Stewart Mandel responds about his Masoli article...

dawgstudent · Aug 5, 2010

http://sportsillustrated....ion/index.html?eref=sihp

</a>

<a href="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/stewart_mandel/08/02/masoli-nutt/index.html">Your Houston Nutt article

Click to expand...

is an outrage! Who are you, Mr. Stewart Mandel, to call a fine coach
trying to help someone dirty or question his integrity? You should be
fired!! I think you, sir, are a big A$$!!
-- Steve, North Mississippi

After
reading your latest article on Houston Nutt, I only have one thing to
say: Thank you so much for publishing that article. I honestly can't
thank you enough for exposing this man for who he truly is.
-- James, Little Rock, Ark.

I
knew the Nutt column would elicit some strong reactions, but I had no
idea they would split so diametrically between the states of Mississippi
and Arkansas. I literally received hundreds of e-mails just like these
two. It's no surprise Ole Miss fans so vociferously defended their coach
(though I have no doubt the same exact people would have crucified Dan Mullen[/b]
if by chance Mississippi State had taking Masoli instead), but
apparently Nutt is about as popular in Arkansas as Kiffin is in
Tennessee.

But the point of the column was not to rile up those two fan bases. Let me address a less partisan e-mail.

Stewart,
your writing is usually spot-on in regards to the ever-wavering ethics
of college football, but your criticism of Houston Nutt's acceptance of
Masoli is uncharacteristically harsh to the point of seeming almost
personal. I'm not saying that you're wrong about Nutt, just that you
seem to have lost your perspective as a journalist on this one. What
gives?
-- James, Edmond, Okla.

I don't dispute that the column was harsh, but it wasn't without reason.

My
hope with the Nutt-Masoli piece was that readers might take a moment to
rethink what truly constitutes "dirty" in this day and age. It's been
an eventful off-season for scandal-related headlines, and as I wrote in
the lead, I've noticed fans throwing around the d-word with reckless
abandon, demonizing coaches and programs based mostly on blanket
assumptions and innuendo. Listening to some of the revisionist history
out there about Pete Carroll's USC tenure, you'd think he was handing Reggie Bush
money out of his own wallet, which couldn't be further from the truth.
If you're going to accuse someone of being "dirty," it really ought to
be for something of his own doing.

Admittedly, Nutt has
broken no rules, and if that's your sole criteria for judging a coach's
ethics, then you're obviously going to disagree with the column. But as I
wrote, Nutt has demonstrated a repeated pattern over the past several
years of shameless win-at-any-cost tactics. Taking on Masoli just
happens to be his most brazenly transparent. No one's buying the cover
that this has anything to do with "helping" a wayward kid. As Nutt
himself told the Memphis Commercial Appeal: "I could have not
gone after him, gone 6-6 this season and got ready to reload [for 2011].
But when you think about your team, you have an obligation to them to
do everything you can to put them in the best situation to win."

Sadly,
this has become the standard operating mentality for a lot of coaches,
and I happen to find it more troublesome than many of the things others
might consider "dirty," but unfortunately, a lot of fans now tacitly
accept it.

I am an Ole Miss fan, and if taking Masoli
helps us win more games, so be it. This is what college football has
become. Get over it.
-- David Davis, Taylorsville, Miss.

Case in point.

dawgstudent · Aug 5, 2010

http://sportsillustrated....ion/index.html?eref=sihp

</a>

<a href="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/stewart_mandel/08/02/masoli-nutt/index.html">Your Houston Nutt article

Click to expand...

is an outrage! Who are you, Mr. Stewart Mandel, to call a fine coach
trying to help someone dirty or question his integrity? You should be
fired!! I think you, sir, are a big A$$!!
-- Steve, North Mississippi

After
reading your latest article on Houston Nutt, I only have one thing to
say: Thank you so much for publishing that article. I honestly can't
thank you enough for exposing this man for who he truly is.
-- James, Little Rock, Ark.

I
knew the Nutt column would elicit some strong reactions, but I had no
idea they would split so diametrically between the states of Mississippi
and Arkansas. I literally received hundreds of e-mails just like these
two. It's no surprise Ole Miss fans so vociferously defended their coach
(though I have no doubt the same exact people would have crucified Dan Mullen[/b]
if by chance Mississippi State had taking Masoli instead), but
apparently Nutt is about as popular in Arkansas as Kiffin is in
Tennessee.

But the point of the column was not to rile up those two fan bases. Let me address a less partisan e-mail.

Stewart,
your writing is usually spot-on in regards to the ever-wavering ethics
of college football, but your criticism of Houston Nutt's acceptance of
Masoli is uncharacteristically harsh to the point of seeming almost
personal. I'm not saying that you're wrong about Nutt, just that you
seem to have lost your perspective as a journalist on this one. What
gives?
-- James, Edmond, Okla.

I don't dispute that the column was harsh, but it wasn't without reason.

My
hope with the Nutt-Masoli piece was that readers might take a moment to
rethink what truly constitutes "dirty" in this day and age. It's been
an eventful off-season for scandal-related headlines, and as I wrote in
the lead, I've noticed fans throwing around the d-word with reckless
abandon, demonizing coaches and programs based mostly on blanket
assumptions and innuendo. Listening to some of the revisionist history
out there about Pete Carroll's USC tenure, you'd think he was handing Reggie Bush
money out of his own wallet, which couldn't be further from the truth.
If you're going to accuse someone of being "dirty," it really ought to
be for something of his own doing.

Admittedly, Nutt has
broken no rules, and if that's your sole criteria for judging a coach's
ethics, then you're obviously going to disagree with the column. But as I
wrote, Nutt has demonstrated a repeated pattern over the past several
years of shameless win-at-any-cost tactics. Taking on Masoli just
happens to be his most brazenly transparent. No one's buying the cover
that this has anything to do with "helping" a wayward kid. As Nutt
himself told the Memphis Commercial Appeal: "I could have not
gone after him, gone 6-6 this season and got ready to reload [for 2011].
But when you think about your team, you have an obligation to them to
do everything you can to put them in the best situation to win."

Sadly,
this has become the standard operating mentality for a lot of coaches,
and I happen to find it more troublesome than many of the things others
might consider "dirty," but unfortunately, a lot of fans now tacitly
accept it.

I am an Ole Miss fan, and if taking Masoli
helps us win more games, so be it. This is what college football has
become. Get over it.
-- David Davis, Taylorsville, Miss.

Case in point.

dawgstudent · Aug 5, 2010

it is what it's become. Ask Stewart to start writing college football articles for free since he is so full of virtue.

patdog · Aug 5, 2010

And for Mandel to defend Pete Carroll while trashing Nutt is beyond ridiculous. Nutt didn't do the "right" thing by taking that thug, but a lot of other coaches would have done the same thing if they'd been as thin at QB as he was.

8dog · Aug 5, 2010

Mandel probably wouldn't have been so harsh, but as he stated, this is not the first thing he's done that some consider "dirty".

Nutt is Ole Miss's Sherrill plain and simple.

thelaw · Aug 5, 2010

There is too much money surrounding and involved with college football today for things like this not to happen. When millions of private dollars from fans and more so from corporations, agencies, and media outletsare being thrown around- the nature of the game will change. College football is just as much of a commercial machine that it is a pastime. Coaches aren't just coaches, they're celebrities that are endorsed. And just like coaches are celebrities, so are 18-22 year old kids that are very talentedwith futuresin the NFL- that translates to bascially a commodity in my opinion. For a college player to become the next franchise player also means millions for the team owners, Nike/Addidas/Under Armor, etc... and agents that represent them.

While aboveiscertainly moreof a ramble than an organized opinion,I think the gist of it holds true. Whena prodigious amount of money and commercial appeal is behind something, rules are bended, sidestepped, overlooked and ethics or the "high road" falls by the wayside. Some people will lament this, others will accept it. I think one thing that is indisputable: its not going back, its only rollingforwards with more and more moneybeing thrownintocollege football.That being said, I find it some what odd that a columnist would all of a sudden stand up and cry foul regarding the actions of one coach.

BigMotherTucker · Aug 5, 2010

Ill agree with one of his main points...Nutt and co. (along with every OM fan out there)would have lambasted us if the shoe were on the other foot.

rebelrouseri · Aug 5, 2010

I guess that might be "dirty" but in a different sense of the word. Hire a guy as OC that is considered one of the better and most innovative OC's in the SEC?

8dog · Aug 5, 2010

there are different definitions of "dirty" and some consider nutt dirty.

My wife would consider me dirty if I flirted with a tv reporter through hundreds of texts.

I think hiring coaches to get players is terrible. I thought it was terrible when Calipari did it, when Barnes did it, and I thought it was terrible when Nutt did it. When Malzhan was hired, he was hired to get Mustain and Co. He was not considered one of the better and most innovative OCs in the SEC at the time. Hell, Nutt wouldn't even run his offense.

Jackie snipped a bulls balls and got raked over the coals for it so I can see where some of the things Nutt has done sucks to some people.

Dollabillz · Aug 5, 2010

Most people realize he's just a human football coach, and apretty good one. Only idiots really think he's dirty. He does however spark some hatred due to his inconsistency, but who the hell cares. You don't have to defend the flagship'shonor in everyeffing thread every day.

What does it matter if you're happy with him, and he wins games? Nothing. And I know a message board is for venting, discussions, and what not, but **** it gets old trying to just browse the board and having sensitive $**#* like you and bruiser rationalizing and getting your panties in a bunch over every critical thing written about ole !%!$#+% miss.

Ivehadbetter · Aug 5, 2010

Oxford Godfrey · Aug 5, 2010

Revisionist history? Are we all to believe Pete Carrol at face value from his HBO interview that as a man who once described himself as the "general manager" of USC football, he knew NOTHING of his best player receiving gobs of cash and a house in San Diego for his family?

This is bizarre. I haven't seen that kind of ostrich syndrome from previously respected media members since OJ.

Maybe being involved with USC gets you a free pass.

That's just stunning on Mandel's part.

RebelBruiser · Aug 5, 2010

But as I wrote, Nutt has demonstrated a repeated pattern over the past several years of shameless win-at-any-cost tactics.

Might I be the one of the first to say thank goodness he's saying this about our coach. I would hope so.

The one thing I'll add that I think is the reason Mandel was so harsh is that Nutt tries to put up a front of being something different. That's probably what has him so riled up. Nutt likes to portray his Right Reverend image, even though he's no nicer or above board than any other SEC coach. They're all win at all costs. He just tries to put up an image of something different instead of being straight forward about it.

TBonewannabe · Aug 5, 2010

A couple of starters get busted with DUIs and assault during the summer, they are suspended for the 4th game of the season which happens to be Ark St. Most coaches do that anyway. Big time college football is pretty dirty.

dawgstudent · Aug 5, 2010

[No message]

Rebels7 · Aug 5, 2010

Defending Carroll in that article ruins any credibility he may have had. Is he a perfect person? Apparently not. But he's never been accused of cheating and he followed the rules with the Masoli issue. To defend Pete Carroll and call Nutt "dirty," Mandel has surrendered his journalistic integrity. At least for me.

8dog · Aug 5, 2010

That's not entirely true. Arkansas football was sanctioned and put on probation under his watch.

The guy has pretty much done it all.

rebelrouseri · Aug 5, 2010

Rebels7 · Aug 5, 2010

I don't remember that. I believe you though.

My point was he's not a notorious cheater. I'm sure things go on, but no more than what goes on everywhere. And certainly not to the level of Pete Carroll's USC.

wbc40 · Aug 5, 2010

8dog · Aug 5, 2010

from 94-99. That's about half and half.

AlCoDog · Aug 5, 2010

but it isn't against the rules to mention a recruit or talk specifically about a recruit before he signs? Because Nutt talked a lot about Masoli prior to him beiing official. I may have interpreted that rule wrong.

Rebels7 · Aug 5, 2010

And reporters constantly mentioned how he never said Masoli's name in interviews.

My point was, he's not Barry Switzer. So defending Carroll (arguably worse than Switzer) and calling Nutt "dirty" is laughable at best.

AlCoDog · Aug 5, 2010

I agree the comparison to Carroll is ridiculous, especially since Carroll's dirtiness turned into national championships. I was genuinely trying to get some clarification on that rule in response to you saying he followed all the rules with Masoli. I figured if Nutt had done something that he wasn't supposed to that was that obvious, a huge deal would have been made of it.

gdogg · Aug 5, 2010

The manhas beentrying to punch his ticket out of Oxford since he arrived in Oxford, and when it happens they will turn on him too.
Masoli = Out of Oxford Sooner, nothing more, nothing less.

MississippiKite · Aug 5, 2010

It is one think to question a man's institutional fortitude. It is another to call him to carpet for cheating when he did not such thing.

biguglyjoe · Aug 5, 2010

UA cuts football scholarships by three

Joint inquiry uncovers 'a series' of infractions

By SCOTT CAIN
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette


FAYETTEVILLE – University of Arkansas athletes committed "a series" of NCAA
violations by receiving extra benefits through a Dallas-area Razorbacks
booster and the football program has self-imposed more penalties than
originally were reported, school records show.

None of the athletes, except senior defensive end Randy Garner, compete for
the Razorbacks anymore. But by accepting more than fair market wages for
work done for booster Ted Harrod's two businesses, the athletes' infractions
will penalize the program for the next two years.

For 2001, Arkansas will reduce by three the number of recruits it can sign
and will forfeit two scholarships overall. For 2002, it will cut two
recruiting class spots and one scholarship overall.

In addition, Arkansas renounced $250,000 of a $300,000 pledge by Harrod
toward minor renovations and upkeep of the Broyles Center. He fulfilled
$50,000 of the pledge earlier this year before university officials drew up
the penalties.

Although 20-25 athletes apparently worked for Harrod from 1994-99, an
investigation by the SEC and the school could not confirm precisely how many
of them were overpaid because of sloppy bookkeeping at Harrod's businesses.

But Athletic Director Frank Broyles wrote in the investigation's final
report that officials turned up "a series of violations ... over an extended
period of time ... which I find to be personally embarrassing."

Harrod's "poor business practices" caused the violations, Broyles wrote.

Broyles and Harrod have been close friends for more than 10 years, traveling
together several times with their wives.

In a phone interview Monday with the Democrat-Gazette, Harrod acknowledged
that athletes could have been overpaid but denied having any knowledge of
overpayments. He said his former daughter-in-law, Karey Harrod, oversaw the
company books.

Harrod also said he had not been informed that he was banned for five years
and that his financial pledge had been rejected.

Throughout the investigation, which began in January and ended in June,
Harrod said he and his employees cooperated with SEC representative Bill
Sievers by making all records available. If Sievers found violations, then
Harrod said he expected them to be minor and to receive a slap on the wrist.

"I didn't know if any action against us would be taken, maybe we couldn't
employee them for a year or two or something like that," Harrod said. "But
as far as banning from the program, man, that's heavy. That's SMU stuff."

On Saturday, Coach Houston Nutt acknowledged that Garner had received extra
benefits by accepting $100 for minimal work that the report showed to be two
to three hours. Nutt also said that Garner would be suspended for the Sept.
2 season opener against Southwest Missouri State.

The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported Garner's suspension Sunday and that
the university had banned Harrod from associating with the athletic programs
for five years.

The full extent of the violations and the eye-catching sanctions came to
light Monday in a review of the investigation's six-page final report.
Copies of the report, signed by Broyles, were sent July 3 to SEC
Commissioner Roy Kramer and NCAA enforcement staff member Christopher
Stroebel.

A copy of the report was released Monday after the Democrat-Gazette
requested documents through the state's Freedom of Information Act on
Thursday.

NCAA officials could not be reached for comment.

Broyles turned down an interview request, instead issuing a written
statement to the Democrat-Gazette that said:

"The University of Arkansas has completed an internal inquiry regarding the
issue. The University forwarded its findings to the Southeastern Conference.
The Southeastern Conference reviewed the University's self-report and
submitted it to the NCAA. With the NCAA review still pending, it would be
inappropriate for University officials to comment further until the matter
is resolved."

The NCAA is studying the case and will decide whether it needs to begin its
own investigation. It also could add stiffer penalties.

The report characterizes the violations as secondary in nature and not
major, the two standards the NCAA's uses to classify infractions.

A secondary violation means only a limited competitive advantage was gained
and the incident was isolated.

It is possible that because the violations continued over several years and
involved perhaps as many as two dozen athletes that NCAA officials will view
the matter as more than a secondary offense.

But it is clear from the size of the self-imposed penalties that Arkansas
hopes it has shown a good-faith effort to police itself and that the NCAA
will OK the penalties without weighing in.

The ban on Harrod extends to his family, including no employing athletes,
and will exist for a minimum five years. The ban started May 12, according
to the report.

Harrod said he received a letter telling him not to associate with Arkansas
until the matter was cleared up but knew nothing of being banished
long-term.

Harrod said he talked to Broyles by phone Monday and before that had talked
with him as recently as two weeks ago.

"I'm telling you, no one has told me anything," Harrod said.

Because Harrod and his former daughter-in-law are on opposite ends of a
lawsuit unrelated to the SEC investigation, Harrod said he could not
elaborate about the role she might have played in the NCAA violations. He
said he wants to speak publicly to clear his name in the near future.

"There's nothing to hide, as far as I'm concerned," Harrod said.

In the report, Broyles' tone is, at times, apologetic and appears to reveal
personal anguish.

"I accept responsibility for a serious failure in judgment in relation to my
association with Mr. Harrod," Broyles wrote as part of his conclusion.

Broyles also wrote that Arkansas "implemented, maintained and enforced a
system for monitoring the employment of student-athletes on a routine
basis." The system was based on a model recommended by the SEC.

Broyles wrote that he "routinely" stressed with Harrod the importance of
obeying NCAA rules and that Harrod assured Broyles the rules were being
followed.

Business operators who employ athletes are required to sign and return a
certification form to the university. But 1996 was the last time that
Harrod's business returned a form to Arkansas and it was signed by Karey
Harrod, the report said.

Athletes also are supposed to report their jobs to the school.

"Despite our instructions in recent years, several student-athletes
contacted Ted Harrod on their own initiative, obtained jobs, and failed to
notify the department of their plans to work for him," Broyles wrote.

While Harrod said he believed that the athletes were being paid fair market
wages, which should have been about $7.50 an hour, "his perceptions are not
supported by the facts," Broyles wrote.

It wasn't until Dec. 30, 1999, from media reports that university officials
heard of any wrongdoing. News outlets reported that a minority shareholder
in J&H had filed a lawsuit against Harrod, alleging that he misspent company
funds, including overpaying Arkansas athletes.

Karey Harrod, who had worked in the company, made the same allegations. She
was going through a divorce with Harrod's son, Ted Jr., at the time.

The only active player mentioned in the Dec. 30 charges was defensive
lineman D.J. Cooper of Mesquite, Texas, who was at Arkansas from 1995-99.
Arkansas officials interviewed him Dec. 31, the day before the Cotton Bowl,
and concluded that Cooper did not violate NCAA rules. He was allowed to play
in the game.

The investigation began a few days later. Eventually, Sievers discovered
that the 20 to 25 athletes worked for Harrod and his businesses from
1994-99(Nutt became the head coach on December 10, 1997). Combined, they earned between $9,700 and $11,500 during those six
years.

Among the report's findings:

• Football players were overpaid for work over several years. The number of
players involved is not listed.

• In four instances, athletes worked in the summer but were not paid until
December. Such deferred payments are not permissible under NCAA rules. Also,
there were no time sheets to support the hours worked for "possibly improper
payments."

• Harrod compensated athletes from another NCAA school in similar fashion.
The school was not named.

• Cooper earned some $3,000 from Harrod over three and a half years.
Although no time records were found, "nothing seems to indicate that he was
overpaid," the report stated.

• Garner received $100 for two to three hours of work the week before the
Cotton Bowl.

• A $150 check made out to Garner in June 1999 never reached garner's
possession. Instead, a person who is not named forged Garner's name and
deposited the check in his own account.

Among the penalties not previously made public, Garner must perform 30 hours
of community service. Besides being suspended from the season opener, he
cannot travel Friday with the team.

The university has declared Garner ineligible and will seek his
reinstatement effective Sunday, the report said.

Declaring an athlete ineligible and asking the NCAA for reinstatement is a
routine procedure in infractions cases. The athletes' eligibility usually is
restored.

The university also pledged to enhance what it already considered thorough
rules communication with boosters and players.

None of the current coaches had close contact with Harrod or knew that
players worked for him, the report said.

Link



If you consider him clean, then so is Jackie. You can't have it both ways.

patdog · Aug 6, 2010

Good job.

DawgPoundDave · Aug 6, 2010

gdogg said:
The manhas beentrying to punch his ticket out of Oxford since he arrived in Oxford, and when it happens they will turn on him too.
Masoli = Out of Oxford Sooner, nothing more, nothing less.

2.9 Million Arkansasians can't be wrong. Seriously, his character has been called into question before. History is doomed to repeat itself.

8dog · Aug 6, 2010

aGAIN Nutt=Sherrill

And can we get a definition of "institutional fortitude"?

Oxford Godfrey · Aug 6, 2010

even if he posts two more great seasons and is gone like a thief in the night.<div>
</div><div>Ole Miss fans can be made, but they'll never forget what he put back together. Arkansas fans are insane.</div>

Shmuley · Aug 6, 2010

I want some of that redhead.

dawgstudent · Aug 6, 2010

not sure of what we should do with him.

Optimus Prime 4 · Aug 6, 2010

For the record though, I'm not buying the act.

DawgPoundDave · Aug 6, 2010

Mean Machine say what · Aug 6, 2010

maybe next time.

Shmuley · Aug 6, 2010

Stewart Mandel responds about his Masoli article...

Heisman

Heisman

Heisman

Heisman

All-American

Redshirt

Sophomore

Redshirt

All-American

Dollabillz

Guest

Redshirt

Redshirt

Redshirt

Redshirt

Heisman

Redshirt

All-American

Redshirt

Redshirt

Redshirt

All-American

All-Conference

Redshirt

All-Conference

Redshirt

Redshirt

Redshirt

Heisman

Redshirt

All-American

Redshirt

Heisman

Heisman

Redshirt

Redshirt

Redshirt

Heisman