Albama Arkansas Auburn Florida Georgia Kentucky LSU Mississippi State Missouri Ole-Miss USC Tennessee Texas A&M Vanderbilt
Latest News

There’s One Charge From HBO Show That Auburn Should Worry About

Last night at Headquarters, the ol’ TV was tuned in to watch the HBO “Real Sports” episode focusing on college athletes and their lack of pay last night.  Interesting work.  Better than I had expected when I first saw that both Billy Packer and Jason Whitlock would be joining Bryant Gumbel for an in-depth discussion of the college sports system.

Here are just a few thoughts on the show… including why Auburn folks should be worried:

1.  The four former Tigers who claim that money had changed hands at Auburn — Stanley McClover, Troy Reddick, Chaz Ramsey and Raven Gray — seemed credible.  That doesn’t necessarily mean they were telling the truth, but they did seem believeable.  With many sports fans across the nation already thinking AU cheats (because of the Cam Newton story), the credibility of these players doesn’t help the Tigers’ cause.

But that’s the court of public opinion we’re talking about and that court has no real bearing on the Tiger football program.  The NCAA court is the only one that matters. 

2.  Hundred-dollar handshakes go on in every major college town in the country.  I have several friends who played ball in the Southeastern Conference.  The majority of those guys say that, yes, they knew which boosters to turn to if they needed some meal money, some cash for a date, or even a vehicle.  And we’re not necessarily talking Lexuses here, either.  When a player is given the keys to a booster’s used truck, it’s still a violation.  And that type of thing goes on all… the… time.   There are restaurants where athletes get free meals.  Bars where athletes get free admission.  Heck, one former SEC footballer told me that in his naivete, he once reported himself to his coach for getting a free tanning bed session. 

There’s no way to stop freebies or hundred-dollar handshakes.  There’s also no easy way for the NCAA to track down the culprits and punish their schools.  Boosters don’t often give receipts with their cash advances.  For that reason, the bulk of the accusations made against Auburn — and other schools — will likely result in any real trouble.  (On a sidenote, paying players wouldn’t wipe out this issue either.  Someone will always try to do a little something extra for their gridiron and hoops heroes.)

3.  The major concern for Auburn stems from one accusation and one accusation alone.  Reddick claims that when he “started complaining and insinuating that I was ready to leave any day,” Auburn coaches sprung into action.  One coach allegedly told Reddick that he had “some mail for you up in my office.” 

Reddick says he “followed him up to his office and he gave me an envelope.  I didn’t open it there, I walked out to my truck, took off. … It was about 500 dollars.”

Worse, Reddick claims he received cash-filled envelopes “two or three more times” that season and “it happened about six or seven times my senior year.”

And that’s the area of concern — if true — for Auburn.  The NCAA will have a hard time proving hundred-dollar handshakes.  But if an AU coach actually handed cash to a player once (or eight to 10 more times), then the school could really land in hot water.  If Reddick tells NCAA investigators — who are sure to ask — which coach gave him money, then a full-scale investigation is likely to follow.  That would suggest a systematic payment plan and that would override any statute of limitations defense Auburn might be hoping to hide behind.  At that point, it would be Reddick’s word versus the claims of the coach.  And the NCAA would then start digging to find other former Tigers who’ll say that they were paid by AU coaches, too.

Auburn fans can pooh-pooh HBO’s story, claim the chatty players have axes to grind, claim the players were paid for their stories (highly, highly doubtful, by the way) or even suggest this kind of thing goes on everywhere.  But if a coach really handed cash to Reddick, this story isn’t going to have a happy ending.

5.  While some sites are harping on the claim by Ramsey and Gray that one Auburn coach told his players to put football ahead of academics, we have a hard time believing that that practice exists only at Auburn.  Does it help the Tigers’ reputation?  No.  But we don’t see that as a major issue.  Many, many coaches would prefer their stars study their playbooks over their chemistry books.  That goes all the way down to the high school level.

6.  Never thought I’d say this, but Packer was the voice of reason on the show.  While Gumbel and Whitlock talked about paying players and tearing down the system, Packer came armed with facts — most schools lose money on sports, two sports pay for all the other little sports, there would likely be no women’s sports at all if not for football/basketball revenue from the men, and not every athlete can be paid the same because of those aforementioned facts.

Everyone agrees the NCAA system isn’t perfect, but finding a new system isn’t as easy as tearing the old one down.  Kudos to Packer.

7.  Bernard Goldberg’s piece on paying players suffered one fatal flaw.  For hypothetical purposes he proposed paying players 57% of the revenue made by their schools off of their sport (which is the percentage of revenue NFL and NBA players receive).  Sounds good.  Only not all schools make the same amount of money.  Alabama and Texas make more money off of football, for example, than Boise State and Iowa State.  In the current scholarship set-up, the folks at Boise State and Iowa State can at least compete with the Bamas and the Texases of the world.  In a 57% pay model, just how many recruits would choose to sign with a smaller-revenue school?  Players would be fighting to get into the biggest-revenue schools in order to drive up their own paydays.

8.  The revelation that a number of NCAA officials make salaries of $300,000 or more was eye-opening.  We hear a lot about the NCAA’s small enforcement staff (little more than 40 people total).  That small staff requires the NCAA to use an “example” type system of discipline.  If a school is ratted out and caught, they will be made an example of.  If a coach lies or tampers with an investigation, he will be made an example of.  The NCAA has no way to get ahead of the curve because it lacks an enforcement staff.  There only means of prevention is to really make examples of those people they catch red-handed. 

But someone on HBO’s show should have proposed this realistic plan: Cut the salaries of some of those highly-paid NCAA officials and use that money to increase the enforcement staff by 50-100%. 

So who were the losers following HBO’s broadcast?

* Auburn University.  The Tigers didn’t need more accusations and yet another scandal.  Whether the claims of McClover, Reddick, et al are true or not, millions of people heard them last night.  The NCAA heard them last night, too.  And millions more people will read about them today.

* Tommy Tuberville.  The issues discussed last night trace back to the Tuberville era on The Plains.  He’ll be fielding a lot more questions about HBO’s report than he will Texas Tech’s spring drills in the coming days.

* Gene Chizik.  Chizik was on Tuberville’s staff at the time of some of these alleged events.  The NCAA might ask him a few questions about his first stop in Auburn.  And if the NCAA can find proof that an assistant once gave Reddick cash, Chizik’s program could be spanked for crimes committed on his predecessor’s watch.

Auburn’s coach was angered by the report and called it “pathetic and pure garbage.”  “That’s not who we are,” he said.  “That’s not how our program is going to be run.”

Chizik also said: “It’s very sad to me that HBO is going to air something that, admittedly, they have no proof on anything.  What is disturbing to me… they interviewed other former players that said the opposite, and they didn’t air (them).”

“When I was the defensive coordinator from 2002-04, all the allegations that are there are on this particular show, I can assure you I had no knowledge of any of that stuff.”

* The NCAA.  No one likes the NCAA to begin with, so a report trumpeting the destruction of it will naturally be met with cheers.  Of course, few people realize that the NCAA is made up of college administrators.  The NCAA is college football and basketball.  If they are the enemy, they’re appointed by the people they rule over. 



I was unable to watch the HBO special so I'm behind the 8-ball. From all the articles I've read I haven't seen anything reference whether or not HBO interviewed players from any schools other than Auburn. If that's the case?? This is my take.

1) The show claims to 'bring to light' cheating and pay for play schemes in college football as a whole but only uses Auburn as a baseline reference.

2) A high powered network like HBO can only come up with players from one school? I tought it was demed as a widespread problem? This further enforces my opinion that it's a dig at Auburn.

3) Is Auburn the only program with disgruntle players willing to sell out their alma matter. If that's the case, then it somewhat reaffirms the perception that AU only teaches football and sociology spending little if any time developing character.

Like I said I didn't watch the show so my analysis could be like that of HBO's, way off.


Chuck Moore...

If find it amusing that I'm getting emails from non-Auburn fans telling me that I'm taking up for Auburn in this piece... and yet I'm also getting comments like this that take me to task for pointing out that one of the allegations could -- could, mind you -- eventually prove damaging.


Chuck Moore
Chuck Moore

I find it amusing that you're so amused by someone making a legitimate point. Your position, as stated in plain English above, that Reddick's allegation is a "major concern" for Auburn is based on the belief that Reddick is "credible." Your words, not mine. I was pointing out that there are some pretty strong reasons to doubt his credibility, which are not addressed in your post.

I assume you have no objection to the other points I made, which further call these players' credibility into question.


Chuck Moore...

1. I said the players "seemed credible." Meaning they didn't pee their pants on camera. I also said yesterday that I thought their claims looked sketchy. Still do. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be taken seriously. One in particular.

2. I said the Reddick allegation is the only one I'd be worried about "if true." So, yeah, I made that part clear in "plain English." If true, if he can prove it, if there's evidence... if, if, if. Hardly a statement that Auburn is guilty.

3. You wrote that "Reddick's allegation is a 'major concern" for Auburn is based on the belief that Reddick is 'credible.'" But I didn't say that. I said it's a serious charge because it's the only one that might have a chance of being proven. It's also a claim that someone at Auburn -- not a booster or fan -- actually paid a player. If you don't think that one's a serious allegation, then you might want to contact AU officials because they're hiring an outside source to investigate.

But as always, it seems there's what I write. And there's what others read.


Chuck Moore
Chuck Moore

John... Geez dude, get a grip. Here's a response to each of your condescending and insecure remarks:

1) No one is claiming you can't say what you want, and I definitely did NOT accuse you of saying "everything that follows is true because [you] now believe" the four players. But just as you should be able to say, "In my opinion this looks good and this looks bad," if you're going to allow comments on your blog, you should expect people to give their opinions in response -- even, God forbid, when they criticize your precious blog posts. And no, it is not "ridiculous" to say that you could and should have provided a fuller picture in your post, because the fuller picture calls into question your initial statement that the players seemed credible.

2) Despite your absurd accusation that I'd "like to act like" I know these guys are lying, I never made or even implied any such thing. I don't know one way or the other. I did, however, call your observation that they seem credible into question. Sorry if you think the fact that they have axes to grind is something "everyone knows," but I personally thought those facts -- along with, e.g., their financial difficulties -- constitute important information that is completely missing from your piece and that would affect some of your conclusions. I hate to break it to you, but just because you're arrogant and condescending doesn't make you right about everything; in fact, it leads to exactly the opposite impression.

3) Finally, I did not take your piece as an anti-Auburn piece -- I took it as an incomplete picture of the whole story. And it is a story that, in my opinion, is kind of a joke to begin with largely because of how unsubstantiated all of it is. As to your insinuation that I'm a deluded Auburn fan, sorry buddy: wrong again. But since you're going to belittle me and falsely accuse me of some Auburn loyalty that I do not possess, I'd just like to point out that this is the EXACT same thing you get furious and indignant at your readers for accusing you of. Pot and kettle and all that...

In conclusion, I'd like to congratulate you on your self-righteous hypocrisy. "I find it amusing" that you went immediately on the defensive with the ludicrous vitriol in your reply to my comments, accusing a non-Auburn-fan reader of being too blinded by Auburn loyalty to see the perfect and impenetrable objectivity of your blog post. Methinks thou doth protest too much, "Mr. SEC."


Chuck Moore...

No, it was not. That was one of several observations. They seemed credible. You -- and you alone -- apparently took that to mean: "Everything that follows is true because I now believe them."


Also, each time I write about these guys, I'm not going to rehash their backgrounds. By now, everyone knows they have axes to grind. What no one knows -- even though you'd like to act like you do -- is whether or not those axes have caused them to make up lies or spill the beans on actual events. And THAT will eventually be determined by the NCAA.

Finally, if you read my piece -- which was a series of observations and immediate reactions to a broadcast, carefully laid out to cover the POSSIBILITIES -- and took that as an anti-Auburn piece, then you're only showing that you wear Tiger footy-pajamas to bed at night.

People can say: "In my opinion this looks good and this looks bad" without the "bad" part being taken as an attack on Auburn. Or at least they should be able to say that.


Chuck Moore
Chuck Moore


Seems like you're cutting the baloney a little thin my good man. Your whole post is premised on the idea that these guys seem credible. My whole point in the comment was to point out ways in which they lack credibility. Apologies if I misinterpreted you, but you can't deny that you left out a lot of background about these guys, background that in many ways impugns their credibility.

Here's the rub: You say Auburn is one of the biggest "losers" following the HBO series because "millions of people" will read about these accusations today. But in truth, the very thing that you're saying will make Auburn a loser -- the negative public perception generated by news of these accusations -- is likely to be influenced by posts like yours that omit important details such as those to which I alluded.


Not as long as they continue to cheat.

Ben's Dad
Ben's Dad

Awesome comment, man. Look forward to hearing your evidence-based substantiation for the claim that they cheat. Since you don't have any, I guess that makes you a cheat. Cheater cheater pumpkin eater Ben!

Follow Us On:
Mobile MrSEC