

Your avatar is befitting of your skepticism.

 

[billsin01]

Classic link bait. Lead with the juicy headline to get views.

Actual story is interesting. If it's within the rules? No problem with it.

So are you saying they aren't breaking any rules or are you saying that coercing a first-round lock to stay in college with almost no benefit to him is not all that bad? I think it's bad on both parts but I think it's really distasteful to do anything other than encourage him to move on to the next level.

 

[TheCusian]

So are you saying they aren't breaking any rules or are you saying that coercing a first-round lock to stay in college with almost no benefit to him is not all that bad? I think it's bad on both parts but I think it's really distasteful to do anything other than encourage him to move on to the next level.

I will leave the parsing of the rules to the NCAA. If it's legal - I don't have any problem with it. Kid was clearly weighing his future earnings and the fear of injury vs his desire to stay. The school helped ease his concern - which helped him make a decision. Not sure how it's distasteful?

 

[billsin01]

I will leave the parsing of the rules to the NCAA. If it's legal - I don't have any problem with it. Kid was clearly weighing his future earnings and the fear of injury vs his desire to stay. The school helped ease his concern - which helped him make a decision. Not sure how it's distasteful?

In a bunch of ways:

1) You're raiding a 'student assistance program', which is set up to help students in need. So, what is the need here? An insurance policy so you can feel better about going back to school instead of signing a 7-figure NFL contract? That's a choice, not a need.

2) You're not only using those funds but you're using $60K of those funds for what is likely an insurance policy that will never pay out?

3) In no way, shape or form -- when you fly all your coaches out and set an athlete up with an insurance policy -- are you helping him make the right decision. You're coercing him to go back to school b/c you know he can help you win games.

4) There is almost no chance that this benefits the athlete in the long run. Maybe, just maybe, he increases his draft position, but even that gain is probably negated by the fact that it'll cut his professional career short by a year.

At the end of the day, if a kid can get drafted in the first round of the NFL draft, he should either be gone that day, or going back to college b/c he simply likes it and/or feels it's beneficial in the long run. I don't get that sense at all with this deal.

 

[TheCusian]

In a bunch of ways:

1) You're raiding a 'student assistance program', which is set up to help students in need. So, what is the need here? An insurance policy so you can feel better about going back to school instead of signing a 7-figure NFL contract? That's a choice, not a need.

2) You're not only using those funds but you're using $60K of those funds for what is likely an insurance policy that will never pay out?

3) In no way, shape or form -- when you fly all your coaches out and set an athlete up with an insurance policy -- are you helping him make the right decision. You're coercing him to go back to school b/c you know he can help you win games.

4) There is almost no chance that this benefits the athlete in the long run. Maybe, just maybe, he increases his draft position, but even that gain is probably negated by the fact that it'll cut his professional career short by a year.

At the end of the day, if a kid can get drafted in the first round of the NFL draft, he should either be gone that day, or going back to college b/c he simply likes it and/or feels it's beneficial in the long run. I don't get that sense at all with this deal.

1. Didn't catch that the 1st time around. That is distasteful.

2. Insurance is always not needed - until it is. That's the nature of insurance.

3. We'll probably end up agreeing to disagree on this one. "Coerce" means you're somehow removing the choice from the athlete. I didn't get that sense. I got that they were removing a worry about the future from the equation.

4. Almost no chance? That's kind of a bold assumption. You're assuming that a pro environment will be better for development, discounting a year of college education and social growth (big difference between college and the pro life), and basic maturity. If you look at it straight dollars - it's at best a wash - but there's more to life than cash. Some guys are happier in college as young men than the traveling, all-business, etc. That also discounts the parents choice too - some want a new house and others want to see their kids get their education.

If you risk is removed or mitigated from an endeavor you're on the fence about, why is it wrong to then choose that? Tipping the scales is not dirty - using other students $, is.

 

[billsin01]

2. Insurance is always not needed - until it is. That's the nature of insurance.

True, but there's a difference between getting auto insurance for a car you're driving and deciding to keep a policy on a car you don't have registered and is on blocks in your garage. There is no need for an insurance policy b/c he already was a first-round talent and therefore could be playing in the NFL. I'm OK with him getting an insurance policy and coming back to school, but I would suggest it's paying $60K for no particular reason unless he's dead set on getting the degree. Now that could be the case but I'd suggest it's naive to think he's coming back for the education.

3. We'll probably end up agreeing to disagree on this one. "Coerce" means you're somehow removing the choice from the athlete. I didn't get that sense. I got that they were removing a worry about the future from the equation.

They called it a recruiting trip in the story and that's obviously what it is when you pack up your entire football staff and fly to his home. That point is furthered by the fact that if they were truly helping him make a decision, he would be in an NFL uniform right now.

4. Almost no chance? That's kind of a bold assumption. You're assuming that a pro environment will be better for development, discounting a year of college education and social growth (big difference between college and the pro life), and basic maturity. If you look at it straight dollars - it's at best a wash - but there's more to life than cash. Some guys are happier in college as young men than the traveling, all-business, etc. That also discounts the parents choice too - some want a new house and others want to see their kids get their education.

Fair point -- I should say *financially.* I'm all for a kid staying in college and getting an insurance policy if the kid likes college. If I were Matt Leinart, I would have gone back to USC too. Why not? Does life ever get better than living in a free, upscale apartment with your buddies and being The Man on the USC campus, with all the benefits that brings? Probably not. I just meant that even if he goes number 1, it's unlikely it will make him any more money over the course of his career b/c you'd have to subtract a year from however long he lasts.

If you risk is removed or mitigated from an endeavor you're on the fence about, why is it wrong to then choose that? Tipping the scales is not dirty - using other students $, is.

Helping him get an insurance policy and come back to school is fine. I'd still argue probably not financially sound, but regardless, it's fine. I get the sense that the coaches really want him back b/c they know he's good and they want to win games. That, unfortunately, doesn't account for what's best for the player, which is not wrong, per se, but not cool either. I also think the university paying for the insurance by taking advantage of a fund like that is ridiculous. I also think -- and someone else posted about this as well -- those insurance policies are almost impossible to collect b/c of all the ambiguity involved. If he gets hurt, he should get something but there's a really good chance it's nowhere near the $5M or whatever he paid for.

In the end, I don't think we disagree that much, really. College football coaches being shady? Distasteful but in many ways that's what they're paid to do. I just really object to the use of the fund and the fact that they couldn't really care less about the kid's best interests.

 

[syr02esq]

Is this "benefit" available to non-athletes at a school? If not, is this fair?

 

[billsin01]

Is this "benefit" available to non-athletes at a school? If not, is this fair?

I think there are similar type programs at most schools but this is specific to athletes. This fund is more commonly referred to as 'Reason No. 9,741 Why Paying College Athletes is Completely Absurd'