Bribery Scandal - FBI Probe - Book Richardson Involved

Spaceman Spiff · Post by **Spaceman Spiff** » Wed Oct 11, 2017 12:07 pm

The NCAA enters the fray...by forming a commission to do stuff and things.

https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/me ... basketball" target="_blank

CalStateTempe · Post by **CalStateTempe** » Wed Oct 11, 2017 12:15 pm

Thanks for the link.

My take aways...lville and Arizona better get ready; the NCAA is going in dry.

But

The finding won't be disclosed till the April meetings.

So

Just win baby!

Spaceman Spiff · Post by **Spaceman Spiff** » Wed Oct 11, 2017 12:25 pm

CalStateTempe wrote:Thanks for the link.

My take aways...lville and Arizona better get ready; the NCAA is going in dry.

But

The finding won't be disclosed till the April meetings.

So

Just win baby!

My takeaway was that forming a commission is a classic way to put out a press release about what you're doing while simultaneously not actually doing anything or locking yourself into any timeline or appreciable measuring stick for results. If you put out timelines and standards, then you risk not achieving them. If you form a commission who reports to you, you can literally pick boogers for 3 months while the FBI works and not actually fail.

This is why Congress forms so many commissions.

gumby · Post by **gumby** » Wed Oct 11, 2017 12:34 pm

gumby · Post by **gumby** » Wed Oct 11, 2017 12:38 pm

https://sports.yahoo.com/coaches-say-mu ... 08543.html" target="_blank

College coaches and shoe-apparel companies often funnel tens of thousands of dollars to the families or handlers of top prospects in exchange for their influence on what school the player chooses. To a college head coach, landing one strong recruiting class can be the difference between being fired and signing a multimillion-dollar extension. To a shoe-apparel giant, steering an elite prospect to a particular school is a way to stack the deck in favor of that program and ensure maximum return on an eight- or nine-figure sponsorship agreement.

One head coach at a power-conference school described the battle to land heralded high school basketball prospects as a “free-for-all” and compared it to “human trafficking.”

“It’s lawless,” he added. “The parents view it as, ‘Time to get mine.'

splitsecond · Post by **splitsecond** » Wed Oct 11, 2017 5:20 pm

gumby wrote:https://sports.yahoo.com/coaches-say-mu ... 08543.html

College coaches and shoe-apparel companies often funnel tens of thousands of dollars to the families or handlers of top prospects in exchange for their influence on what school the player chooses. To a college head coach, landing one strong recruiting class can be the difference between being fired and signing a multimillion-dollar extension. To a shoe-apparel giant, steering an elite prospect to a particular school is a way to stack the deck in favor of that program and ensure maximum return on an eight- or nine-figure sponsorship agreement.

One head coach at a power-conference school described the battle to land heralded high school basketball prospects as a “free-for-all” and compared it to “human trafficking.”

“It’s lawless,” he added. “The parents view it as, ‘Time to get mine.'

It just needs to be brought out in the open. Many of these parents and kids NEED money. Make it open, regulate it, and then that money has less chance of going to illicit things.

The NCAA knows it has to change. There is no if ands or buts about it anymore.

Longhorned · Post by **Longhorned** » Wed Oct 11, 2017 5:35 pm

splitsecond wrote:
gumby wrote:https://sports.yahoo.com/coaches-say-mu ... 08543.html

College coaches and shoe-apparel companies often funnel tens of thousands of dollars to the families or handlers of top prospects in exchange for their influence on what school the player chooses. To a college head coach, landing one strong recruiting class can be the difference between being fired and signing a multimillion-dollar extension. To a shoe-apparel giant, steering an elite prospect to a particular school is a way to stack the deck in favor of that program and ensure maximum return on an eight- or nine-figure sponsorship agreement.

One head coach at a power-conference school described the battle to land heralded high school basketball prospects as a “free-for-all” and compared it to “human trafficking.”

“It’s lawless,” he added. “The parents view it as, ‘Time to get mine.'
It just needs to be brought out in the open. Many of these parents and kids NEED money. Make it open, regulate it, and then that money has less chance of going to illicit things.

The NCAA knows it has to change. There is no if ands or buts about it anymore.

IF:

AND:

BUT:

Hank of sb · Post by **Hank of sb** » Wed Oct 11, 2017 5:49 pm

splitsecond wrote:

It just needs to be brought out in the open. Many of these parents and kids NEED money. Make it open, regulate it, and then that money has less chance of going to illicit things.

The NCAA knows it has to change. There is no if ands or buts about it anymore.

It's been out in the open for 50 years.

Unfortunately your wish--change--looks to be coming at Arizona's expense.

KaibabKat · Post by **KaibabKat** » Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:15 pm

How about a free market that is fair to everybody? Make "student" athletes sign binding contracts with buyouts equal to several times their signing bonus. No trades after the conference seasons begin. If anyone goes over the salary cap they have to pay a really stiff luxury tax taken out of the salary of the Head Coach.

NCAA could bring back the Freshmen ineligible rule - that should take care of the one and done problem.

Sis boom bah. Bear Down.

Spaceman Spiff · Post by **Spaceman Spiff** » Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:06 pm

It may be about to get real for Kansas.

http://www.kansan.com/sports/fbi-says-i ... user-share" target="_blank

Gilbertcat · Post by **Gilbertcat** » Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:12 pm

More schools the better. Can't suspend them all

CalStateTempe · Post by **CalStateTempe** » Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:16 pm

Spaceman Spiff · Post by **Spaceman Spiff** » Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:25 pm

splitsecond wrote:
gumby wrote:https://sports.yahoo.com/coaches-say-mu ... 08543.html

College coaches and shoe-apparel companies often funnel tens of thousands of dollars to the families or handlers of top prospects in exchange for their influence on what school the player chooses. To a college head coach, landing one strong recruiting class can be the difference between being fired and signing a multimillion-dollar extension. To a shoe-apparel giant, steering an elite prospect to a particular school is a way to stack the deck in favor of that program and ensure maximum return on an eight- or nine-figure sponsorship agreement.

One head coach at a power-conference school described the battle to land heralded high school basketball prospects as a “free-for-all” and compared it to “human trafficking.”

“It’s lawless,” he added. “The parents view it as, ‘Time to get mine.'
It just needs to be brought out in the open. Many of these parents and kids NEED money. Make it open, regulate it, and then that money has less chance of going to illicit things.

The NCAA knows it has to change. There is no if ands or buts about it anymore.

Here's how it is:

People want to pay players and their families six figures.
Players and their families want people to pay them six figures.
The NCAA has rules that prevent both these parties from consensually doing something they both want to do and feel is mutually beneficial.

That's the basic problem with the rules against extra benefits. Everyone wants it and is totally into the idea, but can't openly do it because of NCAA rules. So you get the weird system built on camouflaging the thing that everyone is basically cool with except for the governing body. That's why half of this exists, that you have to build in the shady back channels to keep it hidden. Then, you get the people whose entire livelihood depends on the system of handlers and influence peddling.

gumby · Post by **gumby** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 8:48 am

KaibabKat wrote:How about a free market that is fair to everybody? Make "student" athletes sign binding contracts with buyouts equal to several times their signing bonus. No trades after the conference seasons begin. If anyone goes over the salary cap they have to pay a really stiff luxury tax taken out of the salary of the Head Coach.

NCAA could bring back the Freshmen ineligible rule - that should take care of the one and done problem.

Sis boom bah. Bear Down.

That's the absurdity. NCAA can act. Doesn't need a committee. Doesn't need to wait for the NBA. But it takes things off the table for pecuniary purposes and then says, "Golly, this is complicated, but something must be done!"

The committee is there, IMO, to figure out how to stay on the gravy train while appearing to uphold amateurism. Would love to be surprised, but the fact that NCAA has resigned itself to stepping stone status -- while enforcing "please address them as student athletes" -- speaks volumes.

Spaceman Spiff · Post by **Spaceman Spiff** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 8:54 am

gumby wrote:
KaibabKat wrote:How about a free market that is fair to everybody? Make "student" athletes sign binding contracts with buyouts equal to several times their signing bonus. No trades after the conference seasons begin. If anyone goes over the salary cap they have to pay a really stiff luxury tax taken out of the salary of the Head Coach.

NCAA could bring back the Freshmen ineligible rule - that should take care of the one and done problem.

Sis boom bah. Bear Down.
That's the absurdity. NCAA can act. Doesn't need a committee. Doesn't need to wait for the NBA. But it takes things off the table for pecuniary purposes and then says, "Golly, this is complicated, but something must be done!"

The committee is there, IMO, to figure out how to stay on the gravy train while appearing to uphold amateurism. Would love to be surprised, but the fact that NCAA has resigned itself to stepping stone status -- while enforcing "please address them as student athletes" -- speaks volumes.

Eh. The NCAA can't address one and done's for a practical reason. The only power the NCAA has is ineligibility. If a kid is going to get drafted, what does he care if he's ineligible? He's going to get drafted and be on to other things.

That's the practical limit on things.

Russ Smith · Post by **Russ Smith** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:10 am

Spaceman Spiff wrote:It may be about to get real for Kansas.

http://www.kansan.com/sports/fbi-says-i ... user-share" target="_blank

It turns out that lots of newspapers and fansites filed Freedon of Information Acts just like the one the Kansan did, and they all got the same form letter. A Duke site, Devils Den got one for Duke and Nike and they are claiming that the FBI told them it's a form letter that goes out to anybody that files for information. It's not even a guarantee there are any actual documents, just that if they are, they're in a currently active case and not available.

Russ Smith · Post by **Russ Smith** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:15 am

CatFanOneMil wrote:http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/o ... 94f2e.html

This article says a Grand Jury has asked OSU to hand over documents pertaining to NCAA violations...in an FBI probe...in other words the FBI has asked to convene a grand jury for subpoena purposes regarding NCAA violations...

This strikes me a very odd (if accurate)...how does the FBI have any standing to enforce NCAA violations?

If true this looks like a completely different show than the first one that dropped that fell on our happy place and broke it...

Anyone have any idea how this makes sense to the investigation, IF it is specifically about NCAA violations...the NCAA is a non-profit organization (color me shocked)...how does any Federal organisation have power to enforce/scrutinize the rules set out by a non-profit...?

They also said they think both USC and Arizona got similar letters and demands from the FBI. USC had multiple computers taken away by the FBI yesterday as part of this, presumably Arizona has too.

As to the violations, part of the statute being used again requires the bad guys to be acting "corruptly" and the FBI defined that as defrauding their employers(the schools) by bribing them to violate their contracts by violating NCAA rules. The agent and adviser bribed them to do this, and the coaches took the bribes and agreed to do this. as part of that, the FBI is now seeking MORE information that proves NCAA rules were violated.

Spaceman Spiff · Post by **Spaceman Spiff** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:27 am

Russ Smith wrote:
Spaceman Spiff wrote:It may be about to get real for Kansas.

http://www.kansan.com/sports/fbi-says-i ... user-share" target="_blank
It turns out that lots of newspapers and fansites filed Freedon of Information Acts just like the one the Kansan did, and they all got the same form letter. A Duke site, Devils Den got one for Duke and Nike and they are claiming that the FBI told them it's a form letter that goes out to anybody that files for information. It's not even a guarantee there are any actual documents, just that if they are, they're in a currently active case and not available.

FOIA is so heavily about the request. The KU one is limited to info connecting Adidas/Kansas from 2015 to the present. If the Duke site sent one for Duke and Nike, I'm sure there are about 5 million Nike docs and they'd send that letter.

I would doubt the FBI has a blanket FOIA denial letter, bc of FOIA standards, but I don't know that with regard to this situation.

gumby · Post by **gumby** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:39 am

Spaceman Spiff wrote:
gumby wrote:
KaibabKat wrote:How about a free market that is fair to everybody? Make "student" athletes sign binding contracts with buyouts equal to several times their signing bonus. No trades after the conference seasons begin. If anyone goes over the salary cap they have to pay a really stiff luxury tax taken out of the salary of the Head Coach.

NCAA could bring back the Freshmen ineligible rule - that should take care of the one and done problem.

Sis boom bah. Bear Down.
That's the absurdity. NCAA can act. Doesn't need a committee. Doesn't need to wait for the NBA. But it takes things off the table for pecuniary purposes and then says, "Golly, this is complicated, but something must be done!"

The committee is there, IMO, to figure out how to stay on the gravy train while appearing to uphold amateurism. Would love to be surprised, but the fact that NCAA has resigned itself to stepping stone status -- while enforcing "please address them as student athletes" -- speaks volumes.
Eh. The NCAA can't address one and done's for a practical reason. The only power the NCAA has is ineligibility. If a kid is going to get drafted, what does he care if he's ineligible? He's going to get drafted and be on to other things.

That's the practical limit on things.

Which it won't wield for marketing purposes. Then it pretends to have hands tied. I don't care if he doesn't care. If the NCAA truly cared about amateur status, it wouldn't care either. He's also going to get drafted if he doesn't make grades or meets minimum academic requirements. So drop those requirements "for practical reasons?"

So he doesn't care. NCAA doesn't care that he doesn't care. Never the twain shall meet. But they do, and NCAA pretends it's mysterious forces out of its control.

Spaceman Spiff · Post by **Spaceman Spiff** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:54 am

gumby wrote:
Spaceman Spiff wrote:
gumby wrote:
KaibabKat wrote:How about a free market that is fair to everybody? Make "student" athletes sign binding contracts with buyouts equal to several times their signing bonus. No trades after the conference seasons begin. If anyone goes over the salary cap they have to pay a really stiff luxury tax taken out of the salary of the Head Coach.

NCAA could bring back the Freshmen ineligible rule - that should take care of the one and done problem.

Sis boom bah. Bear Down.
That's the absurdity. NCAA can act. Doesn't need a committee. Doesn't need to wait for the NBA. But it takes things off the table for pecuniary purposes and then says, "Golly, this is complicated, but something must be done!"

The committee is there, IMO, to figure out how to stay on the gravy train while appearing to uphold amateurism. Would love to be surprised, but the fact that NCAA has resigned itself to stepping stone status -- while enforcing "please address them as student athletes" -- speaks volumes.
Eh. The NCAA can't address one and done's for a practical reason. The only power the NCAA has is ineligibility. If a kid is going to get drafted, what does he care if he's ineligible? He's going to get drafted and be on to other things.

That's the practical limit on things.
Which it won't wield for marketing purposes. Then it pretends to have hands tied. I don't care if he doesn't care. If the NCAA truly cared about amateur status, it wouldn't care either. He's also going to get drafted if he doesn't make grades or meets minimum academic requirements. So drop those requirements "for practical reasons?"

So he doesn't care. NCAA doesn't care that he doesn't care. Never the twain shall meet. But they do, and NCAA pretends it's mysterious forces out of its control.

I don't think it's pretending. Say the NCAA adopts a 2 year rule and a player decides to leave after 1. What can the NCAA do, make him ineligible? If it's Lauri Markannen, he doesn't care if he's NCAA ineligible because he plays in the NBA now. The NBA has to enact the rule, because as long as they are a stone to step to, people will.

Russ Smith · Post by **Russ Smith** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:11 am

Spaceman Spiff wrote:
Russ Smith wrote:
Spaceman Spiff wrote:It may be about to get real for Kansas.

http://www.kansan.com/sports/fbi-says-i ... user-share" target="_blank
It turns out that lots of newspapers and fansites filed Freedon of Information Acts just like the one the Kansan did, and they all got the same form letter. A Duke site, Devils Den got one for Duke and Nike and they are claiming that the FBI told them it's a form letter that goes out to anybody that files for information. It's not even a guarantee there are any actual documents, just that if they are, they're in a currently active case and not available.
FOIA is so heavily about the request. The KU one is limited to info connecting Adidas/Kansas from 2015 to the present. If the Duke site sent one for Duke and Nike, I'm sure there are about 5 million Nike docs and they'd send that letter.

I would doubt the FBI has a blanket FOIA denial letter, bc of FOIA standards, but I don't know that with regard to this situation.

I haven't seen the Devils Den letter but they said it was the same one the kansan got. The heading was about Duke and Nike from 2015 to the present, and it said there were documents in the active file but they would not be made available. Then someone on that site, and a Kentucky site that got the same letter, said they were told that the FBI said it's essentially a form letter, that it doesn't even guarantee there are any documents in the file yet just that if and when there are, they won't be made available because the case is active.

The Duke people asked for all information relating to Duke, Nike and the current FBI scandal which is essentially what the Kansan asked for with Adidas and Kansas.

I fully expect Kansas and indiana and UCLA and anybody that was Adidas at that time is going to get looked at, and I think more Nike schools will get looked at, presumably including Duke and Kentucky. The Kansan story says it contradicts what Kansas publicly stated about not being contacted by the FBI, but I don't agree, there's nothing in the FBI letter that says they contacted Kansas.

If you read the letter the Kansan got, I think the 4th paragraph it says "This is a standard notification that is given to all our requesters and should not be taken as an indication that excluded records, do or do not exist."

So I assume that's what the Duke and UK sites are referring to as it's a form letter.

Spaceman Spiff · Post by **Spaceman Spiff** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:26 am

Russ Smith wrote:
Spaceman Spiff wrote:
Russ Smith wrote:
Spaceman Spiff wrote:It may be about to get real for Kansas.

http://www.kansan.com/sports/fbi-says-i ... user-share" target="_blank
It turns out that lots of newspapers and fansites filed Freedon of Information Acts just like the one the Kansan did, and they all got the same form letter. A Duke site, Devils Den got one for Duke and Nike and they are claiming that the FBI told them it's a form letter that goes out to anybody that files for information. It's not even a guarantee there are any actual documents, just that if they are, they're in a currently active case and not available.
FOIA is so heavily about the request. The KU one is limited to info connecting Adidas/Kansas from 2015 to the present. If the Duke site sent one for Duke and Nike, I'm sure there are about 5 million Nike docs and they'd send that letter.

I would doubt the FBI has a blanket FOIA denial letter, bc of FOIA standards, but I don't know that with regard to this situation.

I haven't seen the Devils Den letter but they said it was the same one the kansan got. The heading was about Duke and Nike from 2015 to the present, and it said there were documents in the active file but they would not be made available. Then someone on that site, and a Kentucky site that got the same letter, said they were told that the FBI said it's essentially a form letter, that it doesn't even guarantee there are any documents in the file yet just that if and when there are, they won't be made available because the case is active.

The Duke people asked for all information relating to Duke, Nike and the current FBI scandal which is essentially what the Kansan asked for with Adidas and Kansas.

I fully expect Kansas and indiana and UCLA and anybody that was Adidas at that time is going to get looked at, and I think more Nike schools will get looked at, presumably including Duke and Kentucky. The Kansan story says it contradicts what Kansas publicly stated about not being contacted by the FBI, but I don't agree, there's nothing in the FBI letter that says they contacted Kansas.

If you read the letter the Kansan got, I think the 4th paragraph it says "This is a standard notification that is given to all our requesters and should not be taken as an indication that excluded records, do or do not exist."

So I assume that's what the Duke and UK sites are referring to as it's a form letter.

There's a difference between form language and form letter. That language is definitely form. They don't want to indicate whether there's something that is in or out of the FOIA request during an investigation, so that language is added as an intentional shield.

I used the word may in my post. What that letter says is that there is an investigation and there may be KU info. It rules out that there's a complete KU record in what is publicly available. Whether there is KU info in the investigation and the extent of it would be the maybe. Given the situation, I would suspect any program would hate the maybe.

IMO, the biggest thing is that there definitely appears to be an intent to expand and continue the investigation.

CatFanOneMil · Post by **CatFanOneMil** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:33 am

I think there is a lot of ambiguity about what we are calling the NCAA, lets not forget that on some level the NCAA IS the Universities themselves...some of these ideas of changing the system seem to be counter to the stated core principals, especially this rule of paying student athletes or ignoring the place of academic requirements, according to the stated core belief athletics are a SUPPORTING branch of the overall purpose, not the main branch...you guys seem to think they are going to change that, ain't gonna happen.

When was the last time any of us actually visited the NCAA site and read the core beliefs and guiding principals...pay-for-play is not going to make the list on ANY level.

Russ Smith · Post by **Russ Smith** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:52 am

Spaceman Spiff wrote:
Russ Smith wrote:
Spaceman Spiff wrote:
Russ Smith wrote:
Spaceman Spiff wrote:It may be about to get real for Kansas.

http://www.kansan.com/sports/fbi-says-i ... user-share" target="_blank
It turns out that lots of newspapers and fansites filed Freedon of Information Acts just like the one the Kansan did, and they all got the same form letter. A Duke site, Devils Den got one for Duke and Nike and they are claiming that the FBI told them it's a form letter that goes out to anybody that files for information. It's not even a guarantee there are any actual documents, just that if they are, they're in a currently active case and not available.
FOIA is so heavily about the request. The KU one is limited to info connecting Adidas/Kansas from 2015 to the present. If the Duke site sent one for Duke and Nike, I'm sure there are about 5 million Nike docs and they'd send that letter.

I would doubt the FBI has a blanket FOIA denial letter, bc of FOIA standards, but I don't know that with regard to this situation.

I haven't seen the Devils Den letter but they said it was the same one the kansan got. The heading was about Duke and Nike from 2015 to the present, and it said there were documents in the active file but they would not be made available. Then someone on that site, and a Kentucky site that got the same letter, said they were told that the FBI said it's essentially a form letter, that it doesn't even guarantee there are any documents in the file yet just that if and when there are, they won't be made available because the case is active.

The Duke people asked for all information relating to Duke, Nike and the current FBI scandal which is essentially what the Kansan asked for with Adidas and Kansas.

I fully expect Kansas and indiana and UCLA and anybody that was Adidas at that time is going to get looked at, and I think more Nike schools will get looked at, presumably including Duke and Kentucky. The Kansan story says it contradicts what Kansas publicly stated about not being contacted by the FBI, but I don't agree, there's nothing in the FBI letter that says they contacted Kansas.

If you read the letter the Kansan got, I think the 4th paragraph it says "This is a standard notification that is given to all our requesters and should not be taken as an indication that excluded records, do or do not exist."

So I assume that's what the Duke and UK sites are referring to as it's a form letter.
There's a difference between form language and form letter. That language is definitely form. They don't want to indicate whether there's something that is in or out of the FOIA request during an investigation, so that language is added as an intentional shield.

I used the word may in my post. What that letter says is that there is an investigation and there may be KU info. It rules out that there's a complete KU record in what is publicly available. Whether there is KU info in the investigation and the extent of it would be the maybe. Given the situation, I would suspect any program would hate the maybe.

IMO, the biggest thing is that there definitely appears to be an intent to expand and continue the investigation.

OK I agree with that. I think everyone expects there's going to be more schools.

gumby · Post by **gumby** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:20 am

Spaceman Spiff wrote:
gumby wrote:
Spaceman Spiff wrote:
gumby wrote:
KaibabKat wrote:How about a free market that is fair to everybody? Make "student" athletes sign binding contracts with buyouts equal to several times their signing bonus. No trades after the conference seasons begin. If anyone goes over the salary cap they have to pay a really stiff luxury tax taken out of the salary of the Head Coach.

NCAA could bring back the Freshmen ineligible rule - that should take care of the one and done problem.

Sis boom bah. Bear Down.
That's the absurdity. NCAA can act. Doesn't need a committee. Doesn't need to wait for the NBA. But it takes things off the table for pecuniary purposes and then says, "Golly, this is complicated, but something must be done!"

The committee is there, IMO, to figure out how to stay on the gravy train while appearing to uphold amateurism. Would love to be surprised, but the fact that NCAA has resigned itself to stepping stone status -- while enforcing "please address them as student athletes" -- speaks volumes.
Eh. The NCAA can't address one and done's for a practical reason. The only power the NCAA has is ineligibility. If a kid is going to get drafted, what does he care if he's ineligible? He's going to get drafted and be on to other things.

That's the practical limit on things.
Which it won't wield for marketing purposes. Then it pretends to have hands tied. I don't care if he doesn't care. If the NCAA truly cared about amateur status, it wouldn't care either. He's also going to get drafted if he doesn't make grades or meets minimum academic requirements. So drop those requirements "for practical reasons?"

So he doesn't care. NCAA doesn't care that he doesn't care. Never the twain shall meet. But they do, and NCAA pretends it's mysterious forces out of its control.
I don't think it's pretending. Say the NCAA adopts a 2 year rule and a player decides to leave after 1. What can the NCAA do, make him ineligible? If it's Lauri Markannen, he doesn't care if he's NCAA ineligible because he plays in the NBA now. The NBA has to enact the rule, because as long as they are a stone to step to, people will.

Lauri could leave after one year, having never played, if the NCAA truly wanted to limit being stepped on. Fact is, they don't mind it as much as they claim to mind it. They want it both ways.

As a result, they must cope with the fallout of all of the entanglements that come with One and Dones. Step 1: Form a committee. One of the topic areas: One and Dones.

And round and round we go!

https://www.cbssports.com/college-baske ... asketball/" target="_blank

2. The NCAA's relationship with the NBA, and the challenging effect the NBA's so-called "one and done" rule has had on college basketball, including how the NCAA can change its own eligibility rules to address that dynamic.

Hank of sb · Post by **Hank of sb** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:04 pm

gumby wrote:
Step 1: Form a committee.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-baske ... asketball/" target="_blank

2. The NCAA's relationship with the NBA, and the challenging effect the NBA's so-called "one and done" rule has had on college basketball, including how the NCAA can change its own eligibility rules to address that dynamic.

Step2: Crush the 6 schools.

Step 3: Announce Step 1 results

Step 4: Proclaim success

ChooChooCat · Post by **ChooChooCat** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:09 pm

Hank of sb wrote:
Step2: Crush the 6 schools.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk" target="_blank

Spaceman Spiff · Post by **Spaceman Spiff** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:17 pm

Hank of sb wrote:
gumby wrote:
Step 1: Form a committee.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-baske ... asketball/" target="_blank

2. The NCAA's relationship with the NBA, and the challenging effect the NBA's so-called "one and done" rule has had on college basketball, including how the NCAA can change its own eligibility rules to address that dynamic.
Step2: Crush the 6 schools.

Step 3: Announce Step 1 results

Step 4: Proclaim success

No.

Step 2: Pray no more schools are implicated.

Step 3 if no one else is implicated: Decide whether you're going to treat this like a systemic issue or treat the 6 like outliers.

Step 3 if more schools are implicated: Act like a squid and begin releasing massive amounts of ink to cloud the water while you try to get as far away from this as possible.

Post by **UAdevil** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 4:12 pm

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaabk/ ... spartandhp" target="_blank

Josh Childress: 'I Know Guys Who Took a Pay Cut' Going From the NCAA to NBA

YoDeFoe · Post by **YoDeFoe** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 5:47 pm

UAdevil wrote:http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaabk/ ... spartandhp

Josh Childress: 'I Know Guys Who Took a Pay Cut' Going From the NCAA to NBA

Funny. Childress got a Stanford degree with a UCSF academic profile. Made tens of millions playing basketball. Basically a classic NCAA success story.

Spaceman Spiff · Post by **Spaceman Spiff** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 5:55 pm

YoDeFoe wrote:
UAdevil wrote:http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaabk/ ... spartandhp

Josh Childress: 'I Know Guys Who Took a Pay Cut' Going From the NCAA to NBA
Funny. Childress got a Stanford degree with a UCSF academic profile. Made millions playing basketball. Basically a classic NCAA success story but whatever.

That's part of why I wonder whether the current system is so bad. The only really bad part is the difference between the rules and reality. The reality wouldn't be awful if we just let it happen in the open.

You can still feel good about what happens. Kids better their lives. Fans cheer for their team. What is really bad about it?

Hank of sb · Post by **Hank of sb** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 5:57 pm

YoDeFoe wrote:
UAdevil wrote:http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaabk/ ... spartandhp

Josh Childress: 'I Know Guys Who Took a Pay Cut' Going From the NCAA to NBA
Funny. Childress got a Stanford degree with a UCSF academic profile. Made millions playing basketball. Basically a classic NCAA success story but whatever.

Pass/Fail is a great system.

When I went to UofA it was 1/2/3/4/5. (Don't have any idea what it is now.)

Pass therefore, would have been 4. (Rather have a Pass than a 4.)

That said, Childress was considered a legit Stanford prospect.

YoDeFoe · Post by **YoDeFoe** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 5:59 pm

Hank of sb wrote:
YoDeFoe wrote:
UAdevil wrote:http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaabk/ ... spartandhp

Josh Childress: 'I Know Guys Who Took a Pay Cut' Going From the NCAA to NBA
Funny. Childress got a Stanford degree with a UCSF academic profile. Made millions playing basketball. Basically a classic NCAA success story but whatever.
Pass/Fail is a great system.

When I went to UofA it was 1/2/3/4/5. (Don't have any idea what it is now.)

Pass therefore, would have been 4. (Rather have a Pass than a 4.)

That said, Childress was considered a legit Stanford prospect.

I continue to wonder what the fuck you're talking about.

Longhorned · Post by **Longhorned** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 6:40 pm

YoDeFoe wrote:
Hank of sb wrote:
YoDeFoe wrote:
UAdevil wrote:http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaabk/ ... spartandhp

Josh Childress: 'I Know Guys Who Took a Pay Cut' Going From the NCAA to NBA
Funny. Childress got a Stanford degree with a UCSF academic profile. Made millions playing basketball. Basically a classic NCAA success story but whatever.
Pass/Fail is a great system.

When I went to UofA it was 1/2/3/4/5. (Don't have any idea what it is now.)

Pass therefore, would have been 4. (Rather have a Pass than a 4.)

That said, Childress was considered a legit Stanford prospect.
I continue to wonder what the fuck you're talking about.

Snorting cayenne pepper is a hell of a sensation.

If you slip, you fall up. Better to wear a size 7 shoe, or a children's XXL (and keep your head in a tub of milk with a scuba regulator).

All in all, sometimes it's best just to rub one out.

YoDeFoe · Post by **YoDeFoe** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:38 pm

Longhorned wrote:
YoDeFoe wrote:
Hank of sb wrote: Pass/Fail is a great system.

When I went to UofA it was 1/2/3/4/5. (Don't have any idea what it is now.)

Pass therefore, would have been 4. (Rather have a Pass than a 4.)

That said, Childress was considered a legit Stanford prospect.
I continue to wonder what the fuck you're talking about.
Snorting cayenne pepper is a hell of a sensation.

If you slip, you fall up. Better to wear a size 7 shoe, or a children's XXL (and keep your head in a tub of milk with a scuba regulator).

All in all, sometimes it's best just to rub one out.

Longhorned you beautiful bastard.

CalStateTempe · Post by **CalStateTempe** » Fri Oct 13, 2017 6:05 am

UCSF is a health professions university (no undergrad, no sports affiliation) and arguably top 5 nationally in medicine, dentistry, PT, grad school, and nursing.

Maybe it was an error but for Childress to have a UCSF profile would be tremondous. Essentially furd takes those that can't get into UCSF for health professions.

Btw thanks for blogging media day, really appreciate your info.

EVCat · Post by **EVCat** » Fri Oct 13, 2017 9:09 am

Spaceman Spiff wrote:
YoDeFoe wrote:
UAdevil wrote:http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaabk/ ... spartandhp

Josh Childress: 'I Know Guys Who Took a Pay Cut' Going From the NCAA to NBA
Funny. Childress got a Stanford degree with a UCSF academic profile. Made millions playing basketball. Basically a classic NCAA success story but whatever.
That's part of why I wonder whether the current system is so bad. The only really bad part is the difference between the rules and reality. The reality wouldn't be awful if we just let it happen in the open.

You can still feel good about what happens. Kids better their lives. Fans cheer for their team. What is really bad about it?

This is EXACTLY my point. While we are talking about 20 kids who have their value tamped down, we have 3500 kids playing D1 ball that get an amazing deal, degrees (most academic support systems are there to make sure the kid passes), and even if he somehow comes up short, the contacts made in being a D1 athlete are, if monetized, worth tens of thousands more. Hell...I know I have leveraged what I call the "UA Mafia" twice to get past first looks when I was needing a job or wanting to make a change in discipline that maybe was too much of a leap for someone looking at my resume cold. I have to get it once I am in the door, but that "UA Mafia" got me in the door two different times, once when it was a dried up market for me, and once when I was wanting to do something that was, again, in my talent profile but a stretch based on previous experience. How much stronger is that network for a former player?

We want to blow all of this up because of the BS related to less than 50 of 3500? I'd agree that the shoe company influence with AAU club play needs to be run over by a steamroller. I would love to see a return to high school basketball mattering. And the real exposure for kids to get hurt is in AAU, not at the college level...once a player has made it to the NCAA level, they are going to get either a showcase for pro ball or the degree/contacts/worldview change discussed above. But the potential for real abuse comes in the handling of u14s like they are meat, trading in flesh peddling, overworking kids too young, causing repetitive stress injuries from playing one sport and overworking those muscles, rather than the old model of a kid playing 2 or 3 sports, and becoming well rounded physically and not a 12 month employee of Basketball, Inc. There's time for that when they become an adult. Then there is the abuse of overinflating egos of kids who then don't put in the extra work and come up short of their abilities, or parents who see dollar signs and maybe literally trade out for dollars, putting their kids in bad situations. The chance of hurting kids is astronomical in the current AAU system, and if anything needs flattened, it is this.

But once they get to an NCAA school? The vast, vast, vast majority of D1 players are getting benefit well over value, considering not just the money made by a team / # of players, but the reality that there are numerous players who could be inserted in place of player A in most cases...they are, after those top level prodigies, in a large pool of interchangeable talent (100 kids who could be in that 100-200 level player group and switched around...it is hard to say they are worth all the money their school makes on their talent if their talent is not unique, if you are following me...the next traunch might be 200 kids that can be interchanged before coaching for the 200-400 level, and so on...it isn't 100% accurate to say "these schools make $15MM on basketball, so each player is worth their portion of that earning, and only get $100,000, so they are being used." Only a small # truly drive the economics of basketball just by themselves, rather than within the system. I hope I am explaining this right). So after those one and dones and other super talents, the system really does work in their benefit. And for those top players, the system also works in that they get high level coaching and exposure, though they definitely are not getting compensated to their level of worth.

I, honestly, with all the hypocrisy involved, would rather the system continue as is, have the NCAA as Keystone Kops catching up with the occasional obvious offender and leveling sanctions, and let the kids get what they get behind the scenes, having to hide it as much as possible for fear of the NCAA, rather than putting together a sanctioned pay grade that would separate the top teams further from the rest institutionally, making the tournament we know now a thing of the past by making it impossible for mid majors to compete against a sanctioned school "pay" level. Keep it black market, but crush the AAU and shoe company influence on college ball...take away apparel endorsement money paid to coaches (make it a school level contract...it might trickle to the coach, but have it go to the athletic general fund or basketball program directly), and end the AAU system that is endorsed by college basketball as the easy route to recruiting. Coaches like it because they can go to one tournament and see everyone. I get it. But the real potential to abuse kids that never get anything out of their exploitation comes in the AAU system, not NCAA basketball, and as much as I love Jay Bilas, I disagree with him wholeheartedly that NCAA players are exploited.

That's a lot of word salad, but I think I am getting my point across while writing distracted by this stupid thing called work...

YoDeFoe · Post by **YoDeFoe** » Fri Oct 13, 2017 9:34 am

CalStateTempe wrote:UCSF is a health professions university (no undergrad, no sports affiliation) and arguably top 5 nationally in medicine, dentistry, PT, grad school, and nursing.

Maybe it was an error but for Childress to have a UCSF profile would be tremondous. Essentially furd takes those that can't get into UCSF for health professions.

Btw thanks for blogging media day, really appreciate your info.

Oh. Damn. Sorry I meant USF. He'd fit theirs based on his 3.5 GPA and 1100 SAT but it looks like he'd be on the low end of their class.

YoDeFoe · Post by **YoDeFoe** » Fri Oct 13, 2017 9:37 am

Also completely agree with EVC.

PHXCATS · Post by **PHXCATS** » Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:46 pm

gumby · Post by **gumby** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 12:04 pm

Change coming to NBA age rule? This would help a lot.

https://sports.yahoo.com/adam-silver-ri ... 21752.html" target="_blank

NBA commissioner Adam Silver has observed a sudden shift in market trends in college basketball just as a massive scandal involving agents, coaches and shoe companies has overwhelmed the sport.

The combination, he said Monday, will likely cause the end of the NBA’s so-called “one-and-done” rule, which would dramatically alter how young basketball talent is developed while changing how college teams are built.

Silver, for his part, cited three things that have dramatically shifted. The scandals are one. “It’s clearly not working for the college game,” Silver said. Second is the increase in one-and-done players declaring for the draft. There were 16 last year. Silver said the average had been about eight per year.

And finally, it appears more top recruits don’t care about where they go to college and are just biding their time until draft night. This may be most concerning to the NBA, because it impacts the league directly.

“What’s really interesting to me is the last two No. 1 picks in the NBA draft, Ben Simmons two years ago and Markelle Fultz last year, both played with teams that did not make the NCAA tournament (LSU and Washington, respectively),” Silver said. “And I don’t think enough people are talking about that. That seems to be a sea change.

“It’s become common knowledge that these so-called one-and-done players, maybe understandably, are almost entirely focused on where they are going to go in the draft lottery. Not to say they don’t badly care about winning but … the stakes are so high in terms of the amount of money they can make over a long NBA career.”

Or put it this way, if the NBA isn’t going to benefit from college hoops marketing its future stars across the winter and into the highly rated NCAA tournament, then it’s a major value loss for the league. A season at high-exposure Duke is one thing. A forgotten one at LSU is another.

Spaceman Spiff · Post by **Spaceman Spiff** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 12:16 pm

Silver's said that a lot. What he discusses vs what comes from the CBA...?

YoDeFoe · Post by **YoDeFoe** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 12:38 pm

Michael Porter, Jr is likely going to be the third first pick in a row to play for a "non-marquee" team, though I think they'll make the tournament.

Spaceman Spiff · Post by **Spaceman Spiff** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 12:49 pm

YoDeFoe wrote:Michael Porter, Jr is likely going to be the third first pick in a row to play for a "non-marquee" team, though I think they'll make the tournament.

I'm sure that is entirely due to basketball reasons and not back room stuff.

Merkin · Post by **Merkin** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:02 pm

gumby wrote:Change coming to NBA age rule? This would help a lot.

https://sports.yahoo.com/adam-silver-ri ... 21752.html" target="_blank

Need to fix the issue with high schoolers taking up a scholarship offer, then deciding to go straight to the league, i.e. Ndudi Ebi. Not really fair to the university to hold a spot, then lose out on another player that would have committed.

Not that the NBA cares about colleges at all.

EOCT · Post by **EOCT** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:51 pm

Merkin wrote:
gumby wrote:Change coming to NBA age rule? This would help a lot.

https://sports.yahoo.com/adam-silver-ri ... 21752.html" target="_blank

Need to fix the issue with high schoolers taking up a scholarship offer, then deciding to go straight to the league, i.e. Ndudi Ebi. Not really fair to the university to hold a spot, then lose out on another player that would have committed.

Not that the NBA cares about colleges at all.

Lower or raise the age rule?

My first thought is "What's best for the kid? He's who we should focus, not the university or the NBA. Raise the age a year, maybe two."

No. Make the rule 18 and a half. If we really think about the kid we should admit the current rule is unfair. Second, virtually every one and done could care less about the books. Third, the question "Does a supremely NBA obsessed guy maybe even spread his infectious educational attitude to the rest of the team a bit"

A tough question on age, but I side with Silver and his points. I agree an age rule should be first, fair to the kid; second, help us emphasize a school-wide attitude connoting those magic words STUDENT athlete.

Chicat · Post by **Chicat** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:52 pm

Merkin wrote:
gumby wrote:Change coming to NBA age rule? This would help a lot.

https://sports.yahoo.com/adam-silver-ri ... 21752.html" target="_blank

Need to fix the issue with high schoolers taking up a scholarship offer, then deciding to go straight to the league, i.e. Ndudi Ebi. Not really fair to the university to hold a spot, then lose out on another player that would have committed.

Not that the NBA cares about colleges at all.

It's on the schools to hedge their bets. Some may decide the possibility of getting spurned last minute isn't worth the talent bump if they decide to go to college. Some may decide the opposite.

rgdeuce · Post by **rgdeuce** » Tue Oct 17, 2017 11:43 am

Without giving too many details and airing the person out - just had a conversation this morning with someone whose immediate family member was subpoenaed by the feds in connection with these investigations. He said the family member runs a business that at times deals with several schools and Nike, and in recent months, he got a knock on his front door by three $1,000/hour attorney types, sent over by Nike. His family member is not involved in "that side" of things, but he was still questioned. Said over 10,000 subpoenas have already been issued, the scope of this investigation includes at least 35 schools, and NCAA football teams are getting dragged into this. I'm not sure he is as connected/in the know as 97Cats, at least with this stuff, but he is still well-connected, very reliable, and only Sean Miller, a visiting head coach, the referees, and a few others have a better view of the action in McKale. He seemed to agree with much of what I was saying (with a smile and a nod) during the conversation in regard to how all of this has worked, the scope, and for how long - basically me just repeating some of the information 97 has given us. He isn't sweating all this too much and says even in the worst case scenario, the program will be fine and there will be plenty of graduate transfers who would be lining up to fill any potential recruiting hit we may take in the near future.

Spaceman Spiff · Post by **Spaceman Spiff** » Tue Oct 17, 2017 11:52 am

rgdeuce wrote:Without giving too many details and airing the person out - just had a conversation this morning with someone whose immediate family member was subpoenaed by the feds in connection with these investigations. He said the family member runs a business that at times deals with several schools and Nike, and in recent months, he got a knock on his front door by three $1,000/hour attorney types, sent over by Nike. His family member is not involved in "that side" of things, but he was still questioned. Said over 10,000 subpoenas have already been issued, the scope of this investigation includes at least 35 schools, and NCAA football teams are getting dragged into this. I'm not sure he is as connected/in the know as 97Cats, at least with this stuff, but he is still well-connected, very reliable, and only Sean Miller, a visiting head coach, the referees, and a few others have a better view of the action in McKale. He seemed to agree with much of what I was saying (with a smile and a nod) during the conversation in regard to how all of this has worked, the scope, and for how long - basically me just repeating some of the information 97 has given us. He isn't sweating all this too much and says even in the worst case scenario, the program will be fine and there will be plenty of graduate transfers who would be lining up to fill any potential recruiting hit we may take in the near future.

Thanks for info.

Nothing about the breadth of the investigation is/should be a surprise. The idea this was 4-6 rogue programs...well, how were the other teams beating out the rogues? This is just a glance behind the curtain of the system.

Jefe · Post by **Jefe** » Tue Oct 17, 2017 12:07 pm

Before the one and done rule there were what, max 2-3 high schoolers in each draft? This may keep the creme of the crop out of the NCAA but we won't see 10+ guys skipping college, will we? Kentucky, NC, Duke, and Kansas will have to work harder in recruiting

Login • Register