Charles Barkley admits to taking cash when at Auburn....

salsadancer7

SatelliteGuys Master
Original poster
Jun 1, 2004
28,020
184
South Florida
...NOT surprised by this at all. Not because I think Charles is a scumbag or anything like that. I disagree with Barkley alot of times, but he is THE most candid former professional athlete out there. Sometimes, TOO candid....but as far as fans perspective, better than an introvert.

If not for the NCAA's four-year statute of limitations, Auburn might be vacating some victories from one of its few decent eras of basketball.

Charles Barkley was discussing Reggie Bush's decision to return the Heisman Trophy during an interview with Dan Patrick on Friday morning when the conversation turned to his own college career. The always outspoken former Auburn star admitted that he too received money from agents during college in the 1980s, though Barkley described it as "chump change" that he paid back once he signed his first NBA contract.

"If a guy wants to borrow money from an agent because he's poor, what is wrong with that?" Barkley said. "Nobody can tell me what is wrong with that. I got money from agents when I was in college and I went in the '80s. Most of the players I know borrowed money from agents. The colleges don't give us anything. If they give us a pair of sneakers, they get in trouble. Why can't an agent lend me some money and I'll pay him back when I graduate?"

Barkley said the agents who pay potential future clients are "well known" in hoops circles because "they've been giving money to college kids for years." Ironically, however, the only agent who didn't pay Barkley while he was at Auburn ended up being the one that initially landed him as a client.

The revelations from Barkley aren't exactly surprising considering the SEC's reputation was even less pristine when he played than it is today, and the former Auburn star has hinted that he was on the take in the past. Still, at a time when the NCAA is trying to crack down on rogue agents and restore the notion of amateurism to college sports, you can be certain that folks at Auburn and other schools probably weren't thrilled with Barkley's message.

As for Barkley's opinion on the Bush case, it meshes with the former NBA star's belief that top college athletes should both receive a stipend from their universities and be allowed to accept money from prospective agents.

"I'm disappointed Reggie is giving the Heisman back because these colleges are making so much money off these kids," Barkley said. "Reggie made one mistake. He should have paid those [agents] back and this whole thing never would have happened."

Charles Barkley admits he received money from agents at Auburn - The Dagger - NCAAB  - Yahoo! Sports
 
I'm not surprised by any of this either. To be honest, Barkley inadvertantly pointed-out everything wrong with college sports (OK, just football and basketball) when he said, "I'm disappointed Reggie is giving the Heisman back because these colleges are making so much money off these kids." That's the problem...it's all about money and not about education or tradition. Conversely, unlike baseball and hockey these kids use the university sports programs to develop and market their budding professional careers. Why? Because there are no real "farm systems" in these two sports...although playing overseas is now an option. The solution:

- The NFL and NBA should draft kids right out of high school (age 18).
- Serious student/athletes play college ball (note the emphasis on student.
- College football returns to its roots.
- Dummies, rummies and bummies (knuckleheads who have no business or desire being enrolled in college) are drafted into the professoinal ranks at age 18 where a small percentage will become successful...and the others won't give the colles and universities a black eye.

Viola! Problem solved...
 
I'm not surprised by any of this either. To be honest, Barkley inadvertantly pointed-out everything wrong with college sports (OK, just football and basketball) when he said, "I'm disappointed Reggie is giving the Heisman back because these colleges are making so much money off these kids." That's the problem...it's all about money and not about education or tradition. Conversely, unlike baseball and hockey these kids use the university sports programs to develop and market their budding professional careers. Why? Because there are no real "farm systems" in these two sports...although playing overseas is now an option. The solution:

- The NFL and NBA should draft kids right out of high school (age 18).
- Serious student/athletes play college ball (note the emphasis on student.
- College football returns to its roots.
- Dummies, rummies and bummies (knuckleheads who have no business or desire being enrolled in college) are drafted into the professoinal ranks at age 18 where a small percentage will become successful...and the others won't give the colles and universities a black eye.

Viola! Problem solved...

Would not solve everything. There is NO WAY the college president would agree because some of those "dummies, rummies and bummies" brings them MILLIONS for OTHER things other than new shinny equipment and nice stadiums. They ALSO bring alumni money. And non-alumni, non-sports money too.

It could NEVER go back to pre-big time sports and big time TV money.
 
Would not solve everything. There is NO WAY the college president would agree because some of those "dummies, rummies and bummies" brings them MILLIONS for OTHER things other than new shinny equipment and nice stadiums. They ALSO bring alumni money. And non-alumni, non-sports money too.

It could NEVER go back to pre-big time sports and big time TV money.
I know it will never happen since you can't put the lid back on Pandora's box...however, it SHOULD happen.
 
Yep. Once those college presidents got a taste of those TV dollars, there was no turning off that cash faucet.

Sent from my Vibrant using Tapatalk
 
First, you are never going to change college sports. Aside from the (huge) direct money that comes from it, a very wise college president once said "sadly, most people in most states who never went to college think the quality of an institution is directly proportional to the quality of its football team". This is true. If the US had college sports similar to, say, Canada's, most ordinary people in, lets just pick a state, say Ohio, would be only vaguely aware of Ohio State and the difference between it and Ohio U. Unless you, or your kids, went there, you would no more care about it than you would any other state bureau or department. The simple fact is that state universities uses sports to promote themselves in a never ending funding war between the various schools in a state.

It is sports that make non-alumni people think of North Carolina, Alabama, Texas, or any other "named for the state" school as "we".

Try this. Pick any 20 people and ask them to name a really "great" college. After a few Ivies, you will get a list of Division I-A football schools. Ask them to name the "best" college in their state and 19 out of 20 will name the named for the state Div I-A football power. Now in some cases (Michigan, Penn State, UNC, etc) it is true that the state has a "selective" system of admissions and the smartest kids go there and others have to settle for other schools, but its more common that "state U" and and all of the various directional state colleges around a state are pretty much the same, and a Ohio State degree is about the same as a Miami degree is about the same as a Cincinnati degree is about the same as a Youngstown degree.

That said, I am tired of people talking about the "exploited" college athlete. Free tuition and all of that at these schools (some of which they would not be admitted to, as noted above, under normal circumstances), is a great deal. The college makes money? What is the biggest money maker for most colleges? Sports? No, health care. The Big Centeral State Referral Hospital. Where the hard cases are sent. Ever know anybody who went into healthcare. Years of free work at those hospitals to be a nurse, pharmacist, therapist, whatever. Not to mention an MD. Two years of totally uncompensated work followed by 2 to 4 years of 100 hour weeks as a resident for a token salary. All to be, no earlier than one's mid 30s, making upper middle class money, not the 1/10th of 1% highest bracket that an athlete is paid.

For that matter, get an advanced degree in anything. A legit Master's or a PhD. You will spend several years teaching undergrads and doing research that the college will own the rights to, for no money at all.

Cry me a river about college athletes and their explotation.

Now, all that said, I do not see the problem with all of this current agent stuff. Taking money from a booster is wrong. It is cheating by the college. It is being a professional in an amateur sport. But why is a booster slipping a guy money a big deal. The agent could care less what college the guy went to, he is just fronting him some money on the promise of future payments. To continue my medical analogy, I had a friend who was a pharmacy student. Pharmacy is a great major because of high demand and the fact that a pharmacist one day out of school is just as good to the drug store chains as one 50 years out of school, probably better. Now he got entertained during his senior year by all these big companies. What is so different from being entertained by various prospective agents?
 
***

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)