Re: let's talk '18
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 2:52 pm
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?
ChooChooCat wrote:Ummm I just named the most recent and prominent situation with Cam Newton did I not?dmjcat wrote:
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.
Ummmm his dad admitted to it did he not? Do you have a better example?dmjcat wrote:ChooChooCat wrote:Ummm I just named the most recent and prominent situation with Cam Newton did I not?dmjcat wrote:
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.
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
Ummmmmm, No, his dad admitted to shopping him to another school for $180,000.ChooChooCat wrote:Ummmm his dad admitted to it did he not? Do you have a better example?dmjcat wrote:ChooChooCat wrote:Ummm I just named the most recent and prominent situation with Cam Newton did I not?dmjcat wrote:
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.
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
dmjcat wrote:Ummmmmm, No, his dad admitted to shopping him to another school for $180,000.ChooChooCat wrote:Ummmm his dad admitted to it did he not? Do you have a better example?dmjcat wrote:ChooChooCat wrote:Ummm I just named the most recent and prominent situation with Cam Newton did I not?dmjcat wrote:
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.
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
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.
Yes, she has a great set of tits on her. Have a good one bud.dmjcat wrote:
What if he kept all of the money??? Do you also believe in the tooth fairy???
Have fun with your kid.
Can't blame the kid. If he was smart, he would sign with Oregon.SunnyAZ wrote:
So O'Neal is sticking with us? And Quinerly perhaps also?Merkin wrote:
I completely agree. Sue for damages.luteformayor2 wrote:So O'Neal is sticking with us? And Quinerly perhaps also?Merkin wrote:
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.
Sue for what? Having an assistant coach who got caught red-handed for doing shady shit?CalStateTempe wrote:I completely agree. Sue for damages.luteformayor2 wrote:So O'Neal is sticking with us? And Quinerly perhaps also?Merkin wrote:
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 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 wrote: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.
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.Spaceman Spiff wrote: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 wrote: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.
Agreed.Beachcat97 wrote: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.Spaceman Spiff wrote: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 wrote: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.
Well, here's hoping for a swift, favorable resolution, however unlikely that may be.
Agreed.Beachcat97 wrote: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.Spaceman Spiff wrote: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 wrote: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.
Well, here's hoping for a swift, favorable resolution, however unlikely that may be.
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:Harvey Specter wrote:Sue for what? Having an assistant coach who got caught red-handed for doing shady shit?CalStateTempe wrote:I completely agree. Sue for damages.luteformayor2 wrote:So O'Neal is sticking with us? And Quinerly perhaps also?Merkin wrote:
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.
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
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.Beachcat97 wrote: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.Spaceman Spiff wrote: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 wrote: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.
Well, here's hoping for a swift, favorable resolution, however unlikely that may be.
I did not read all the document, but my understanding was that:Longhorned wrote: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:Harvey Specter wrote:Sue for what? Having an assistant coach who got caught red-handed for doing shady shit?CalStateTempe wrote:I completely agree. Sue for damages.luteformayor2 wrote:So O'Neal is sticking with us? And Quinerly perhaps also?Merkin wrote:
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.
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
- 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.
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.Spaceman Spiff wrote: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.
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 wrote: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 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.zonagrad wrote: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 wrote: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...Beachcat97 wrote: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'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.gumby wrote: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 wrote: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?
Sensible.Longhorned wrote: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.gumby wrote: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'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.Longhorned wrote: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.gumby wrote: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'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?
Why only a half dozen coaches? What is the crime?Hank of sb wrote:How about the third scenario.Longhorned wrote: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.gumby wrote: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'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?
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.
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.Longhorned wrote:Why only a half dozen coaches? What is the crime?Hank of sb wrote:How about the third scenario.Longhorned wrote: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.gumby wrote: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'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?
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.
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.Longhorned wrote:I see what you're referring to, Hank. I was talking about Arizona basketball vis-a-vis college basketball.
Everyone has "handlers" or a "camp."gumby wrote: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?
Well that settles it, let's shut down the program.Hank of sb wrote:
The NCAA might have a problem.
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.Spaceman Spiff wrote:Everyone has "handlers" or a "camp."gumby wrote: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?
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.
(NCAA prez Mark Emmert walks in, heads over to WWW)gumby wrote: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?
We were a childhood favorite of his. Really sucks to be in the position we're in.Irish27 wrote: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.