Regarding Marcell Dareus
#NEWER UPDATE# Mark Schlabach is starting to confirm what many of us were hoping: Dareus’ ineligibility may not be permanent. Full quote over at EDSBS, but the gist is that he went to a party at Austin’s prompting (and possibly his expense), and when he got there, he realized what was up and he left. If so, it’s a 3-4 game suspension for being stupid enough to go, but he gets credit for leaving before a serious violation occurred. If Schlabach is correct, Dareus will have to pay back the cost of the ticket down there and sit for a bit.
#UPDATE# Marcell Dareus has officially been ruled ineligible. The University is expected to petition to have his eligibility restored. This is common practice and does not necessarily indicate that Alabama believes they can prove he was not involved.
First, what we know:
- Marcell Dareus was at a party in South Beach hosted by an agent along with at a minimum two other players from various teams around the country.
- The University of Alabama is currently investigating the circumstances surrounding his attendance of the party.
- The NCAA has not asked to speak with Dareus.
And … that’s it. Everything else is rampant speculation. Rumors about Julio Jones and Mark Barron are just that … rumors. There’s nothing substantiating them. Every team with talent has a rumor about a player or two involved in this. Yes, Vols fans, your team, too. I don’t say that to pull anyone else into the mud but only to point out the scope of this thing in terms of what the NCAA is actually investigating. It’s not about Marcel Dareus, Marvin Austin, Maurkice Pouncey, or Weslye Saunders. It’s beyond that. This time, it might actually be about the agents.
At this point, I’m just dreaming, but wouldn’t it be nice to see the NCAA finally stand up for the players they are supposed to be protecting? In at least Alabama and Florida — and likely other states as well — what the agent or agents involved in this party did (allegedly) is illegal. Not just against NCAA rules (though that too) but against state laws. There is jail time involved here. Wouldn’t it be just an interesting twist to see the NCAA actually do something about the agents since they have the legal ability to do so in this case? Yes. Do I believe that will happen? No.
Now, do I think the players are victims here? No. If Dareus is guilty of letting an agent pay for his trip to South Beach, then he’s done. Those are the rules. My preference would be that he or his family paid for the trip to go hang out with his friend Marvin Austin and it’s all a misunderstanding, but let’s face it. That’s unlikely. Possible … but I would guess the odds are against it.
It’s important to remember Andre Smith at this point, for two reasons. First, because of the difference: Smith’s error wasn’t agent contact, but failing to cooperate with an investigation into agent contact — contact that didn’t happen in a way that would actually jeopardize Smith’s eligibility. Had Smith simply told the truth, he would have played in the Sugar Bowl. There remains the possibility that the truth might actually restore Dareus’s eligibility. Secondly, because of the aftermath: as soon as the Smith deal went down, Coach Saban instituted extensive education programs for the athletes to teach them about what is and isn’t out of bounds in terms of agents and contact. If Dareus received inappropriate benefits, he did so knowingly.
The flip-side, ray of sunshine here, though is that Dareus is educated enough in the finer points of agent manipulation that it’s possible he managed to take advantage of the situation while still not violating any NCAA regulations. Yeah, I don’t really believe that, either.
-
[...] now the 3rd Saturday in Blogtober is reporting that Mark Schlabach is confirming that Dareus’ ineligibility may not be permanent. 3SiB sumerizes Schlabach’s quote [...]
Cheaters.
Kidding. Kinda
Is it just my imagination, or is the NCAA suddenly having a burst of energy in going after potential improper agent player contacts, now that the Reggie Bush situation has played out? The recent NCAA interviews of players at UNC, Markice Pouncey supposedly getting $100K from a runner for an unidentified agent around the time of the Sugar Bowl, Weslye Saunders at South Carolina being identified as a “person of interest,” now Bama being investigated for Marcel Dareus going to a party hosted by an agent.
Any thoughts on what’s really going on here? Is this a new trend?
And yes, if the NCAA is really going to protect the interests of the student athletes at its member schools, that’s fine; it’s about time.
I’m hoping that they start punishing the agents for this. Suspend him for a year. I guarantee that will stop this crap from happening. If you’re a 21 year old kid(who didn’t have much growing up) and someone starts flashing cash, cars, trips, and women in front of you, it’s going to be really hard to say no. The fact is, the agent(as of right now) is the only one with nothing to lose. The kid will lose eligibility and looks like the bad guy, the university has negative attention, and other players are left with one of their best players and leaders gone. All the while that agent, just goes and finds more kids to get in trouble.
“If you’re a 21 year old kid(who didn’t have much growing up)…”
This is a really lame excuse whenever it is used in life. These ‘poor’ kids are being given tons of perks by the university. If they can’t abide by the rules laid out for them than it is nothing more than GREED that is motivating them. ANd if they give into greed becuase they can’t wait a few more months or a year (when they’ll sign a multi-million dollar contract) until they get behind the wheel of a $50K+ car, or to be flown to parties in South Beach, then they ought to be punished.
If Dareus did this then he needs to be gone. He can sit back on Saturday’s and watch the Tide on the TV like the rest of us…and watch is draft stock fall and millions of dollars disappear all because HE DECIDED that he needed to go to some party.
I’m curious to know how much Dez Bryant truly dropped. He remained in the first round and was the second WR taken (only two picks after the first, Demaryius Thomas). Now, it’s possible that someone earlier in the draft might have taken a different position because they didn’t want Thomas and were worried about Bryant. I suppose we can’t know, but I think that’s a fairly analoguous situation to this one.
Here is the deal – MD made a poor choice by going; however full compliance with the NCAA if/when that time comes will keep him safe. Additionally the rumors are that he showed up and left when he realized what was actually going on.
He will miss 1-3 games MAX and that is about is – as well as repaying any amt that was spent on his travel.
We will be fine – he will not miss an SEC game.
The NFLPA is going to get involved, and these agents are going to be punished one way or another
Agents running about like a pack of wild dogs with these athletes can be an annoyance, but this is just one of many pressures placed upon our student-athletes. If Marcel Darius was educated and made aware of the consequences of associating with agents, then that makes him just as guilty as the agent at fault.
Correct me if I am wrong, but these ‘kids’ that some people want us to have pity on are all adults. They can buy smokes, booze, guns and serve in the army. They have all the rights and privileges that society affords every law-abiding citizen. If they want to be treated like an adult, they need to act like adults. If they break the rules they deserve the punishment they get.
Treat them and expect them to act like men and the ones worthy of being called ‘a man’ will act like men.
Tidefan,
Nice, moderate response to the situation. It’s a sad situation, but at this point the best the University can do is to do what needs to be done NOW so the rest of the program isn’t harmed in the future. And that’s what it looks like UA is doing.
BOL has some interesting info on Marcel’s situation. Let’s not be too hasty with judgment until all the facts are known.
In other news, Les Miles was late for media days, still can’t tell time.
I think you are wrong in one comment. You said Tennessee has this problem too. Tennessee HAD this problem. Late 90′s, early 2000′s when there was legit NFL talent up and down the roster, there was all kinds of stuff like this going on. I wish we had this problem today.
To clarify, what I meant was that I have heard rumors that a UT player will be investigated in this round of trouble. Will one? I don’t know. But the point was about the rumor more than the player.
Hopefully, the Association realizes this is problem across the board, not just at a handful of schools. Players and agents should be punished accordingly since they both know better. Unless something changes, it leaves schools in a vulnerable position because they cannot disassociate themselves with the League altogether. However, the NCAA should only consider school punishment when there is sufficent evidence that they were aware or should have been aware of the impermissable contact, i.e. Reggie Bush/Todd McNair.
Alabama is decidedly not at any risk here. Only Dareus. He is currently ineligible, but he never played while his eligibility was in question so in terms of damage to the university, it only stands to lose one talented player. Then again, I’m expecting at any moment to hear the chirping from the Big Ten that this is just maneuvering by Saban to clear up scholarships.
The difference between Bryant and Dareus being that Bryant was The Man coming into and for the portion of the season that he did play. Dareus does not have those types of accomplishments on his resume. Because of that he will suffer a more precipitous fall than Bryant. Therefore, Bryant may be more of an anomaly rather than a comparable analogy.
I’m not so sure about that. Dareus is already widely regarded as a top five draft pick and is first team on many All American lists.
Dareus has a sum total of 4 starts and 33 tackles to his name from 2009. Do you think those are comparable to what Bryant did in his prior season ?
The question isn’t about stats, it’s about draft viability. At this time, Dareus’ stock is as high as Bryant’s was when he was made ineligible.
All of this hopefully is a moot point, however, since there are fairly credible sources indicating Dareus may only miss a handful of games.
No it is different. Bryant could have come out before his last season and been drafted evey bit as highly because he had solid status to support him. Dareus does not have that. Had Dareus declared last year he would have been lucky to be a 2nd round pick because his 2011 draft projection is based on two plays in January, a lot of potential, and even more hype. Without a final season of stats he’s more of a gamble than Bryant.
I hope he plays this year as well… All or part. But if he doesn’t he will not be a top ten pick.
Dareus made his name well before the championship game (see his performance to open the season vs Va Tech), though that is fairly irrelevant. Whatever reasoning was used to predict he will go top ten was not made based on a season that hasn’t been played. It was based on what they know of him relative to the players he would be competing against for draft position. At this point, the issues that would affect him in the draft are no different than what Bryant faced: will missing time mean he’s out of shape, does he have character issues, how the team played in his absence (until Zac Robinson’s injury against Texas Tech, OSU actually improved their passing game without Bryant), etc.
If so, then what would Dareus of been projected as had he declared last year? He had a grand total of FOUR starts…THiRTY-THREE tackles. He would not have been a Top 5 or 10 pick. He would have been lucky to be a 2nd rounder.
Listen, I understand that if I say the sky is blue and the grass is green you will argue that they aren’t simply because I am the one making the assertion. But the fact is that PRESEASON draft PROJECTIONS are based on SPECULATION and EXPECTATIONS for how a player is ANTICIPATED to develop over the course of the year. You, yourself, are engaged in a conversation on another website about whether Auburn’s running back is worthy of a nomination to second team All-SEC. You base your contrary position on the fact that he does not have the stats so far to warrant that….Yet the named pundit (as well as the website owner) still PROJECT him as 2nd team. Is that because of what he has done, or because of what they EXPECT him to do in the upcoming season?
Dareus could not have declared for the draft last year. Football players must be out of high school for at least three years before they are eligible for the NFL draft and Dareus is a true junior.
Yes, I understand that but had he been a Junior last year where would he have ben drafted….
The fact that he was only a Sophomore last year only means that this year is more important.
The ad hominem attacks are unnecessary if you can have an honest discussion. If you can’t, then it ends here.
Regarding my conversation on another blog, it would be relevant if we were arguing why another defensive end should be listed ahead of him, but we are not. You are certainly free to argue that, but it’s not pertinent to this conversation as this discussion regards why Dez Bryant’s case may be worth looking at in terms of projecting how far he dropped in the draft.
As far as this conversation goes, Bryant’s previous draft status in a year he did not turn pro is irrelevant as he did not enter that draft. The status that matters is the one that he held right before the season that he was suspended (well, season minus three games — none against a top 50 pass defense). Did they have more data to base their assessment on with Bryant? Yes. Does that change the fact that prior to the draft they entered (presuming Dareus goes pro this year, which we must assume for this argument) they were both expected to go in the top ten? It does not. Understand, we aren’t disagreeing that he may have cost himself millions of dollars. We’re only disagreeing that Dez Bryant might be a case study on the effect of being declared ineligible for the season prior to a draft. If they believe he’s worth that today, why would there be a significant shift in that without new football-relevant data?
First of all, you don’t have the meaning of ‘ad hominem’ quite right.. – “An ad hominem, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “to the man”), is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise” I am not claiming YOUR ARGUMENT IS FALSE because of who you are…I am claiming you are ARGUING WITH ME because of who you are.
As for the argument itself…I stated that Dareus would sit by the TV and watch his draft stock fall. Now, if his draft stock falls we should all assume that a significant drop in his draft position would include and commensurate drop in his ranking at his position. If he is going to remain the #2 or #3 or #4 player at his position we can assume that he will be drafted about where that ranked player at that position would be drafted. And, given the premium that his specific position commands if Dareus is going to fall out of the Top Ten it would necessitate a fall down the ranks at his position. Bryant, on the other hand, had a full season of stellar stats plus another half season of even better ones. Dareus will have neither of thse things if he does not play this year. Therefore, Bryant will not be a good analogy.
Psssst…you would have been better of making an analogy to Mike Williams from USC from a few years ago.
You made a false statement about my personality in an effort to color the argument–namely that I don’t have a point other than to be argumentative. It is false both in that we don’t know each other outside the context of these comments so you have no insight into my motives and in that you assert I argued with you first, which did not happen. In this case, you state that he will lose millions as a result of what was supposed at the time to be the result of his actions, and I brought up an example of someone else under similar circumstances. At that point, you disagreed with me, not the opposite.
There is absolutely nothing in your argument that says Bryant’s fall out of the top ten is any different than the proposed fall by Dareus. If he doesn’t play, some other DE will have the chance to prove they are better than Dareus, just as receivers (Thomas especially) had the opportunity to take advantage of Bryant’s absence.
Yes, Mike Williams is a good example, especially since he adds the case of someone who didn’t fall out of the top ten. Both situations inform Dareus’s situation.
Can someone help me here, I am confused. If Dareus’ story is mostly true, why would he have to sit 3-4 games? I know we don’t have all the details but i was thinking unless the agent paid his way this was mostly a PR blackeye and at the worst he might be required to make restitution (assuming his family didnt pay his way) and maybe a game or two at worst. Am I missing something or was the 4 games just speculation based on not knowing what all happened?
Dealing with the NCAA is like dealing with IRS or KGB to me after 20 years of getting in trouble with the
organization. Darcus just made a bad decision and will have to live with the problem and one other thing
will the SEC or NCAA ever investigate Rocky Top for boy blunders dealing while he was on the hill. RTR
Dareus is claiming to have repaid the price of the ticket already. According to MD the ticket was purchased by Austin and MD paid him upon his arrival in South Beach.
Apparently, once he realized the party he was at was hosted by an agent he asked to leave the party. At some point during his time there (I believe it was that first day), MD received a phone call that his mother had passed away and he left for B’ham at that time.
Link to story
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2010/07/source_friend_and_false_preten.html
No dude. Stating that you are arguing a weak comparison/bad analogy with me because you are you and I am me is not an attempt to claim your argument is weak because of that. It is weak because you don’t have the stats or facts to support your position. I only stated that you will continue to argue said weak position be use that is what a review of these boards will show.
Now, I’d you care to actually lay out your argument and try to disprove mine with facts and stats, have at it.
Dez Bryant:
2007: 43 rec, 622 yds, 6 TD
2008. 87 rec, 1480 yds, 19 TD
2009: 17 rec, 323 yds, 4 TD
Please note that in 2008 Bryant was the #2 receiver in the country in receiving yards…#2 receiver in the country in receiving touchdowns…#1 receiver in the country in total scoring.
Does Dareus have any stats that are in any way comparable to those? No. If you disagree, please supply them.
Stating the argument is weak does not make it so. The point that you either miss or are trying to undermine is nothing more than the fact that stats are nearly irrelevant when it comes to the draft. Every single year players with supposedly lesser stats are taken ahead of players with better stats. Every year. And it’s not anomalous. It happens a lot. Denario Alexander of Missouri led the country in receiving last year. He went undrafted. Freddie Barnes of Bowling Green had the second most yards and led the country in receiving scores — undrafted. Twenty-seven receivers with lesser stats than theirs were taken ahead of them. Arrelious Benn failed to finish in the top 100 receivers in the country, only had one season of over a thousand yards receiving, never caught more than three TDs, but was the third receiver taken. Those, as you say, are facts.
Phocion is right.
Well then, perhaps you should have made your analogy to Benn rather than Bryant.
Benn is a counter to your stats argument. He is not analogous to the hypothetical Dareus situation because of the singular issue being argued: the impact of ineligibility on draft status.
At least your lack of further argument is tacit agreement that stats don’t belong in this discussion. It’s not much, but I dare not hope beyond that.
Thanks, Mookie.
I never understood the idea behind the rule were u can’t contact agents
No, the argument ended when you were asked, directly, for stats to support your position and you replied with none and retreated to the position of “stats are nearly irrelevant”.
The longer this goes on the more I feel like I am Arthur, you are the Black Knight and stats being irrelevant is “just a flesh wound”.
I’ve demonstrated that stats have no direct correlation to draft status. All you’ve done is assert that because you asked for them they must matter.
If the “singular issue being argued: the impact of ineligibility on draft status” is really the only thing that is being considered than I give you….Maurice Clarett.
Fair enough. It’s a more extreme example, but an example. What it’s not is a refutation of Dez Bryant.
Except, of course, it supports the position that limiting factors to one singular point of comparison (NCAA suspension) when evaluating draft status is scientifically worthless.
Your contention was that a suspension would cost him millions in lost draft position. Then, when I mentioned that Dez Bryant also may have lost ground as a result of suspension (a harmless and uncontrary position)– you brought up stats and harped on them for several comments until I demonstrated how stats are not correlative to draft position. Now, you’ve retreated (wisely) from the stats bludgeoning, and you’re disagreeing with me for boiling the whole matter down to your original premise — that ineligibility would cost him millions of dollars in the draft. Further, in an attempt to make me incorrect, you’ve introduced two players whose draft position argues against your original point. So in all your attempts to demonstrate that I’m only arguing for argument’s sake, you’ve defeated your own argument.