SI Confessions Of A Sports Agent: WSU Prominently Featured
by Brian Floyd on Oct 12, 2010 10:58 AM PDT
Email
PrintSports Illustrated is running a feature centering around an agent's confessions in this week's issue. The feature centers around Josh Luchs, a young agent who was looking to break into the business in the early 1990's. The piece focuses on his tactics, including paying many prominent West Coast guys.
Unfotunately for us, he had a large Washington State connection as a regular figure involved with the 1997 team. Among his confessions, he admits to paying players and being the go-to-guy for some of the stars of that team.
Eventually, I was paying several players on the team, including three starting defensive backs from the early 1990s -- Torey Hunter, Singor Mobley and John Rushing -- and also defensive lineman Leon Bender. Word spread in the locker room that if you needed money, you called me.
So he admits to paying some of the defensive stars on that team, but he wasn't done there. The big fish in all of this was the star quarterback at WSU: Ryan Leaf.
With Leaf buried in credit card debt, Luchs alleges the quarterback came to him and asked for money. What resulted was a monthly stipend, according to Luchs, that totaled around $500 a month. During it all, Luchs' father was dying of cancer.
One day, he came with me to my dad's house, and while he was there my dad got very upset, talking about how he hated that his illness prevented me from doing my job. Ryan told him, "Don't worry. Josh doesn't need to recruit any other players. He's got me."
Luchs brings up a trip to Vegas with Leaf after his father passed. Two other WSU quarterbacks -- Steve Birnbaum and Dave Muir -- also joined the trip, which marked the beginning of the end in the relationship between Leaf and Luchs. The star quarterback never signed with Luchs and their relationship soured, with Luchs feeling a sense of betrayal.
In th end, Leaf repaid Luchs most of the money he took after he signed his first contract. He didn't apologize for breaking his promise, but he repaid around $10,000 to the agent.
These things happen everywhere and Washington State is not immune the problems with agents. It's happened in the past and you're seeing it go on in the present at schools in the Southeast now. There just doesn't seem to be a way to stop agents from aggressively pursuing star players.
There's nothing that come from this in terms of sanctions or trouble from the school. The statue of limitations has long been expired. However, the perception of the teams involved surely takes a hit from all this.
The story puts a black mark on the great Cougar team from 1997. It's disappointing to see names of players I grew up idolizing tied to shady dealings. It may have happened over a decade ago, but it's incredibly sad.
53 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Well
at least we are talking about something that happened 13 years ago and not 3.
Cougar999 version 2.0. Now with a shorter name!
Next thing we'll hear
Someone combining the two stories of the week into “WSU players pot growing operation being financed by loans from agents.”
by 02Coug on Oct 12, 2010 11:17 AM PDT reply actions 5 recs
Luchs is not a bad guy
Not that you were really crucifying him, but his conduct was industry standard. And not that you should feel bad about what Leaf did or asked for… it was again, very standard, and actually quite modest in the grand scheme.
It’s like driving with traffic on the freeway, even if it is going 68 mph. Not that I would condone it, and in today’s environment players should know better, but this was the 1990s.
I can also personally tell you that the events that led to the end of Luchs’s career as an agent were definitively screwed up, and not his fault.
Oh I know
I don’t crucify him. It’s part of the agent game. It is what it is and that’s just what agents do.
by Brian Floyd on Oct 12, 2010 11:20 AM PDT up reply actions
Err, as I posted on the last thread but may be more relevant here:
It seems more and more that players at every school are being paid. For every guy like Luchs that comes clean there has to be dozens of agents across the country paying players in secret (or not-so secret). I have to admit that it doesn’t exactly tarnish any memories I have of our past greatness. It’s not like we got players to come to WSU specifically because they knew they’d get paid. At least, that is not alleged in the story. I think Coach Blake’s case is much worse because he used the agent relationship as a recruiting tool.
I'm curious as to why this would disappoint you
I mean it’s basically some guy you don’t know giving money to other people you don’t know, except from seeing them on TV. I don’t think it gives the school or those teams a black eye. It doesn’t make me feel any differently about the people he named anyway, or cause any disappointment in my school.
Blame the NCAA, their rules about what guys/gals on scholarship can or can’t do to earn money are ridiculous. It’s a broken system.
I've long been against agents paying players
It goes against the rules of amateurism on which the NCAA is based. It’s disappointing seeing our own players caught up in it all and knowing they were breaking the rules during one of the greatest seasons I’ve seen.
I know the system is broken and it isn’t right, but it’s still the rules. Just because it’s a bad system, doesn’t mean players should skirt the rules.
by Brian Floyd on Oct 12, 2010 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions
I guess I just don't see it as
something that makes me any less proud of those teams. But that’s just me, and there’s probably plenty more out there like you that are disappointed in it. For me though, I file it under “it is what it is”.
Isn't D1 NCAA football (and men's basketball) "amateurism" in name only at this point?
Sure, many of the kids won’t play professionally, but the coaching salaries, the money invested into facilities, the TV contracts – all indicate a system that is anything but amateur..
I have no problem with the NCAA enforcing their rules; if they want to say players can’t take money, then they can’t take money. But somewhat similar to Coug2828’s comment, it just doesn’t bother me all that much anymore since almost everything surrounding the big two sports is anything but amateur.
"A bad day at the track is better than a good day at the office."
by Matt Gardner on Oct 12, 2010 1:00 PM PDT up reply actions
I agree with both of you
In college I spent a semester studying amateurism and the factors surrounding it — including the rising coaching salaries and revenues athletic departments make. It was a great use of my time in a class I never figured was useful for me (ENGL 410 or whatever that capstone writing class was).
Side note: boy was I wrong about the whole English and writing thing.
Anyway, you’re right. The money invested in college athletics is enormous and so are the sizes of athletic departments. Morally, I dislike players taking money while in college so I’m kind of torn with it all.
I hear you
I’ve gone back and forth on the issue a lot of the last 10 to 15 years, especially when I consider the fact that some of the kids are future pros that use college sports as only a stepping stone to bigger things, while others are true student athletes who are there for both school and sports.
I’m curious what D1 college athletics will look like in 20 years.
"A bad day at the track is better than a good day at the office."
by Matt Gardner on Oct 12, 2010 1:13 PM PDT up reply actions
I am reading this wondering...
Would it be so bad if we payed the players living expenses. These guys are restricted from getting jobs due to regulations and time contraints. Only a small fraction are going pro or have that outlook, the rest of them many just come from places where they cannot afford to go to college and go out to movie or whatever. The olympics were not hurt by athletes becoming professionals, would it diminish the NCAA if they “paid” players living expenses?
We will call him Zatara.....sounds fearsome....It means driftwood.
They get a stipend of about 800-1000 a month
and yes, they can get a job, although there are regulations on how much they can work, obviously.
by spencer peaty on Oct 13, 2010 12:50 PM PDT up reply actions
That amount is for someone living off campus
so that would have to cover rent and some food. I imagine if you lived on campus with a meal plan it would be more like $400 a month. Just guessing on that figure though.
by spencer peaty on Oct 13, 2010 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions
I find it interesting that Leaf got, essentially, a stipend of $500
When I think about money being paid to players, I think of thousands. I think of Reggie Bush and Billy Joe Hobert. I made about $500 a month when I was at WSU working in the writing center and tutoring small writing groups. I, however, did have to pay my own tuition, but that’s a different story altogether. $500 isn’t really all that much. It doesn’t make it any better that he took the money, but it’s not like he was becoming a millionaire.
I feel like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football. Ugh
My timeline might be a little off
but wasn’t this during the era where athletes weren’t allowed to have jobs, even when their sport wasn’t in season? It makes it hard to fault a guy for taking money from an agent to keep up with your credit card debt when, in the eyes of the NCAA, it was just as wrong to get a job.
by Nick McD on Oct 12, 2010 2:13 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I know it is obvious
but all I can think about is “Cush” and Jerry Maguire. Wasn’t Steinberg the agent “Cush” ended up with as well?
Life imitating movies. We all know players get paid and this is pretty small in comparison to what goes on a lot of places although a lot of names we remember come up.
My brief thoughts, since I spent quite a bit of time around the 1996 and 1997 teams as a reporter
If this is all true, none of that surprises me. None of it. That Leaf would be in significant debt sounds perfectly in line with his college behavior, and a trip to Vegas sounds about right, too. Also, Leaf sort of being a weenie about weaseling out of his deal, cold shoulder, etc., is in line with his general behavior and attitude as a college student.
And the payments to other players — especially Leon Bender? Also not surprising at all. Agents are going to flock to a successful team with potential high draft picks, even in Pullman. Maybe especially in Pullman. Bender was from Southern California, so the ties there are not surprising, and I know he had a kid with his girlfriend at the time, so he probably would have welcomed extra cash. Knowing Leon on a cursory level, I think he really just would have seen this as part of the deal — sort of a “don’t hate the player, hate the game” sort of a deal.
Lastly, this doesn’t tarnish the team in my eyes. Seems like par for the course in big time football — especially in the 90s. I’m glad that the NCAA has finally started to try and police it, although it’s going to take a long time to clean up this mess they’ve created, if they ever do really come close to cleaning it up. But at least they’re trying.
Nice call, Nuss
Very well put. I don’t have enough fingers to point in the direction of everything and every person that should be blamed for the issues revolving around college athletes recieving perks. NCAA has a long way to go in order to get it right, and the truth is that they probably never will. Until you are in the same position as those student-athletes, you have no idea if you would turn those perks down. If accepting a few dollars from an agent meant the difference between you feeding or dressing your child, or not……hard for me to believe a person wouldn’t take that cash!
And to be clear, I don't blame the players
I also understand why agents do what they do. It’s simply the nature of the game and the way it is.
It doesn’t mean I’m not disappointed with it and feel it’s morally wrong, but it is what it is.
by Brian Floyd on Oct 12, 2010 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm sure handshakes still happen
from Boosters. There is no way to police all of it. I guess the NCAA could hire someone to follow every single player 24 hours a day but how can you police this type of thing? There just is no possible way that is realistic.
yep
All this article does IMO is simply confirm what anyone that follows the sport already strongly suspected – things like what’s happening right now at North Carolina happen everywhere – pretty much any BCS conference school has likely had multiple players over the last few decades taking money from agents.
What’s more interesting to me is deciding how this information changes anyone’s perception of what USC got busted for, and whether their punishment was fair or not.
IMO, the biggest issue is whether there is any kind of institutional connection between players and agents. Kids are always going be susceptible to agents trying to get in tight with them. The issue for me is whether there are people involved with the program encouraging that, which is why the North Carolina situation stands out (i.e. assistant coach John Blake allegedly steering players toward an agent). To a lesser extent, it also matters how actively the institution is trying to discourage this kind of activity, and this is where the perception that USC was at best naively ignorant (and at worst “nod-nod-wink-wink” knowing) about agent activity and access to their players.
It’s a gray area, because I doubt you could point to many situations where someone on the staffs at any of these schools didn’t strongly suspect, if not outright know, that agents were paying players. It’s the degree to which they were involved that really becomes the issue.
by kirkd on Oct 12, 2010 1:47 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
"What’s more interesting to me is deciding how this information changes anyone’s perception of what USC got busted for, and whether their punishment was fair or not."
It’s still a rule. Someone made the speeding analogy before. Everyone’s doing it, but if you get popped, expect to get punished.
I don't question that USC got punished
I just question whether the severity of the punishment was warranted. Maybe it was – maybe that program was knowingly turning a blind eye towards that activity and not doing anything to discourage it, and in fact was indirectly encouraging it with the amount of access they granted the outside to their program.
But clearly USC was far from alone in having these issues. I find it particularly satisfying to see how many UCLA players were identified given how holier-than-thou Bruins fans are, especially when comparing themselves to USC.
From what I've read
USC’s punishment has less to do with the violations than the obstruction and “we didn’t do anything” attitude the athletic department had after it was 1) brought to their attention, and 2) investigated by the NCAA.
by TiltingRight on Oct 13, 2010 3:47 AM PDT up reply actions
And for that,
the punishment was ABSOLUTELY appropriate, IMO.
by TiltingRight on Oct 13, 2010 3:48 AM PDT up reply actions
By the way
That’s basically what happened to UW in the early ‘90s. Punishment was much more about Hedges’ and James’ attitude than the actual violations.
What does this agent gain
by naming all these people? Seems petty and unnecessary. Par for the course when it comes to these vermin though I guess.
Exactly what I was thinking earlier
Reading the article it sounds like a guy who’s still bitter about Leaf, and just wanted some payback. While I’m not saying that he made everything up, the credibility of these guys in pretty non existent in the first place.
Cougar999 version 2.0. Now with a shorter name!
his claim
If you read the end of the article, he explains why he came clean – his name is being dragged through the mud a bit for a particular incident with a player, and his daughters are getting close to the age when they will be surfing the ’net and googling their dad, and he wants to get in front of the story.
Now, I suspect there’s more to it than that, but that’s his excuse.
Yeah I don't buy that
If that were the case, sit down with your daughters and tell them your side of it. Going to S.I. reeks of someone looking for a few fleeting moments of fame.
Mike Price
had to have known about this. Even if he didn’t it would still be very interesting to hear what he thinks about this story.
I don't think he "had to have known"
The story says it was just ~$500 a month to these guys. I have a hard time believing that would constitute some sort of lifestyle change — especially if some guys were racking up large credit card debt.
Ok maybe not "had to have known"
But the SI article said he had been trying for years to break into our program. And for a guy that had been certified as an agent since 1990 you would at least think that Mike Price has heard about the guy. I just hope this stops at the 1997 season but somehow I don’t think so… Still seems like Luchs definitely had a ax to grind with this story!
by LakeUnionCoug on Oct 12, 2010 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions
But what's the axe to grind? What does he have to gain?
That’s what Brian and I have been trying to figure out.
Revenge?
You read that article and you just get the sense that he felt he got played and wanted to lash out at everyone. Players, coaches, his bosses, heck even Mel Kiper! I think once the NFL didn’t renew his license he just wanted to expose the whole system out of malice. Does make you wonder how many other guys just like this scumbag are driving up the I5-I90 route every year though….
by LakeUnionCoug on Oct 12, 2010 6:20 PM PDT up reply actions
I guess
But it’s been 2 1/2 years since he was effectively finished as an agent. Why now? Revenge just usually isn’t a strong enough motivation for someone unless there’s money involved in it.
Money
Book Deal? Is he fishing for one? Does he want retroactive royalties for a misguided belief that he IS Jerry Maquire? Is he searching for his inner quan?
SHOW HIM THE MOOOONNNNNEEEEEYYYYY!
Why now...
Did you see the job title he has been wearing the last few years. commercial real estate broker, in CALIFORNIA. His good times he talked about making 6 figures, by now I think the guy probably needs some money. He is in all truthfulness doing what is best for his family.
If he wanted a book deal, he could have just gone straight to book, though.
They could have had one out within 6 months with a sizeable advance check for his troubles.
From the cougcenter twitter tracker
WazzuFBBlog Dave Muir, one of the Cougs who allegedly received improper agent benefits, joins @Ian950kjr soon!
that’ll be interesting.
I had several classes with Dave Muir
I wouldn’t say we were friend or anything, but we knew each other…I’ll take his word for it over the agent. He pretty much said the same thing I posted just above, a guy looking for a last little bit of fame.
I don't really know what is what in this story
I’m inclined to buy what Luchs’ selling, but I’m not confident enough in that assumption. Some players said they did, some said they didn’t and others just wouldn’t comment. It’s like any story with a broad spectrum of allegations.
Yeah I don't know
Torey Hunter says he wasn’t paid, but Luchs claims he was.
At the very least I’d say Luchs is selectively embellishing.
What about the Heisman
If all of these players are getting money, why take away Bush’s trophy? Certainly makes me wonder how many of the young and promising are on the take.
It's also sad
How many players named in that article are dead. I had no idea Travis Claridge had died.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Community Guidelines
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
