Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,742 
|
Post by Elvado on Feb 24, 2018 18:15:41 GMT -5
Unless and until people like Count Chocula are made to answer the same way the little guys are, the NCAA will remain the toothless joke it has always been. They are one step away from FIFA level corrupt. Untouchable Smooth Rick Pitino went down so anybody can go down including count chocula. Cue the back problems and need for extensive rehab... |
|
iowa80
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,407
|
Post by iowa80 on Feb 24, 2018 18:16:18 GMT -5
Unless and until people like Count Chocula are made to answer the same way the little guys are, the NCAA will remain the toothless joke it has always been. They are one step away from FIFA level corrupt. Untouchable Smooth Rick Pitino went ncdown so anybody can go down including count chocula. But apparently not Izzo or his assistant or Bridges. NCAA has already cleared Bridges to play despite a "loan" to his mom and the proverbial free lunch ($70) from Miller's agency. |
|
vv83
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,334
|
Post by vv83 on Feb 24, 2018 18:31:44 GMT -5
Even if a bunch of big time programs and coaches get in a whole lot of trouble (losing jobs, losing titles, suspended from future NCAA tournaments, big fines, recruiting restrictions, etc) - I kind of doubt it will do anything to truly clean up recruiting. The only reason people got caught this time around is because the FBI stumbled on these idiot coaches while they (FBI) were investigating unrelated financial crimes. The FBI is not going to be monitoring this stuff moving forward (at least I hope not, there are many far more important problems for them to be investigating). The NCAA has demonstrated over the course of 50 years (going back at least to Sam Gilbert at UCLA, maybe even much further) that they are completely incapable of policing dirty money in the recruiting game.
And that is not even a knock on the NCAA. It would take a literal police investigative force filled with talented, dogged agents (like the FBI!) to effectively police this issue throughout big time college basketball and football. I just don't believe that the NCAA is going to create their own internal FBI to monitor this stuff. Add a few staff members, toughen up some rules, etc. But not nearly enough to actually be able to enforce recruiting/money rules markedly more effectively than they ever have.
Even if big programs and coaches go down as a result of the FBI investigation, there will still be plenty of schools willing to roll the dice that they can get away with it moving forward. Because jobs are on the line if schools don't win, and because there is so much money to be made from winning. I think it is perhaps a bit naive to believe that the FBI investigation is going to result in any kind of significant long term reform. I actually think it would be more likely for the NCAA to simply say "anything goes, free market, because we can't effectively enforce these rules, and the athletes deserve a bigger share of the money they are producing through their talent".
Which I also think is super unlikely. The NCAA has hung on to their amateur fantasy/scam for far too long, with far too much passion, for me to believe that they'll say "we were wrong about the idea we have long considered the very foundation of our sports" and go to a free market/"players can take money from anyone" plan.
it really is hard for me to see any kind of meaningful change when there is this much money at stake for the people making decisions. They have been making a lot of money doing it the way they always have, I can't see them making any meaningful change unless/until that money starts drying up. for all the concern fans/media express about dirty money in recruiting - hoops and football keep making more and more money. Without a strong financial incentive for meaningful change, I just can't see the NCAA doing anything other than cosmetic, relatively meaningless reform.
But maybe I have just grown far too cynical in my old age - at least I hope I have, because truly revolutionary change on this stuff would be great to see for a program like Georgetown, which likely plays the game far cleaner than many others. Maybe there is some middle ground between these two extremes (nothing changes/free market) that wiser people than me can come up with
|
|
dchoya72
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,489
|
Post by dchoya72 on Feb 24, 2018 19:18:09 GMT -5
Unless and until people like Count Chocula are made to answer the same way the little guys are, the NCAA will remain the toothless joke it has always been. They are one step away from FIFA level corrupt. Who is Count Chocula? What are you referring to? |
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,742
|
Post by Elvado on Feb 24, 2018 19:19:33 GMT -5
Unless and until people like Count Chocula are made to answer the same way the little guys are, the NCAA will remain the toothless joke it has always been. They are one step away from FIFA level corrupt. Who is Count Chocula? What are you referring to? Google him and all will reveal itself |
|
dchoya72
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,489
|
Post by dchoya72 on Feb 24, 2018 19:26:09 GMT -5
Google him and all will reveal itself Sorry, I don't get it. I'm very literal. |
|
Bigs"R"Us
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,656
|
Post by Bigs"R"Us on Feb 24, 2018 19:28:10 GMT -5
Coach K
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Feb 24, 2018 19:28:38 GMT -5
Bribery is against federal law. This is the bribery statute which is being used to prosecute the coaches/recruiters and shoe reps (under conspiracy 18 USC Section 371). The coaches/recruiters are agents of their universities and their universities receive in excess of $10,000 in any one year period. While some may quarrel with the use of federal resources to prosecute a case such as this, the statute seems relatively clear and not much of a stretch. 18 USC Section 666 (a) Whoever, if the circumstance described in subsection (b) of this section exists— (1) being an agent of an organization, or of a State, local, or Indian tribal government, or any agency thereof— (B) corruptly solicits or demands for the benefit of any person, or accepts or agrees to accept, anything of value from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded in connection with any business, transaction, or series of transactions of such organization, government, or agency involving any thing of value of $5,000 or more; or (2) corruptly gives, offers, or agrees to give anything of value to any person, with intent to influence or reward an agent of an organization or of a State, local or Indian tribal government, or any agency thereof, in connection with any business, transaction, or series of transactions of such organization, government, or agency involving anything of value of $5,000 or more; shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both. (b) The circumstance referred to in subsection (a) of this section is that the organization, government, or agency receives, in any one year period, benefits in excess of $10,000 under a Federal program involving a grant, contract, subsidy, loan, guarantee, insurance, or other form of Federal assistance. www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/6661. Define corruptly. 2. What is the difference between South Carolina giving P.J. Dozier about $6,000 and Georgetown giving a quarter of a million dollars in tuition, board and other expenses to a recruit? |
|
iowa80
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,407
|
Post by iowa80 on Feb 24, 2018 19:40:34 GMT -5
2. What is the difference between South Carolina giving P.J. Dozier about $6,000 and Georgetown giving a quarter of a million dollars in tuition, board and other expenses to a recruit? One's against the rules and everybody knows it and the other's within the rules and everybody knows it? BTW, I think the $6,000 was allegedly funneled from the agent not SC. |
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,742
|
Post by Elvado on Feb 24, 2018 19:45:02 GMT -5
2. What is the difference between South Carolina giving P.J. Dozier about $6,000 and Georgetown giving a quarter of a million dollars in tuition, board and other expenses to a recruit? One's against the rules and everybody knows it and the other's within the rules and everybody knows it? BTW, I think the $6,000 was allegedly funneled from the agent not SC. One is a scholarship on paper and under NCAA rules and the other was in a brown bag handed off in a parking lot.. |
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,458
|
Post by SSHoya on Feb 24, 2018 19:56:55 GMT -5
1. Corruptly - includes receiving a commission for personal gain (and in breach of your fiduciary obligation to your employer and breach of your contract) as alleged in the indictments. I believe all the indictments require disgorgement of ill gotten gains from their alleged criminal activities. As an assistant coach/recruiter you are an agent of the university and owe it a fiduciary obligation not to engage in conduct in violation of the NCAA rules and the respective universities' own codes of conduct. By accepting or soliciting a commission, you are in breach and acting corruptly. Moreover, those are contract terms of their employment contracts. Hence, if you are acting in your own financial interest by taking a commission for steering a student-athlete to a particular sneaker rep or agent, you are in breach of your contract and acting corruptly. The Montgomery Advertiser acquired the 27-page indictment Tuesday evening. According to the indictment, Person and Michel are required to release "any and all property, real and personal, that constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to the commission of said offenses, including but not limited to a sum of money in United States currency representing the amount of proceeds traceable to the commission of said offenses." www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/sports/college/auburn/2017/11/07/auburn-suspended-assistant-chuck-person-indicted-federal-grand-jury/842479001/2. There is a easy distinction between offering an athletic scholarship within the NCAA rules, consistent with a coaches/recruiters' contracts, and authorized within the mandate of the universities' receipt/disbursement of federal funds to offer loans/grants (including athletic scholarships). If one cannot understand this distinction, I cannot help you. Go Hoyas! Recruit cleanly, win cleanly. |
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,458
|
Post by SSHoya on Feb 24, 2018 20:07:08 GMT -5
One's against the rules and everybody knows it and the other's within the rules and everybody knows it? BTW, I think the $6,000 was allegedly funneled from the agent not SC. One is a scholarship on paper and under NCAA rules and the other was in a brown bag handed off in a parking lot.. Your explanation cuts to the heart of the matter!! |
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,912
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Feb 24, 2018 20:12:45 GMT -5
Meanwhile on ACCSPN, Dick Vitale says there "is not one iota of proof" of anything untoward with Rick Pitino.
|
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,742
|
Post by Elvado on Feb 24, 2018 20:13:55 GMT -5
Meanwhile on ACCSPN, Dick Vitale says there "is not one iota of proof" of anything untoward with Rick Pitino. Go easy on him. He is demented and has only one eye. |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Feb 24, 2018 20:17:43 GMT -5
2. What is the difference between South Carolina giving P.J. Dozier about $6,000 and Georgetown giving a quarter of a million dollars in tuition, board and other expenses to a recruit? One's against the rules and everybody knows it and the other's within the rules and everybody knows it? BTW, I think the $6,000 was allegedly funneled from the agent not SC. NCAA rules. What about the difference re federal law? |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Feb 24, 2018 20:19:16 GMT -5
One is a scholarship on paper and under NCAA rules and the other was in a brown bag handed off in a parking lot.. Your explanation cuts to the heart of the matter!! What does this have to do with federal law? |
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,742
|
Post by Elvado on Feb 24, 2018 20:23:58 GMT -5
Your explanation cuts to the heart of the matter!! What does this have to do with federal law? If nothing else, there are always tax implications. I am sure there is much more like mail fraud and wire fraud. |
|
bamahoya11
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,831
|
Post by bamahoya11 on Feb 24, 2018 23:36:20 GMT -5
The most ironic thing I've heard today is the holier than thou coverage on ESPN about how "disappointing" this is for the game and talking big about how Sean Miller should never coach again. ESPN has just as much to do with the commercialization of sports as any coach or agent. They have extolled virtually ALL of the coaches and players implicated in this probe, raising these programs to larger than life status, and doing their own part to keep the blue bloods running. They also televise more and more high school content and have turned basketball and college sports generally into a multi-billion dollar enterprise. It all serves ESPN quite well, along with the NCAA and conference executives and coaches. It hasn't worked quite as well for the players who either (a) choose to avoid these arrangements and go to school even when many of them come from very difficult financial straits while making millions of dollars for the media, the NCAA, their coaches, and their leagues, or (b) enter a world of seedy characters who offer a little on the front end but may bind them for years to come. ESPN doesn't really care about this problem--they care about the industry on which they depend.
I just wish they could appreciate the irony. They should understand what a joke it is when they talk about how Sean Miller shouldn't "ever coach again." Accountability left the station years ago. The idea that ESPN is the voice of reason and ethics in this debate is just beyond humorous
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator 
Posts: 32,853
|
Post by DanMcQ on Feb 25, 2018 9:30:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by iheartdurenbros on Feb 25, 2018 10:37:22 GMT -5
Does it bug anyone else that the media has hunkered down on the principles of amateurism and the deceit of the NCAA. It is not that I disagree but it seems to ignore other sources of the corruption. If in some ideal world the NCAA and conferences work out rules by which they pay players, it will not end the corruption if they don’t address at least two things: 1. The one and done rule needs to end. The NBA needs to stop treating college as a farm system. Kids should have the NBA as an alternative. If school has no value to them, they should not have to accept tuition as payment. This truly opens the market up. 2. The role of sneaker companies and AAU coaches in providing representation for these athletes just should stop. The AAU system has to address its role in this. Their coaches should not become handlers or steer them to handlers. They can still guide them, bit their own financial interests need to be disentangled from this process. FWIW it also bothers me that Jr takes a finder’s fee for hooking up our best players with Falk. But the AAU practice is worse because it takes advantage of young kids and their families. I have long thought basketball needs to develop a system closer to baseball’s. That will require coordination with the other systems. Without addressing the inherent sources of corruption in these revenue streams, the level of abuse will continue. But kids who go to school should find value in the tuition remission (and yes be paid for regular season play with possible postseason bonuses). But kids who don’t see value in that education should have ability to move on. Finally. I suspect bamahoya11 is correct. This coverage is slanted by the pecuniary interests of the media. Most of 5hese guys want to protect the one and done rule. |
|
