let's talk '18

[ChooChooCat]

Btw per Quinerly's public interview today he said he nor his family has been contacted by the FBI. Seems odd they wouldn't do that doesn't it?

[dmjcat]

LMAO........when has the NCAA EVER cared about "Due Process"??????

We are dealing the NCAA here, not a court of law.

We can agree to disagree. I for one doubt that the UA administration (and ABOR) is going to take the Jerry Tarkanian route.

Ummm I just named the most recent and prominent situation with Cam Newton did I not?

Ummmmmm, the FBI didn't have years of tapes/wiretaps on an Auburn football assistant coach talking about payoffs.............your analogy is irrelevant and quite bad

[ChooChooCat]

LMAO........when has the NCAA EVER cared about "Due Process"??????

We are dealing the NCAA here, not a court of law.

We can agree to disagree. I for one doubt that the UA administration (and ABOR) is going to take the Jerry Tarkanian route.

Ummm I just named the most recent and prominent situation with Cam Newton did I not?

Ummmmmm, the FBI didn't have years of tapes/wiretaps on an Auburn football assistant coach talking about payoffs.............your analogy is irrelevant and quite bad

Ummmm his dad admitted to it did he not? Do you have a better example?

Better yet do you have any example that relates to this whatsoever?

[dmjcat]

LMAO........when has the NCAA EVER cared about "Due Process"??????

We are dealing the NCAA here, not a court of law.

We can agree to disagree. I for one doubt that the UA administration (and ABOR) is going to take the Jerry Tarkanian route.

Ummm I just named the most recent and prominent situation with Cam Newton did I not?

Ummmmmm, the FBI didn't have years of tapes/wiretaps on an Auburn football assistant coach talking about payoffs.............your analogy is irrelevant and quite bad

Ummmm his dad admitted to it did he not? Do you have a better example?

Ummmmmm, No, his dad admitted to shopping him to another school for $180,000.

http://www.espn.com/college-football/st ... cam-newton" target="_blank

The NCAA didn't have tapes of an Auburn assistant coach engaged in payoffs. The NCAA/FBI does have tapes of an AZ assistant coach engaging in illegal activities.

Time to get off the denial train.

[ChooChooCat]

LMAO........when has the NCAA EVER cared about "Due Process"??????

We are dealing the NCAA here, not a court of law.

We can agree to disagree. I for one doubt that the UA administration (and ABOR) is going to take the Jerry Tarkanian route.

Ummm I just named the most recent and prominent situation with Cam Newton did I not?

Ummmmmm, the FBI didn't have years of tapes/wiretaps on an Auburn football assistant coach talking about payoffs.............your analogy is irrelevant and quite bad

Ummmm his dad admitted to it did he not? Do you have a better example?

Ummmmmm, No, his dad admitted to shopping him to another school for $180,000.

http://www.espn.com/college-football/st ... cam-newton" target="_blank

The NCAA didn't have tapes of an Auburn assistant coach engaged in payoffs. The NCAA/FBI does have tapes of an AZ assistant coach engaging in illegal activities.

Time to get off the denial train.

What if he kept all the money DMJ? Are we still fucked? Does that matter at all to you or are you Hank Jr?

Look if there's proof I'm on your train, if there's not you're dumb. There's no other answer here. Good day either way sir, gonna go play with my kiddo.

[RondaeShimmy]

There isn't years of tape/wiretaps on book, he was first approached during this year's pac 12 tournament.

Book is the least incriminating one in this FBI probe, others mentioned were far more incriminating. He came in super late into this (which makes it more infuriating).

There's a lot of misinformation about what this FBI investigation entails w connection to Arizona. So here they are in simple terms.

* A claim that Miami had to match $150k to land Little.

* Book requested $15k to give to or some close to Quinerly, AFTER he committed.

* There was talk that Book had already taken care of a player on the current roster. "No expenses there"

* Idea was pitched to Pasternak (as far as we know he didn't bite)

All of these are claim others said, not Book, aka hearsay.

Unless I missed it, the investment advisor and Adidas guy are the ones on tape.

The investment advisor was the one who flipped

[dmjcat]

Ummmmmm, the FBI didn't have years of tapes/wiretaps on an Auburn football assistant coach talking about payoffs.............your analogy is irrelevant and quite bad[/quote]

Ummmm his dad admitted to it did he not? Do you have a better example?[/quote]

Ummmmmm, No, his dad admitted to shopping him to another school for $180,000.

http://www.espn.com/college-football/st ... cam-newton" target="_blank

The NCAA didn't have tapes of an Auburn assistant coach engaged in payoffs. The NCAA/FBI does have tapes of an AZ assistant coach engaging in illegal activities.

Time to get off the denial train.[/quote]

What if he kept all the money DMJ? Are we still fucked? Does that matter at all to you or are you Hank Jr?

Look if there's proof I'm on your train, if there's not you're dumb. There's no other answer here. Good day either way sir, gonna go play with my kiddo.[/quote]

What if he kept all of the money??? Do you also believe in the tooth fairy???

Have fun with your kid.

[ChooChooCat]

What if he kept all of the money??? Do you also believe in the tooth fairy???

Have fun with your kid.

Yes, she has a great set of tits on her. Have a good one bud.

[Irish27]

Can't blame the kid. If he was smart, he would sign with Oregon.

[Beachcat97]

Are we all to assume that UK is playing by the rules? They get more elite players than any school, and their coach has a history of NCAA violations.

[Frybry02]

Wow how drastically the outlook for the '18 class has changed. Pretty crazy. Might have to hit the grad transfer market pretty heavy next year

[Merkin]

[prh]

Yeezus this thread has completely outlived its usefulness

[luteformayor2]

So O'Neal is sticking with us? And Quinerly perhaps also?

I understand the uncommitted dudes looking elsewhere now but if we can maintain our current class, we will be ok.

I know it's ridiculous but it seems that IF Sean Miller and Arizona are cleared of wrongdoing, that in theory, there could be a legitimate legal case against the FBI for making this thing public and thus hurting Arizona's recruiting and revenue. I know that's outlandish and absurd but fuck it, this situation is outlandish and absurd.

[CalStateTempe]

So O'Neal is sticking with us? And Quinerly perhaps also?

I understand the uncommitted dudes looking elsewhere now but if we can maintain our current class, we will be ok.

I know it's ridiculous but it seems that IF Sean Miller and Arizona are cleared of wrongdoing, that in theory, there could be a legitimate legal case against the FBI for making this thing public and thus hurting Arizona's recruiting and revenue. I know that's outlandish and absurd but fuck it, this situation is outlandish and absurd.

I completely agree. Sue for damages.

[Longhorned]

Won't have luck with FBI but while we're at it, sue Adidas too, and, if appropriate, Nike. Arizona can survive cutting its ties with Nike if it turns out Nike has been putting programs at risk.

[Beachcat97]

If we’re effectively “cleared,” save for whatever Book did, there’s gotta be some kind of message from UofA or the NCAA. Something that communicates to the public that AZ is not in trouble in any way. Unless that happens, the Bols and Littles of the world will stay away.

[Harvey Specter]

So O'Neal is sticking with us? And Quinerly perhaps also?

I understand the uncommitted dudes looking elsewhere now but if we can maintain our current class, we will be ok.

I know it's ridiculous but it seems that IF Sean Miller and Arizona are cleared of wrongdoing, that in theory, there could be a legitimate legal case against the FBI for making this thing public and thus hurting Arizona's recruiting and revenue. I know that's outlandish and absurd but fuck it, this situation is outlandish and absurd.

I completely agree. Sue for damages.

Sue for what? Having an assistant coach who got caught red-handed for doing shady shit?

The FBI has not alleged anything against Sean Miller and Arizona. They charged Book Richardson, and appear to have him dead to rights. On tape.

Get real

[Spaceman Spiff]

If we’re effectively “cleared,” save for whatever Book did, there’s gotta be some kind of message from UofA or the NCAA. Something that communicates to the public that AZ is not in trouble in any way. Unless that happens, the Bols and Littles of the world will stay away.

I wouldn't expect to be cleared by the NCAA to any extent for quite a while. We'll get sanctioned regardless, but the NCAA may not even start until the FBI portion concludes.

[Beachcat97]

If we’re effectively “cleared,” save for whatever Book did, there’s gotta be some kind of message from UofA or the NCAA. Something that communicates to the public that AZ is not in trouble in any way. Unless that happens, the Bols and Littles of the world will stay away.

I wouldn't expect to be cleared by the NCAA to any extent for quite a while. We'll get sanctioned regardless, but the NCAA may not even start until the FBI portion concludes.

Yeah, that's my fear. Because the longer this just lingers and hovers over the program, the longer it gives recruits and opposing coaches a way to *doubt* whether AZ will be postseason-eligible.

Well, here's hoping for a swift, favorable resolution, however unlikely that may be.

[dmjcat]

If we’re effectively “cleared,” save for whatever Book did, there’s gotta be some kind of message from UofA or the NCAA. Something that communicates to the public that AZ is not in trouble in any way. Unless that happens, the Bols and Littles of the world will stay away.

I wouldn't expect to be cleared by the NCAA to any extent for quite a while. We'll get sanctioned regardless, but the NCAA may not even start until the FBI portion concludes.

Yeah, that's my fear. Because the longer this just lingers and hovers over the program, the longer it gives recruits and opposing coaches a way to *doubt* whether AZ will be postseason-eligible.

Well, here's hoping for a swift, favorable resolution, however unlikely that may be.

Agreed.

We need to complete our own internal investigation ASAP, and unless there is some sort of miracle revelation (like it was Book Richardsons evil twin brother breaking the law) we need to go before the NCAA on our knees, self sanction, and hope they go along with it. We need to get past the punishment phase as fast as possible or it will just hang over our heads like the sword of Damocles, negatively affecting our recruiting for years to come.

[dmjcat]

If we’re effectively “cleared,” save for whatever Book did, there’s gotta be some kind of message from UofA or the NCAA. Something that communicates to the public that AZ is not in trouble in any way. Unless that happens, the Bols and Littles of the world will stay away.

I wouldn't expect to be cleared by the NCAA to any extent for quite a while. We'll get sanctioned regardless, but the NCAA may not even start until the FBI portion concludes.

Yeah, that's my fear. Because the longer this just lingers and hovers over the program, the longer it gives recruits and opposing coaches a way to *doubt* whether AZ will be postseason-eligible.

Well, here's hoping for a swift, favorable resolution, however unlikely that may be.

Agreed.

We need to complete our own internal investigation ASAP, and unless there is some sort of miracle revelation (like it was Book Richardsons evil twin brother breaking the law) we need to go before the NCAA on our knees, self sanction, and hope they go along with it. We need to get past the punishment phase as fast as possible or it will just hang over our heads like the sword of Damocles, negatively affecting our recruiting for years to come.

[Longhorned]

So O'Neal is sticking with us? And Quinerly perhaps also?

I understand the uncommitted dudes looking elsewhere now but if we can maintain our current class, we will be ok.

I know it's ridiculous but it seems that IF Sean Miller and Arizona are cleared of wrongdoing, that in theory, there could be a legitimate legal case against the FBI for making this thing public and thus hurting Arizona's recruiting and revenue. I know that's outlandish and absurd but fuck it, this situation is outlandish and absurd.

I completely agree. Sue for damages.

Sue for what? Having an assistant coach who got caught red-handed for doing shady shit?

The FBI has not alleged anything against Sean Miller and Arizona. They charged Book Richardson, and appear to have him dead to rights. On tape.

Get real

Harvey, luteformayor2 wasn't talking about the possibility of false allegations. Yes, there's direct evidence that Book took $20,000. Caught red handed. But luteformayor2 was talking about the bureau going public with a document that mentions the following:

- Book may have paid Quinnerly with the money Book took (no direct evidence)

- Book may have paid a current Arizona player (no direct evidence)

- Arizona ("4") offered Little $150,000 (no direct evidence)

In terms of negative impact that would affect recruiting, the scope of an assistant coach who takes $20,000 across state lines during the summer before the new academic year's disclosure form for conflicts of interest does not equal the scope of those other public statements.

No, you're not going to win a case against the FBI. But an Adidas official's claim that Arizona offered $150,000 to Little is potentially slanderous. And if it's true and it turns out that money was to come directly from Nike to Little's people, Arizona could potentially have a case against Nike for damages.

[Spaceman Spiff]

If we’re effectively “cleared,” save for whatever Book did, there’s gotta be some kind of message from UofA or the NCAA. Something that communicates to the public that AZ is not in trouble in any way. Unless that happens, the Bols and Littles of the world will stay away.

I wouldn't expect to be cleared by the NCAA to any extent for quite a while. We'll get sanctioned regardless, but the NCAA may not even start until the FBI portion concludes.

Yeah, that's my fear. Because the longer this just lingers and hovers over the program, the longer it gives recruits and opposing coaches a way to *doubt* whether AZ will be postseason-eligible.

Well, here's hoping for a swift, favorable resolution, however unlikely that may be.

I hope the internal situation is such that we can get a good, quick internal investigation done, then self impose sanctions that are the least onerous, but that the NCAA will accept.

Getting it right allows us to move forward without concern that more is coming down the line. We have to take a short term hit, but a solid investigation is key to the hit being a one time thing that we take and start moving past.

[Harvey Specter]

So O'Neal is sticking with us? And Quinerly perhaps also?

I understand the uncommitted dudes looking elsewhere now but if we can maintain our current class, we will be ok.

I know it's ridiculous but it seems that IF Sean Miller and Arizona are cleared of wrongdoing, that in theory, there could be a legitimate legal case against the FBI for making this thing public and thus hurting Arizona's recruiting and revenue. I know that's outlandish and absurd but fuck it, this situation is outlandish and absurd.

I completely agree. Sue for damages.

Sue for what? Having an assistant coach who got caught red-handed for doing shady shit?

The FBI has not alleged anything against Sean Miller and Arizona. They charged Book Richardson, and appear to have him dead to rights. On tape.

Get real

Harvey, luteformayor2 wasn't talking about the possibility of false allegations. Yes, there's direct evidence that Book took $20,000. Caught red handed. But luteformayor2 was talking about the bureau going public with a document that mentions the following:

- Book may have paid Quinnerly with the money Book took (no direct evidence)

- Book may have paid a current Arizona player (no direct evidence)

- Arizona ("4") offered Little $150,000 (no direct evidence)

In terms of negative impact that would affect recruiting, the scope of an assistant coach who takes $20,000 across state lines during the summer before the new academic year's disclosure form for conflicts of interest does not equal the scope of those other public statements.

No, you're not going to win a case against the FBI. But an Adidas official's claim that Arizona offered $150,000 to Little is potentially slanderous. And if it's true and it turns out that money was to come directly from Nike to Little's people, Arizona could potentially have a case against Nike for damages.

I did not read all the document, but my understanding was that:
1. Book received money, at least some of which was supposed to go to Quinerly (I thought). Deducing that Book MAY have given Quinerly money is not a stretch... (and saying something may have happened is not an allegation)
2. They have another party on tape saying AZ did that... again, to my knowledge - they did not even comment on it, other than to report it.

Regardless... this is going to be a cloud on our program for some time - look what it has done to recruiting already. And the notion that we will be overshadowed by the fall of CBB as we know it - with much bigger fish to fry taking attention off of us - looks more and more unlikely.

[Longhorned]

Thanks, Harvey. If revelations of widespread practices of undermining amateurism don't happen, we're going to have to figure out what to do about the gap between:

1) the supposed "common knowledge" of such widely spread practices and the "naivete" of fans who don't know about it;

and

2) the lack of any tangible reason to believe in such practices beyond Arizona, USC, Louisville, Auburn, Oklahoma State, and Miami. And this in spite of an FBI investigation.

[CatFanOneMil]

What kind of sanctions would the UA even consider of self imposing? Miller did nothing wrong, and internal audit will show that he already is on record for reprimanding Book for being stupid in the past?

I am seriously wondering in a practical sense what ANYONE (Including the NCAA) expects Miller to be doing here that he probably is not already doing?
I'm pretty sure anything Book did he did outside of the UA campus, he's stupid but he was smart enough to not get caught for a few months...

Is Miller supposed to issue UA "For Official Use only" cell phones? What good would that do everybody and their cat has a personal cell phone.

He can't spy on Book (or other coaches, as much as Miller would probably love to be in control he simply cannot).

And there's line between running a Gulag type program and still being "human" with your staff, its not fucking Shaw-shank here, I imagine when Miller busted him over leaking inside info Book was probably fired on the spot but then Miller softened because: A. He's human, and B. Book has a great report wit the athletes...

So what should he self impose here? His own post season ban? Fuck that, no way he's guilty enough to do that

Limit his own scholarships?

Suspend himself for the first 6 games #hattipNcaaLouisvilleRick ??????

He sure as hell isn't gonna throw himself on the mercy of the Pac 12, can you imagine Steve-I just wanted to make sure my guys were ready for the last 5 seconds-Alford would LOOOOVE to have Miller at his mercy, double fuck that...

Cancel the red/blue game?

Stop taking charter flights and fly only commercial?

What? What can Miller self impose here that is going to count as more than a burning bag of poo on the front door step of the NCAA??

National Champions and vacate. Fuck it.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Book was still on the coaching staff. We have to take a hit for him even if Miller wasn't involved.

How big a hit depends on whether the allegations about Quinerly and Little are substantiated and whether there's a hint it was more than just Book's actions.

[ChooChooCat]

Book was still on the coaching staff. We have to take a hit for him even if Miller wasn't involved.

How big a hit depends on whether the allegations about Quinerly and Little are substantiated and whether there's a hint it was more than just Book's actions.

Little is null and void. Even if there's remote tangible proof that we offered him or his circle money he didn't come to Arizona. Prime Cam Newton example.

If Quinerly/Circle was in fact paid by Book and that's proven then we will suffer consequences. If Book either kept all the money or there's no tangible proof that money got to Quinerly from Arizona then once again null and void.

Honestly if an assistant went rogue to line his own pockets then I don't foresee much of a punishment at all. If he paid players and that can be proven well yeah.

[Beachcat97]

If it’s only the ‘18 recruiting class that takes a hit, we’ll be fine. Bol would’ve been great alongside Reef, but that ship has now sailed. Take the hit, regroup, get Romar out recruiting, take back the Pac by ‘20.

[zonagrad]

If it’s only the ‘18 recruiting class that takes a hit, we’ll be fine. Bol would’ve been great alongside Reef, but that ship has now sailed. Take the hit, regroup, get Romar out recruiting, take back the Pac by ‘20.

I fully expect Miller to coach 'em up in '19 and win the Pac as well. I'm not ceding anything to the rest of the Pac. And I'm sure Miller isn't either. We still will have a lot of horses next season. Experienced too.

[Beachcat97]

If it’s only the ‘18 recruiting class that takes a hit, we’ll be fine. Bol would’ve been great alongside Reef, but that ship has now sailed. Take the hit, regroup, get Romar out recruiting, take back the Pac by ‘20.

I fully expect Miller to coach 'em up in '19 and win the Pac as well. I'm not ceding anything to the rest of the Pac. And I'm sure Miller isn't either. We still will have a lot of horses next season. Experienced too.

I get that zg. I’m just trying to balance my trust in Coach Miller with the reality of our situation. If we reel off 2 or 3 straight Pac titles right while this is all fresh and getting dealt with, that would be astonishing.

[gumby]

The UofA would sue a shoe company because of information divulged by the FBI? What?

If we are to believe that elite recruits have a going rate, then we must acknowledge that the shoe companies, universities, along with others, are partners in these transactions.

Suing Nike suggests this was a one-off. Never happened before. Book went rogue. But what if this is how it's done, as 97cats has suggested? Multitudes here seemed to accept his scenario.

Why would Nike just take a bullet for a school that's suing it and pretending to be pure? Wouldn't it instead point to all the times when we didn't seem to mind "the arrangement?" Wouldn't it have proof?

Advocates of suing, please explain how we go after one of the partners in crime (or NCAA violations) without exposing the fruits of that partnership?

[Spaceman Spiff]

If it’s only the ‘18 recruiting class that takes a hit, we’ll be fine. Bol would’ve been great alongside Reef, but that ship has now sailed. Take the hit, regroup, get Romar out recruiting, take back the Pac by ‘20.

Maybe we need to go after Bryan Penn-Johnson after all...

So much depends on who stays and/or is eligible. If we start Jeter, Lee/O'Neal, Akot, Randolph and Quinerly, that is still a lot of talent. It is just a situation where we need Lee or O'Neal to be ready for that starting role. It also presumes the FBI stuff does not kill Quinerly's eligibility. It is still a lineup that has two really good wings, a 4th year post and two talented freshman pg's.

[Longhorned]

The UofA would sue a shoe company because of information divulged by the FBI? What?

If we are to believe that elite recruits have a going rate, then we must acknowledge that the shoe companies, universities, along with others, are partners in these transactions.

Suing Nike suggests this was a one-off. Never happened before. Book went rogue. But what if this is how it's done, as 97cats has suggested? Multitudes here seemed to accept his scenario.

Why would Nike just take a bullet for a school that's suing it and pretending to be pure? Wouldn't it instead point to all the times when we didn't seem to mind "the arrangement?" Wouldn't it have proof?

Advocates of suing, please explain how we go after one of the partners in crime (or NCAA violations) without exposing the fruits of that partnership?

I'm not advocating Arizona suing a shoe company. One poster raised the possibility of Arizona eventually being cleared of wrongdoing, in which case either Nike didn't offer Little $150,000, or (implausibly) Nike did but Arizona didn't know about it and Nike was acting in their own self-interest by directing a future pro toward a future with Nike. In that case, if Arizona is going to sue the FBI for the negative impact (which would be a waste of Arizona's time and money), Nike would really be the liable party.

We're told that we're naive if we don't know that the amateurism of college basketball is a charade, and that all these 5-star and 4-star players and their AAU coaches and handlers and family members are paid by Adidas or Nike or whomever. If that's true, then the FBI investigation should reveal a wide web of under-the-table payments that implicate programs everywhere. Arizona won't be singled out, and the burden of negative impact will be spread around and the whole system gets an overhaul.

Alternatively, we're told that some Arizona fans here are driven by denial to feed themselves false hopes of revelations of such a widespread scandal, and that Arizona and Louisville and just a couple other programs are the only guilty parties. Arizona will therefore be crippled by NCAA sanctions.

Which is it?

[EVCat]

The UofA would sue a shoe company because of information divulged by the FBI? What?

If we are to believe that elite recruits have a going rate, then we must acknowledge that the shoe companies, universities, along with others, are partners in these transactions.

Suing Nike suggests this was a one-off. Never happened before. Book went rogue. But what if this is how it's done, as 97cats has suggested? Multitudes here seemed to accept his scenario.

Why would Nike just take a bullet for a school that's suing it and pretending to be pure? Wouldn't it instead point to all the times when we didn't seem to mind "the arrangement?" Wouldn't it have proof?

Advocates of suing, please explain how we go after one of the partners in crime (or NCAA violations) without exposing the fruits of that partnership?

We don't. It is message board talk.

[gumby]

Whew! Cause that cray.

[gumby]

The UofA would sue a shoe company because of information divulged by the FBI? What?

If we are to believe that elite recruits have a going rate, then we must acknowledge that the shoe companies, universities, along with others, are partners in these transactions.

Suing Nike suggests this was a one-off. Never happened before. Book went rogue. But what if this is how it's done, as 97cats has suggested? Multitudes here seemed to accept his scenario.

Why would Nike just take a bullet for a school that's suing it and pretending to be pure? Wouldn't it instead point to all the times when we didn't seem to mind "the arrangement?" Wouldn't it have proof?

Advocates of suing, please explain how we go after one of the partners in crime (or NCAA violations) without exposing the fruits of that partnership?

I'm not advocating Arizona suing a shoe company. One poster raised the possibility of Arizona eventually being cleared of wrongdoing, in which case either Nike didn't offer Little $150,000, or (implausibly) Nike did but Arizona didn't know about it and Nike was acting in their own self-interest by directing a future pro toward a future with Nike. In that case, if Arizona is going to sue the FBI for the negative impact (which would be a waste of Arizona's time and money), Nike would really be the liable party.

We're told that we're naive if we don't know that the amateurism of college basketball is a charade, and that all these 5-star and 4-star players and their AAU coaches and handlers and family members are paid by Adidas or Nike or whomever. If that's true, then the FBI investigation should reveal a wide web of under-the-table payments that implicate programs everywhere. Arizona won't be singled out, and the burden of negative impact will be spread around and the whole system gets an overhaul.

Alternatively, we're told that some Arizona fans here are driven by denial to feed themselves false hopes of revelations of such a widespread scandal, and that Arizona and Louisville and just a couple other programs are the only guilty parties. Arizona will therefore be crippled by NCAA sanctions.

Which is it?

Sensible.

[Hank of sb]

The UofA would sue a shoe company because of information divulged by the FBI? What?

If we are to believe that elite recruits have a going rate, then we must acknowledge that the shoe companies, universities, along with others, are partners in these transactions.

Suing Nike suggests this was a one-off. Never happened before. Book went rogue. But what if this is how it's done, as 97cats has suggested? Multitudes here seemed to accept his scenario.

Why would Nike just take a bullet for a school that's suing it and pretending to be pure? Wouldn't it instead point to all the times when we didn't seem to mind "the arrangement?" Wouldn't it have proof?

Advocates of suing, please explain how we go after one of the partners in crime (or NCAA violations) without exposing the fruits of that partnership?

I'm not advocating Arizona suing a shoe company. One poster raised the possibility of Arizona eventually being cleared of wrongdoing, in which case either Nike didn't offer Little $150,000, or (implausibly) Nike did but Arizona didn't know about it and Nike was acting in their own self-interest by directing a future pro toward a future with Nike. In that case, if Arizona is going to sue the FBI for the negative impact (which would be a waste of Arizona's time and money), Nike would really be the liable party.

We're told that we're naive if we don't know that the amateurism of college basketball is a charade, and that all these 5-star and 4-star players and their AAU coaches and handlers and family members are paid by Adidas or Nike or whomever. If that's true, then the FBI investigation should reveal a wide web of under-the-table payments that implicate programs everywhere. Arizona won't be singled out, and the burden of negative impact will be spread around and the whole system gets an overhaul.

Alternatively, we're told that some Arizona fans here are driven by denial to feed themselves false hopes of revelations of such a widespread scandal, and that Arizona and Louisville and just a couple other programs are the only guilty parties. Arizona will therefore be crippled by NCAA sanctions.

Which is it?

How about the third scenario.

Every program has a World Wide Wes to handle financial requests which all universities have NOTHING, repeat nothing, to do with. (The universities don't know because they are not told and they don't want to be told.) If it's legal to hire a prospect's son as a bench coach, why isn't it legal to hire (pay) an uncle/mom--through WWW--to sponsor a shoe company?

The whole college basketball payola thing has been refined and LEGAL for years! Unbeknownst to all.

As for this current episode, however--the one that concerns Arizona-- there is fraud.

A half dozen coaches overstepped their bounds and accepted money for themselves promising, in return, favors from unsuspecting minors who know/knew nothing about any of it!

That sounds illegal to me. Even worthy of prosecution.

[Longhorned]

The UofA would sue a shoe company because of information divulged by the FBI? What?

If we are to believe that elite recruits have a going rate, then we must acknowledge that the shoe companies, universities, along with others, are partners in these transactions.

Suing Nike suggests this was a one-off. Never happened before. Book went rogue. But what if this is how it's done, as 97cats has suggested? Multitudes here seemed to accept his scenario.

Why would Nike just take a bullet for a school that's suing it and pretending to be pure? Wouldn't it instead point to all the times when we didn't seem to mind "the arrangement?" Wouldn't it have proof?

Advocates of suing, please explain how we go after one of the partners in crime (or NCAA violations) without exposing the fruits of that partnership?

I'm not advocating Arizona suing a shoe company. One poster raised the possibility of Arizona eventually being cleared of wrongdoing, in which case either Nike didn't offer Little $150,000, or (implausibly) Nike did but Arizona didn't know about it and Nike was acting in their own self-interest by directing a future pro toward a future with Nike. In that case, if Arizona is going to sue the FBI for the negative impact (which would be a waste of Arizona's time and money), Nike would really be the liable party.

We're told that we're naive if we don't know that the amateurism of college basketball is a charade, and that all these 5-star and 4-star players and their AAU coaches and handlers and family members are paid by Adidas or Nike or whomever. If that's true, then the FBI investigation should reveal a wide web of under-the-table payments that implicate programs everywhere. Arizona won't be singled out, and the burden of negative impact will be spread around and the whole system gets an overhaul.

Alternatively, we're told that some Arizona fans here are driven by denial to feed themselves false hopes of revelations of such a widespread scandal, and that Arizona and Louisville and just a couple other programs are the only guilty parties. Arizona will therefore be crippled by NCAA sanctions.

Which is it?

How about the third scenario.

Every program has a World Wide Wes to handle financial requests which all universities have NOTHING, repeat nothing, to do with. (The universities don't know because they are not told and they don't want to be told.) If it's legal to hire a prospect's son as a bench coach, why isn't it legal to hire (pay) an uncle/mom--through WWW--to sponsor a shoe company?

The whole college basketball payola thing has been refined and LEGAL for years! Unbeknownst to all.

As for this current episode, however--the one that concerns Arizona-- there is fraud.

A half dozen coaches overstepped their bounds and accepted money for themselves promising, in return, favors from unsuspecting minors who know/knew nothing about any of it!

That sounds illegal to me. Even worthy of prosecution.

Why only a half dozen coaches? What is the crime?

[Hank of sb]

The UofA would sue a shoe company because of information divulged by the FBI? What?

If we are to believe that elite recruits have a going rate, then we must acknowledge that the shoe companies, universities, along with others, are partners in these transactions.

Suing Nike suggests this was a one-off. Never happened before. Book went rogue. But what if this is how it's done, as 97cats has suggested? Multitudes here seemed to accept his scenario.

Why would Nike just take a bullet for a school that's suing it and pretending to be pure? Wouldn't it instead point to all the times when we didn't seem to mind "the arrangement?" Wouldn't it have proof?

Advocates of suing, please explain how we go after one of the partners in crime (or NCAA violations) without exposing the fruits of that partnership?

I'm not advocating Arizona suing a shoe company. One poster raised the possibility of Arizona eventually being cleared of wrongdoing, in which case either Nike didn't offer Little $150,000, or (implausibly) Nike did but Arizona didn't know about it and Nike was acting in their own self-interest by directing a future pro toward a future with Nike. In that case, if Arizona is going to sue the FBI for the negative impact (which would be a waste of Arizona's time and money), Nike would really be the liable party.

We're told that we're naive if we don't know that the amateurism of college basketball is a charade, and that all these 5-star and 4-star players and their AAU coaches and handlers and family members are paid by Adidas or Nike or whomever. If that's true, then the FBI investigation should reveal a wide web of under-the-table payments that implicate programs everywhere. Arizona won't be singled out, and the burden of negative impact will be spread around and the whole system gets an overhaul.

Alternatively, we're told that some Arizona fans here are driven by denial to feed themselves false hopes of revelations of such a widespread scandal, and that Arizona and Louisville and just a couple other programs are the only guilty parties. Arizona will therefore be crippled by NCAA sanctions.

Which is it?

How about the third scenario.

Every program has a World Wide Wes to handle financial requests which all universities have NOTHING, repeat nothing, to do with. (The universities don't know because they are not told and they don't want to be told.) If it's legal to hire a prospect's son as a bench coach, why isn't it legal to hire (pay) an uncle/mom--through WWW--to sponsor a shoe company?

The whole college basketball payola thing has been refined and LEGAL for years! Unbeknownst to all.

As for this current episode, however--the one that concerns Arizona-- there is fraud.

A half dozen coaches overstepped their bounds and accepted money for themselves promising, in return, favors from unsuspecting minors who know/knew nothing about any of it!

That sounds illegal to me. Even worthy of prosecution.

Why only a half dozen coaches? What is the crime?

Bribery as charged. Accepting money on behalf of minors who know/knew nothing about the transactions and subsequently could be victims of poor, most importantly, unsolicited advice.

Why six? Six were caught.

By now, seeing what has happened to the original six, all the rest of the 100 other coaches possibly involved doing the same have already stopped such shenanigans.

Isn't this/that the way law works? Catch someone. Make an example. Stop the activity.

[Longhorned]

I see what you're referring to, Hank. I was talking about Arizona basketball vis-a-vis college basketball.

[Hank of sb]

I see what you're referring to, Hank. I was talking about Arizona basketball vis-a-vis college basketball.

We know Arizona is one of six schools to have an assistant coach indicted (now). Arizona--the school or its head coach-- has not been charged with anything. You know all this. I'm not grasping your real inquiry here. Spell it out and I won't back away from providing any thoughts.

And yes, the LAT is out suggesting there may be more.

Perhaps the number goes beyond six. Still, my input--the WWW thought--strikes me as plausible. No crime giving money to a family representative for services.

Not in a court of law.

If that's your angle, I'm in.

The NCAA might have a problem.

[gumby]

WWW: Hi, I'm World Wide Wes.

Coach: Oh, hi, World Wide.

WWW: I'd like unfettered access to your program -- practices, games, the whole enchilada.

Coach: How come?

WWW: Um, honor the process.

Coach: I mean, sure thing. You look trustworthy, and you have name that raises absolutely no suspicions.

WWW: One more thing?

Coach: Yeah.

WWW: Can I get some nachos?

Coach: With extra cheese!

(A few minutes later)

Athletic director: (Pointing to WWW scarfing nachos behind the bench). Who's that guy?

Coach: That's World Wide Wes.

AD: Don't we pay you enough to get a new car?

Coach: No, he's not a dealer, he's a ... uh ... basketball fan.

AD: Yeah, we don't let them watch practice.

Coach: But he's so personable, and he uses words like "unfettered." This business is all about relationships, and I want to have relations with that guy.

AD: I suppose. Have you followed the PDP?

Coach: The Plausible Deniability Protocols? Of course. It's like the Boy Scout Oath with me.

AD: Well, OK. I mean, what could possibly go wrong?

[Spaceman Spiff]

WWW: Hi, I'm World Wide Wes.

Coach: Oh, hi, World Wide.

WWW: I'd like unfettered access to your program -- practices, games, the whole enchilada.

Coach: How come?

WWW: Um, honor the process.

Coach: I mean, sure thing. You look trustworthy, and you have name that raises absolutely no suspicions.

WWW: One more thing?

Coach: Yeah.

WWW: Can I get some nachos?

Coach: With extra cheese!

(A few minutes later)

Athletic director: (Pointing to WWW scarfing nachos behind the bench). Who's that guy?

Coach: That's World Wide Wes.

AD: Don't we pay you enough to get a new car?

Coach: No, he's not a dealer, he's a ... uh ... basketball fan.

AD: Yeah, we don't let them watch practice.

Coach: But he's so personable, and he uses words like "unfettered." This business is all about relationships, and I want to have relations with that guy.

AD: I suppose. Have you followed the PDP?

Coach: The Plausible Deniability Protocols? Of course. It's like the Boy Scout Oath with me.

AD: Well, OK. I mean, what could possibly go wrong?

Everyone has "handlers" or a "camp."

Frankly, I'd rather have it go legit so players actually have info about who to trust. Having advisors and an agent isn't actually a bad thing if they are decent people. The current black market is a breeding ground for the roaches. If it went legit, maybe the skeevy, self-interested handlers lose their market share.

There's nothing actually wrong with a WWW so long as he's actually trying to do what's best for a player.

[ChooChooCat]

The NCAA might have a problem.

Well that settles it, let's shut down the program.

[EOCT]

WWW: Hi, I'm World Wide Wes.

Coach: Oh, hi, World Wide.

WWW: I'd like unfettered access to your program -- practices, games, the whole enchilada.

Coach: How come?

WWW: Um, honor the process.

Coach: I mean, sure thing. You look trustworthy, and you have name that raises absolutely no suspicions.

WWW: One more thing?

Coach: Yeah.

WWW: Can I get some nachos?

Coach: With extra cheese!

(A few minutes later)

Athletic director: (Pointing to WWW scarfing nachos behind the bench). Who's that guy?

Coach: That's World Wide Wes.

AD: Don't we pay you enough to get a new car?

Coach: No, he's not a dealer, he's a ... uh ... basketball fan.

AD: Yeah, we don't let them watch practice.

Coach: But he's so personable, and he uses words like "unfettered." This business is all about relationships, and I want to have relations with that guy.

AD: I suppose. Have you followed the PDP?

Coach: The Plausible Deniability Protocols? Of course. It's like the Boy Scout Oath with me.

AD: Well, OK. I mean, what could possibly go wrong?

Everyone has "handlers" or a "camp."

Frankly, I'd rather have it go legit so players actually have info about who to trust. Having advisors and an agent isn't actually a bad thing if they are decent people. The current black market is a breeding ground for the roaches. If it went legit, maybe the skeevy, self-interested handlers lose their market share.

There's nothing actually wrong with a WWW so long as he's actually trying to do what's best for a player.

Really like your thinking on this, Spiff-----fair, logical way to arm a youngster with the tools he needs and deserves. Yes, decent people and sunshine. A policy focusing where it should----on the player.

Ha, ha Gumby. PDP=BSO(Boy Scout Oath)

[gumby]

WWW: Hi, I'm World Wide Wes.

Coach: Oh, hi, World Wide.

WWW: I'd like unfettered access to your program -- practices, games, the whole enchilada.

Coach: How come?

WWW: Um, honor the process.

Coach: I mean, sure thing. You look trustworthy, and you have name that raises absolutely no suspicions.

WWW: One more thing?

Coach: Yeah.

WWW: Can I get some nachos?

Coach: With extra cheese!

(A few minutes later)

Athletic director: (Pointing to WWW scarfing nachos behind the bench). Who's that guy?

Coach: That's World Wide Wes.

AD: Don't we pay you enough to get a new car?

Coach: No, he's not a dealer, he's a ... uh ... basketball fan.

AD: Yeah, we don't let them watch practice.

Coach: But he's so personable, and he uses words like "unfettered." This business is all about relationships, and I want to have relations with that guy.

AD: I suppose. Have you followed the PDP?

Coach: The Plausible Deniability Protocols? Of course. It's like the Boy Scout Oath with me.

AD: Well, OK. I mean, what could possibly go wrong?

(NCAA prez Mark Emmert walks in, heads over to WWW)

WWW: Em-Dog, what up?

Emmert: Dub Times Three, what brings you here?

WWW: Nachos! Got the good ones here!

Emmert: And extra Whiz! How much?

WWW: Free!

(AD walks up)

Emmert; Um, I'm afraid I'll have to the put you school on probation for this free gift to World Wide Wes, who handles an amateur player on your team.

AD: But ...

Emmert: My job is to the protect the integrity of college basketball. Say, have you heard about the new partnership we've formed with Adidas?

[Irish27]

Tyler Herro just announced he is no longer committed to Wisconsin. I doubt he will give the UofA a look while we have this dark cloud over tje basketball program.

[ChooChooCat]

Tyler Herro just announced he is no longer committed to Wisconsin. I doubt he will give the UofA a look while we have this dark cloud over tje basketball program.

We were a childhood favorite of his. Really sucks to be in the position we're in.