The 2008 NFL draft has been in the books for more than a week, and many of the issues that usually come up in conjunction with the draft will likely be forgotten until preparations are made for the next draft.

But one issue hasn’t completely disappeared from the radar screen, even though its presence in Monday’s SportsBusiness Journal comes off as a carefully-crafted effort to pooh-pooh the notion that an agency representing multiple players who are hoping to be the first selection in the draft have an inherent and unmistakable conflict of interest.

In an item lauding CAA for the fact that the firm represents six of the 31 players picked in round one, SBJ acknowledges the questions posed by Forbes.com, DeadlineHollywood.com, and the “influential” PFT (as in, our content might “influence” you to vomit) regarding the representation of multiple players vying for the highest possible place in the draft, and in turn the most money.

Unfortunately, however, SBJ also addresses the issue in a manner that subtly (if not overtly) supports the view that there is no conflict of interest.

Says Condon on the matter, “I guess I don’t know where the conflict lies.”

Says Dogra:  “The teams stack their draft board.  They spend millions of dollars scouting these players over a nine- or 10-month period.  They are not going to be influenced by an agent.”

Sorry, but we simply don’t agree with that.  Agents definitely can influence the process; why else would agents now shy away from representing multiple high-end players who occupy the same position?  Bus Cook, as legend/rumor has it, wouldn’t get directly involved in the representation of quarterback Vince Young because Cook already was representing quarterback Jay Cutler.  Other agents have likewise avoided these situations. 

And for good reason.  If a team needs a quarterback, how can the agent tout one of his clients for the same spot that could be used on another client who plays the same position?

(On this point, it should be noted that CAA represented two defensive ends and two left tackles drafted in round one.  The players in question (Vernon Gholston and Derrick Harvey, Jake Long and Sam Baker) were perceived as landing in different ranges of round one.  Though Gholston and Harvey ultimately were picked only two spaces apart, Harvey made an unexpected late run up the board, and Gholston unexpectedly fell out of the top five.  If Gholston and Harvey had both been believed to have been headed for the same general spot on the draft board, CAA might very well have picked one or the other — or perhaps Gholston would have been listed prior to the draft exclusively as a linebacker.) 

Another area of potential agent influence arises from the contract negotiation process, and specifically from the negotiations with the team that holds the No. 1 overall pick.  Though Condon and company have strongly denied that any effort was made by the Dolphins to leverage Gholston against offensive tackle Jake Long for the No. 1 overall pick, we’ve heard plenty of rumblings to the contrary.  Besides, even if the Fins weren’t calling Dogra about Gholston, Dogra should have been calling the Dolphins.  Constantly.  And he should have been offering to undercut the best offer that the Fins were making to Long.  Constantly.

As it now stands, Gholston will be paid in accordance with the No. 6 slot, which equates to far less money that Long will receive.

To its credit, SBJ didn’t confine the article to the self-serving views of Condon and Dogra, who are about as likely to admit to a conflict of interest as they are to concede that Marvin Harrison shot that dude last week.  (If Harrison actually did shoot that dude last week.) 

But SBJ didn’t exactly seek out any strong opposing views, either.

Said agent Eugene Parker, “If you represent more than one player in the NFL, it is a potential conflict.  If one player gets a job, there is one less job for somebody else.”  This broad comment indirectly (and conveniently) mocks the argument that the conflict of interest dynamic at the top of the draft is real.

Agent Leigh Steinberg (who really isn’t doing much agenting anymore) was more direct in his support for the CAA “represent ‘em all” approach.  Steinberg, who represented quarterbacks Jeff George (No. 1 overall) and Andre Ware (No. 7 overall) in the 1990 draft, years before the agent industry developed a sensitivity to the “same position” dynamic, says that there’s nothing to it.

“I don’t think there is a legal or actual conflict,” Steinberg said.  (Maybe Steinberg should have stopped that sentence after the first three words.)  

Per SBJ, Steinberg and other unnamed agents said that representing more than one player at the same position might actually help the players by giving the agent for both of them access to information from more teams.

But, wait, folks.  Dogra said the agents can’t influence the process.  So what the hell does having more information do for anyone?  Under Dogra’s view of the draft, the teams are going to pick whoever their multi-million-dollar investment of time and effort tells them to pick. 

Perhaps the biggest flaw in the SBJ article comes from the final quote from Steinberg:  “These conflict of interest arguments are generally made by other agents trying to get those clients.”  

If that’s the case, if the conflict of interest argument is coming from agents trying to get those clients, then why doesn’t the article written by SBJ on the topic include any of those voices?

Though we have immense respect for SBJ, which is a sister company of SportingNews.com, for which the same hack who wrote this has to write a column tonight after attending a rubber chicken dinner in connection with his day job, we think that the article fails to properly articulate, support, or address the other side of the debate.