Confessions of an agent and the aftermath
National Football League
Draft King Analysis
October 12, 2010
Lou Pickney, DraftKing.com
Reader feedback is always welcomed here. Send your thoughts to Draft King at LouPickney@gmail.com.
As I've written on here several times in the past few weeks and months, the NCAA's Agent, Gambling and Amateurism Activities (also known as the AGA) division has been investigating potential links between agents and college football players, particularly star players who project to be possible high draft picks. The timing is strong for Sports Illustrated with easily its biggest story of 2010, which went online today, detailing the allegations of an NFL agent (Josh Luchs) about payoffs and the hunt to land the elite players, presented in a first-person form by talented SI writer George Dohrmann.
If you haven't read the story yet, I strongly urge you to do so. Anyone with even the slightest level of interest in college athletics or pro football should find it to be a fascinating read. The article pulls no punches, naming numerous players who are alleged to have been offered cash or other incentives by various agents and/or intermediaries.
 |
Tyson Jackson was the third player drafted in 2009. (Icon SMI)
|
|
The article cites a connection between the most well-known of the draft prognostication crowd, ESPN's Mel Kiper, Jr., and agent Gary Wichard, who is the agent connected with the John Blake controversy at UNC. Kiper at times clearly seems to have inside connections; as evidence look at what happened in the 2009 Draft, when he moved Tyson Jackson from the #10-12 range up to #3 the day before the draft.
Some other draft sites followed Kiper's lead. I held my ground, curious about the late elevation of Jackson in Kiper's mock but unwilling to copycat Kiper on that move. I discussed this during my 2009 NFL Draft running commentary, and of course it turned out that Kiper was correct as Jackson went #3 overall to Kansas City.
It's important to note that Jackson was repped not by Wichard, but instead by Eugene Parker (of Michael Crabtree contract impasse infamy). I cite that not as as affront on Kiper, but to the contrary as a note of praise for him having great sources (beyond Wichard) and the intuition to trust whatever source it was that lead to him catapulting Jackson up his draft board shortly before the 2009 NFL Draft commenced.
But there have been complaints by some about a perceived bias by Kiper for clients of Wichard, most recently (and notably) for Wichard client and former Notre Dame QB Jimmy Clausen in the 2010 NFL Draft. But Kiper denied shilling for Wichard (or anyone else) in this interesting article by Rick Maese in the Washington Post this past April, and I believe Kiper's denial. In a position where his reputation is absolutely vital, Kiper wouldn't be able to maintain his status as a superstar draft analyst if he was providing biased, and thus ultimately flawed, analysis and information.
But it's not Kiper who will face the greatest scrutiny, though Liz Mullen wrote today that ESPN told her, "We just learned of the story today and are looking into it." It's the agents, particularly Wichard, who will be under the microscope the most. Agents are part salesmen and part shrewd negotiators, a group that does battle month after month and year after year in ultra high stakes competitions to land the best players. But they are required to be licensed by the NFLPA to work as a player agent, and any agent losing his certification would be, in essence, shut down.
The story continued to develop through the day today. In a great scoop to beat the mainstream sports media and syndicated radio shows to the punch, the Chris Vernon Show on Fox Sports 730 KQPN out of the Memphis market had Luchs on this afternoon with an in-depth 30 minute interview.
Vernon did a great job with the interview, which I listened to live online, since 1,000 watt KQPN, licensed to West Memphis, AR, doesn't come close to reaching where I live in the Nashville area. The biggest scoop from that interview is an assertion by Luchs that the SI piece only used 10% of the information that he provided. There are plenty of big names who apparently didn't make the cut for the article, which of course makes me very curious about the missing 90% that, for now, remains a mystery.
