Bribery Scandal - FBI Probe - Book Richardson Involved

[Irish27]

[Newportcat]

God I fucking hate Dick Vitale. Like Fucking hate him so much.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Vitale's love for Pitino is an embarassment.

Does every copy of the book come with a 25% off coupon for a Lousiville area prostitute? Can I get adidas to pay for my copy?

[IrishAzCat]

[catgrad97]

I love how his finger covers up "Foreword by Book Richardson".

[YoDeFoe]

Vitale needs to be taken out to pasture. His absolute lack of self awareness here is embarrassing. Or it would be if he hadn't already vacated his self respect to become a caricature of himself as an announcer years ago.

He's a college basketball tchotchke. Skip the estate sale and call Waste Management for a bulky item collection.

[azcat49]

Someone needs to send "DIck" that photoshop. That is freaking great

[IrishAzCat]

Someone needs to send "DIck" that photoshop. That is freaking great

I don't really use twitter, but if anybody wants to - feel free to pass this around or anything else I made - It would be hilarious if Dickie V saw this...

[Spaceman Spiff]

Vitale needs to be taken out to pasture. His absolute lack of self awareness here is embarrassing. Or it would be if he hadn't already vacated his self respect to become a caricature of himself as an announcer years ago.

He's a college basketball tchotchke. Skip the estate sale and call Waste Management for a bulky item collection.

Vitale is the Lou Holtz of CBB in that way. Holtz is just a cartoon of himself now. I'd bring up Lee Corso, but I feel bad given his health problems.

I actually don't mind Vitale when he's only in his college basketball cheerleader mode. When he starts trying to seriously comment on scandals, that is my big issue.

[HiCat]

Not sure if this info is posted

Arizona Basketball: Former ESPN Analyst Discusses FBI Investigation

Arizona Basketball: Former ESPN analyst Jeff Goodman explains what went on behind the scenes at ESPN during the college basketball FBI scandal.

For many of us Arizona Basketball fans, it seems like the scandal happened yesterday. What seemed likely to be another ordinary basketball season for our Wildcats, took a dramatic turn for the worst.

Suddenly the program that we have grown up loving and cheering for was accused of paying then top recruit and now Phoenix Suns rookie, Deandre Ayton in return for a commitment to play in Tucson.

As the story came out, it became very apparent that the story had some serious holes and not all of the links connected to each other. From the timeline of the story to the reporter of the story Mark Schlabach going M.I.A. for an extended p
The former co-worker of Schlabach and ESPN expert college basketball analyst, Jeff Goodman has finally opened about what really went on behind the scenes during such a critical time in college basketball. Goodman did this during an interview done by a podcast called “Glass Half Full” which typically talks everything college basketball.

Naturally, the FBI scandal was a topic of discussion and had some surprising words that all Arizona Basketball fans need to hear.

As a sports station that prides themselves on being the “Worldwide Leader In Sports”, wouldn’t they want the most qualified reporter for the job? That would logical to most of us, but in this case, just the opposite happened.

When the biggest story in recent history broke in college basketball, what did ESPN tell Jeff? They told Jeff “To stand down” and “Not cover it”. The reason ESPN gave Jeff’ “Well, we don’t want you to ruffle any feathers with the relationships you have”.

Instead, ESPN had Mark Schlabach and Paula Lavigne from “Outside the Lines” do most of the coverage. Jeff went on to credit both reporters for their work in the industry, but also said: “he felt that nobody had the information and contacts that I had at the lowest level”.

https://twitter.com/AZATHLETICS/status/ ... 4191624192" target="_blank

He went on to say that “I knew people who people who had been arrested, Christian Dawkins, Andy Miller the whole deal.” The information that Jeff could have proved due to the connections he had made over the year may have prevented ESPN reporting misguided information.

As Wildcat fans, we have grown to expect nothing less, but we always had faith that the truth would prevail. It is sad that it had to come at the expense of Arizona Basketball and Sean Miller’s reputation. Also that our beloved student-athletes had to be dragged through the mud due to lack of leadership and irresponsible reporting by ESPN.

https://zonazealots.com/2018/08/27/ariz ... stigation/" target="_blank

[YoDeFoe]

I really appreciate any content on Arizona basketball, but goddamn Zona Zealots needs an editor or just better writers.

The entire article is 450 words for 50 quoted words.There's really no "there there" from Goodman - ESPN gave the reporting to a guy with no expertise. We knew that. No one with actual expertise opined, clearly because they didn't want to upset the mothership. Ya duh.

Is that the entirety of the conversation? 50 words we already knew? Good thing they made use of the rest of that space to make a pitiful "we're always the victim" bullshit conclusion at the end.

I'm a stickler for grammar/structure/argument, so I'm sure this shit irks me more than others. But we deserve better from someone publishing a piece.

[YoDeFoe]

Here's a piece that's about 1,000 times better with full quotes and a link to the source. You know, like an actual writer would offer.

http://awfulannouncing.com/espn/jeff-go ... stuff.html

Here is the relevant transcript of Goodman re: Arizona:

“To be honest, I was told by one higher-up at ESPN to stand down on the FBI stuff, basically not to cover it. I pitched numerous ideas, tried to do it, and was basically told not to. And I said to the person, ‘How can that be the case, with all the relationships, with all the information I’m privy to in college basketball, wouldn’t you want me leading the charge on this?’ And instead it was almost like ‘Well, don’t ruffle any feathers with the relationships you have.'”

“For me, I’m a reporter! It’s what I am at the heart of it. I was taught at the Associated Press by some really good people. I pride myself on the fact that I can be versatile enough to write a feature, to break news, to write an investigative piece, to be honest about what I’m doing no matter what the relationship is with a coach, a player, whoever. And I was surprised at that, and it frustrated me. I certainly wanted to cover it; it’s been the biggest story in college basketball over the last year! And like you said, there aren’t that many people that are really covering it. Yahoo’s done a good job.”

“I never got an answer when I asked that person. I never got an answer. I said ‘I think I can get information that no one else can.’ And they had Mark Schlabach, who’s a good reporter, his past speaks for itself and everything he’s done in this industry, they had him doing a lot of it. Paula Lavigne does a great job from Outside The Lines, she was covering it as well. But I felt there was nobody who had the information and the contacts that I had at the lowest level.”

“Remember, I came up through recruiting, so I knew a lot of the agents, AAU coaches. Obviously it hit some of the college coaches, I knew people who knew people that had been arrested, Christian Dawkins, Andy Miller that whole deal. So I was baffled on that one to be honest. But, you know, the greatest thing about ESPN is its size and the toughest thing to navigate is its size, because they’ve got so many moving parts and so many people, and like you said, leadership changes quickly.”

Actually insightful! My only gripe would be calling Schlabach a good reporter, though I understand professional courtesy. His past does speak for itself, though: he's a college football writer living in the sticks of rural Georgia who publishes books on Duck Dynasty.

[Chicat]

You don’t really get a good sense of what Goodman could have added to the story, either to confirm or rebutt Schlabach, but I do get the sense that if anyone had been assigned to speak to Miller & Co they would have realized quickly that Schlabach’s story had more holes than golf course.

My biggest issue with ESPN remains to this day that they never followed up on Schlabach’s story with any further corresponding evidence. An example of this would be Ronan Farrow at the New Yorker. He spends a year gathering evidence on Harvey Weinstein, publishes his story, and had enough people reach out to him for multiple follow up articles both on Weinstein and other sexual predators in Hollywood and the media.

Did no one call Schlabach with other stories of Miller offering $100k to get players? How about other programs and coaches?

Instead, Schlabach disappeared like a fart in a windstorm and has barely been seen since. Because his story was bullshit and ESPN knows it.

[prh]

I really appreciate any content on Arizona basketball, but goddamn Zona Zealots needs an editor or just better writers.

The entire article is 450 words for 50 quoted words.There's really no "there there" from Goodman - ESPN gave the reporting to a guy with no expertise. We knew that. No one with actual expertise opined, clearly because they didn't want to upset the mothership. Ya duh.

Is that the entirety of the conversation? 50 words we already knew? Good thing they made use of the rest of that space to make a pitiful "we're always the victim" bullshit conclusion at the end.

I'm a stickler for grammar/structure/argument, so I'm sure this shit irks me more than others. But we deserve better from someone publishing a piece.

Dude Zona Zealots is basically about pumping out headlines with garbage "articles." Nearly all of them are lots of words for one relevant sentence, some are downright incorrect, and all struggle with readability. Been like that for quite awhile.

[YoDeFoe]

I really appreciate any content on Arizona basketball, but goddamn Zona Zealots needs an editor or just better writers.

The entire article is 450 words for 50 quoted words.There's really no "there there" from Goodman - ESPN gave the reporting to a guy with no expertise. We knew that. No one with actual expertise opined, clearly because they didn't want to upset the mothership. Ya duh.

Is that the entirety of the conversation? 50 words we already knew? Good thing they made use of the rest of that space to make a pitiful "we're always the victim" bullshit conclusion at the end.

I'm a stickler for grammar/structure/argument, so I'm sure this shit irks me more than others. But we deserve better from someone publishing a piece.

Dude Zona Zealots is basically about pumping out headlines with garbage "articles." Nearly all of them are lots of words for one relevant sentence, some are downright incorrect, and all struggle with readability. Been like that for quite awhile.

I know it. Maybe I should have said "I'm a sucker for Arizona basketball content and will read anything published, despite knowing it's likely trash."

[YoDeFoe]

Look at the big brain on ChiCat! Dropping "Ronan Farrow" references and shit.

But for real, that's a good comparison. There were two pretty obvious conflicts in the story that made it clearly suspect, and it supports your point that Schlabach didn't do much digging or corroborating at all.

1) The timing was clearly off, as the wiretaps hadn't started in early 2016 and Arizona had already secured Ayton's commitment in 2017 (depending on which revision to the story you want to pick apart), and 2) Dawkins didn't know Ayton and didn't know anyone involved in the Ayton recruitment - so how in the world would he have offered help in securing that commitment? Why would Miller, who was infinitely more involved with the Ayton recruitment than Dawkins, have listened to a pitch from Dawkins without hanging up the phone laughing?

Not to rehash the whole thing. I'm just restating to add to Chi's point: clearly no corroboration, or even effort to do so.

The more pointed question to Goodman would have been: do you have any sense of why ESPN would allow that report to fly without those clear holes and no corroboration, and does the timing of the news drop following the blockbuster Yahoo story of the same week strike you as a motivating factor?

[ChooChooCat]

Look at the big brain on ChiCat! Dropping "Ronan Farrow" references and shit.

But for real, that's a good comparison. There were two pretty obvious conflicts in the story that made it clearly suspect, and it supports your point that Schlabach didn't do much digging or corroborating at all.

1) The timing was clearly off, as the wiretaps hadn't started in early 2016 and Arizona had already secured Ayton's commitment in 2017 (depending on which revision to the story you want to pick apart), and 2) Dawkins didn't know Ayton and didn't know anyone involved in the Ayton recruitment - so how in the world would he have offered help in securing that commitment? Why would Miller, who was infinitely more involved with the Ayton recruitment than Dawkins, have listened to a pitch from Dawkins without hanging up the phone laughing?

Not to rehash the whole thing. I'm just restating to add to Chi's point: clearly no corroboration, or even effort to do so.

The more pointed question to Goodman would have been: do you have any sense of why ESPN would allow that report to fly without those clear holes and no corroboration, and does the timing of the news drop following the blockbuster Yahoo story of the same week strike you as a motivating factor?

The choice of Schlabach just boggles the mind honestly. I mean he's a SEC football beat writer. So outside of maybe some connection to the Auburn athletic department just who exactly involved in this case would he have ties to? I'm fine with them not giving it to Goodman, but how about even Myron Medcalf or Paul Biancardi FFS? I mean anybody who talks to basketball people or remotely pays attention to the sport and its recruiting on the regular.

[Spaceman Spiff]

You don’t really get a good sense of what Goodman could have added to the story, either to confirm or rebutt Schlabach, but I do get the sense that if anyone had been assigned to speak to Miller & Co they would have realized quickly that Schlabach’s story had more holes than golf course.

My biggest issue with ESPN remains to this day that they never followed up on Schlabach’s story with any further corresponding evidence. An example of this would be Ronan Farrow at the New Yorker. He spends a year gathering evidence on Harvey Weinstein, publishes his story, and had enough people reach out to him for multiple follow up articles both on Weinstein and other sexual predators in Hollywood and the media.

Did no one call Schlabach with other stories of Miller offering $100k to get players? How about other programs and coaches?

Instead, Schlabach disappeared like a fart in a windstorm and has barely been seen since. Because his story was bullshit and ESPN knows it.

If he had corroboration, it would be out by now. The longer no corroboration goes, the easier the conclusion is that none exists.

[EOCT]

Yes, Chi and YDF, your truth. The objective conclusion: They never followed up!. Instead, silence. So many people called out the illogic and conflict in the so-called story, but ESPN never followed up.

What's follow up? Number one, immedate journalistic work determining what their mistake was and how and why it happened. The critical piece of any such discussion, the "why".

Finally, the necessary ethical step, say/state/admit publicly "We---ESPN----made a fucking inexcusable mistake!! Forget the human "We're sorry" part if you must, ESPN, just announce to the world(be sure to include CSM) you made a mistake.

[rgdeuce]

Look at the big brain on ChiCat! Dropping "Ronan Farrow" references and shit.

But for real, that's a good comparison. There were two pretty obvious conflicts in the story that made it clearly suspect, and it supports your point that Schlabach didn't do much digging or corroborating at all.

1) The timing was clearly off, as the wiretaps hadn't started in early 2016 and Arizona had already secured Ayton's commitment in 2017 (depending on which revision to the story you want to pick apart), and 2) Dawkins didn't know Ayton and didn't know anyone involved in the Ayton recruitment - so how in the world would he have offered help in securing that commitment? Why would Miller, who was infinitely more involved with the Ayton recruitment than Dawkins, have listened to a pitch from Dawkins without hanging up the phone laughing?

Not to rehash the whole thing. I'm just restating to add to Chi's point: clearly no corroboration, or even effort to do so.

The more pointed question to Goodman would have been: do you have any sense of why ESPN would allow that report to fly without those clear holes and no corroboration, and does the timing of the news drop following the blockbuster Yahoo story of the same week strike you as a motivating factor?

The choice of Schlabach just boggles the mind honestly. I mean he's a SEC football beat writer. So outside of maybe some connection to the Auburn athletic department just who exactly involved in this case would he have ties to? I'm fine with them not giving it to Goodman, but how about even Myron Medcalf or Paul Biancardi FFS? I mean anybody who talks to basketball people or remotely pays attention to the sport and its recruiting on the regular.

Who is the most expendable out of all the names you mentioned? There is your answer.

[ChooChooCat]

Look at the big brain on ChiCat! Dropping "Ronan Farrow" references and shit.

But for real, that's a good comparison. There were two pretty obvious conflicts in the story that made it clearly suspect, and it supports your point that Schlabach didn't do much digging or corroborating at all.

1) The timing was clearly off, as the wiretaps hadn't started in early 2016 and Arizona had already secured Ayton's commitment in 2017 (depending on which revision to the story you want to pick apart), and 2) Dawkins didn't know Ayton and didn't know anyone involved in the Ayton recruitment - so how in the world would he have offered help in securing that commitment? Why would Miller, who was infinitely more involved with the Ayton recruitment than Dawkins, have listened to a pitch from Dawkins without hanging up the phone laughing?

Not to rehash the whole thing. I'm just restating to add to Chi's point: clearly no corroboration, or even effort to do so.

The more pointed question to Goodman would have been: do you have any sense of why ESPN would allow that report to fly without those clear holes and no corroboration, and does the timing of the news drop following the blockbuster Yahoo story of the same week strike you as a motivating factor?

The choice of Schlabach just boggles the mind honestly. I mean he's a SEC football beat writer. So outside of maybe some connection to the Auburn athletic department just who exactly involved in this case would he have ties to? I'm fine with them not giving it to Goodman, but how about even Myron Medcalf or Paul Biancardi FFS? I mean anybody who talks to basketball people or remotely pays attention to the sport and its recruiting on the regular.

Who is the most expendable out of all the names you mentioned? There is your answer.

Apparently Goodman was.

[Chicat]

Look at the big brain on ChiCat! Dropping "Ronan Farrow" references and shit.

But for real, that's a good comparison. There were two pretty obvious conflicts in the story that made it clearly suspect, and it supports your point that Schlabach didn't do much digging or corroborating at all.

1) The timing was clearly off, as the wiretaps hadn't started in early 2016 and Arizona had already secured Ayton's commitment in 2017 (depending on which revision to the story you want to pick apart), and 2) Dawkins didn't know Ayton and didn't know anyone involved in the Ayton recruitment - so how in the world would he have offered help in securing that commitment? Why would Miller, who was infinitely more involved with the Ayton recruitment than Dawkins, have listened to a pitch from Dawkins without hanging up the phone laughing?

Not to rehash the whole thing. I'm just restating to add to Chi's point: clearly no corroboration, or even effort to do so.

The more pointed question to Goodman would have been: do you have any sense of why ESPN would allow that report to fly without those clear holes and no corroboration, and does the timing of the news drop following the blockbuster Yahoo story of the same week strike you as a motivating factor?

The choice of Schlabach just boggles the mind honestly. I mean he's a SEC football beat writer. So outside of maybe some connection to the Auburn athletic department just who exactly involved in this case would he have ties to? I'm fine with them not giving it to Goodman, but how about even Myron Medcalf or Paul Biancardi FFS? I mean anybody who talks to basketball people or remotely pays attention to the sport and its recruiting on the regular.

Who is the most expendable out of all the names you mentioned? There is your answer.

But who else can do college football game predictions that are wrong 45% of the time???

I do get the impression that ESPN was desperate to have something (anything) to get some eyeballs while Yahoo ate their lunch on the story. I’m not sure if Schlabach was actively working his story, or if his editor gave him a phone number and said, “Call this guy and get me a quote about recruiting being dirty pool,” but they rushed out that story and hoped it wouldn’t be questioned too closely with all the other allegations flying around.

[prh]

Look at the big brain on ChiCat! Dropping "Ronan Farrow" references and shit.

But for real, that's a good comparison. There were two pretty obvious conflicts in the story that made it clearly suspect, and it supports your point that Schlabach didn't do much digging or corroborating at all.

1) The timing was clearly off, as the wiretaps hadn't started in early 2016 and Arizona had already secured Ayton's commitment in 2017 (depending on which revision to the story you want to pick apart), and 2) Dawkins didn't know Ayton and didn't know anyone involved in the Ayton recruitment - so how in the world would he have offered help in securing that commitment? Why would Miller, who was infinitely more involved with the Ayton recruitment than Dawkins, have listened to a pitch from Dawkins without hanging up the phone laughing?

Not to rehash the whole thing. I'm just restating to add to Chi's point: clearly no corroboration, or even effort to do so.

The more pointed question to Goodman would have been: do you have any sense of why ESPN would allow that report to fly without those clear holes and no corroboration, and does the timing of the news drop following the blockbuster Yahoo story of the same week strike you as a motivating factor?

The choice of Schlabach just boggles the mind honestly. I mean he's a SEC football beat writer. So outside of maybe some connection to the Auburn athletic department just who exactly involved in this case would he have ties to? I'm fine with them not giving it to Goodman, but how about even Myron Medcalf or Paul Biancardi FFS? I mean anybody who talks to basketball people or remotely pays attention to the sport and its recruiting on the regular.

Who is the most expendable out of all the names you mentioned? There is your answer.

But who else can do college football game predictions that are wrong 45% of the time???

I do get the impression that ESPN was desperate to have something (anything) to get some eyeballs while Yahoo ate their lunch on the story. I’m not sure if Schlabach was actively working his story, or if his editor gave him a phone number and said, “Call this guy and get me a quote about recruiting being dirty pool,” but they rushed out that story and hoped it wouldn’t be questioned too closely with all the other allegations flying around.

I'd venture a guess that he was working on the story, someone above him knew he was working on it, and told him to publish it once Yahoo broke their news. Would partially explain (but not excuse) the blatant holes in the story.

[Chicat]

I'd venture a guess that he was working on the story, someone above him knew he was working on it, and told him to publish it once Yahoo broke their news. Would partially explain (but not excuse) the blatant holes in the story.

I think you’re right. Which would explain why they changed the date of the phone call which was literally the entire crux of the story three times.

There’s even the possibility Schlabach never intended to run the story. Which is why no one at Arizona was contacted for comment and there was no independent second source.

Schlabach could have talked to his source, decided it was flimsy but still mentioned it to his bosses. Then the Yahoo report hits the wire and all of a sudden ESPN is beating on him to run with it. At which point the soulless hack could have refused, but instead he decided to protect his job and rushed out the hit piece. Because he’s a giant loser.

[prh]

I'd venture a guess that he was working on the story, someone above him knew he was working on it, and told him to publish it once Yahoo broke their news. Would partially explain (but not excuse) the blatant holes in the story.

I think you’re right. Which would explain why they changed the date of the phone call which was literally the entire crux of the story three times.

There’s even the possibility Schlabach never intended to run the story. Which is why no one at Arizona was contacted for comment and there was no independent second source.

Schlabach could have talked to his source, decided it was flimsy but still mentioned it to his bosses. Then the Yahoo report hits the wire and all of a sudden ESPN is beating on him to run with it. At which point the soulless hack could have refused, but instead he decided to protect his job and rushed out the hit piece. Because he’s a giant loser.

Not to take his side, but I don't think people really stand up to their bosses around ESPN. That's not how their culture has typically been. But I do agree with with everything else you said

[Chicat]

Schlabach is a pussy. He couldn’t even stand up to a few twitter users, so there’s no chance he was standing up to the ESPN brass.

But getting fired because you refuse to slander a coach and an 18-year-old kid? That would make you a household name in journalism .... for the right reasons.

[EOCT]

Schlabach is a pussy. He couldn’t even stand up to a few twitter users, so there’s no chance he was standing up to the ESPN brass.

But getting fired because you refuse to slander a coach and an 18-year-old kid? That would make you a household name in journalism .... for the right reasons.

Terrific observation, Chi.

[zonagrad]

I'd venture a guess that he was working on the story, someone above him knew he was working on it, and told him to publish it once Yahoo broke their news. Would partially explain (but not excuse) the blatant holes in the story.

I think you’re right. Which would explain why they changed the date of the phone call which was literally the entire crux of the story three times.

There’s even the possibility Schlabach never intended to run the story. Which is why no one at Arizona was contacted for comment and there was no independent second source.

Schlabach could have talked to his source, decided it was flimsy but still mentioned it to his bosses. Then the Yahoo report hits the wire and all of a sudden ESPN is beating on him to run with it. At which point the soulless hack could have refused, but instead he decided to protect his job and rushed out the hit piece. Because he’s a giant loser.

Most plausible explanation I've read so far.

[Merkin]

[Spaceman Spiff]

[Chicat]

That Pitino meme would be better if it mentioned the 30 seconds it took for him to bang that skank in the bathroom of that family restaurant.

[YoDeFoe]

I prefer this one

[Newportcat]

At this point, is there anything for us to fear anymore about the FBI investigation?

[enfuego]

It's interesting that there are no NCAA sanctions coming out of this investigation except for Louisville, even when a school's assistant coach is caught red handed cheating.

[ASUHATER!]

It's interesting that there are no NCAA sanctions coming out of this investigation except for Louisville, even when a school's assistant coach is caught red handed cheating.

Seriously Kansas should be given the death penalty.

[enfuego]

It's interesting that there are no NCAA sanctions coming out of this investigation except for Louisville, even when a school's assistant coach is caught red handed cheating.

Seriously Kansas should be given the death penalty.

[Chicat]

It's interesting that there are no NCAA sanctions coming out of this investigation except for Louisville, even when a school's assistant coach is caught red handed cheating.

The FBI has asked the NCAA to hold off on their investigation. But besides that, please define “cheating” in this context as it relates to NCAA bylaws. What advantage did Arizona get from Book Richardson trying to take a bribe to steer a kid to an agent?

[ChooChooCat]

It's interesting that there are no NCAA sanctions coming out of this investigation except for Louisville, even when a school's assistant coach is caught red handed cheating.

The FBI has asked the NCAA to hold off on their investigation. But besides that, please define “cheating” in this context as it relates to NCAA bylaws. What advantage did Arizona get from Book Richardson trying to take a bribe to steer a kid to an agent?

This along with the fact that Jahvon Quinerly is expected to be fully cleared to play at Nova and well....

[azcat49]

NCAA is more corrupt than any of its member schools and their employee's

[Beachcat97]

Miller's presser (with the university president right there with him) allayed any concern I had about himself or the program being dirty. If Miller were involved in Book's shadiness, he'd have been asked to resign this past spring. So either you think Miller is straight up lying, or you take the guy at his word. I choose the latter.

[enfuego]

It's interesting that there are no NCAA sanctions coming out of this investigation except for Louisville, even when a school's assistant coach is caught red handed cheating.

The FBI has asked the NCAA to hold off on their investigation. But besides that, please define “cheating” in this context as it relates to NCAA bylaws. What advantage did Arizona get from Book Richardson trying to take a bribe to steer a kid to an agent?

Last I checked you can't pay a recruit to play at your school according to NCAA bylaws:

"The federal indictment says that Richardson participated in a scheme involving a financial manager and sports agents and took $20,000 in bribes last summer and paid a recruit to commit to Arizona."

https://tucson.com/sports/arizonawildca ... 483.html#3" target="_blank

[ASUHATER!]

That's not what book is accused of. He's accused of bribing a person to steer a recruit

[Spaceman Spiff]

It's interesting that there are no NCAA sanctions coming out of this investigation except for Louisville, even when a school's assistant coach is caught red handed cheating.

The FBI has asked the NCAA to hold off on their investigation. But besides that, please define “cheating” in this context as it relates to NCAA bylaws. What advantage did Arizona get from Book Richardson trying to take a bribe to steer a kid to an agent?

Last I checked you can't pay a recruit to play at your school according to NCAA bylaws:

"The federal indictment says that Richardson participated in a scheme involving a financial manager and sports agents and took $20,000 in bribes last summer and paid a recruit to commit to Arizona."

https://tucson.com/sports/arizonawildca ... 483.html#3" target="_blank

That recruit is eligible, which he would not be if he'd been paid.

[Chicat]

It's interesting that there are no NCAA sanctions coming out of this investigation except for Louisville, even when a school's assistant coach is caught red handed cheating.

The FBI has asked the NCAA to hold off on their investigation. But besides that, please define “cheating” in this context as it relates to NCAA bylaws. What advantage did Arizona get from Book Richardson trying to take a bribe to steer a kid to an agent?

Last I checked you can't pay a recruit to play at your school according to NCAA bylaws:

"The federal indictment says that Richardson participated in a scheme involving a financial manager and sports agents and took $20,000 in bribes last summer and paid a recruit to commit to Arizona."

https://tucson.com/sports/arizonawildca ... 483.html#3" target="_blank

That recruit is eligible, which he would not be if he'd been paid.

Because the only evidence is that Book allegedly told Sood that he needed money to land a recruit. There is no evidence he paid anyone anything. And according to people who have known Book, the most likely explanation is that he kept that money for himself.

[enfuego]

It's interesting that there are no NCAA sanctions coming out of this investigation except for Louisville, even when a school's assistant coach is caught red handed cheating.

The FBI has asked the NCAA to hold off on their investigation. But besides that, please define “cheating” in this context as it relates to NCAA bylaws. What advantage did Arizona get from Book Richardson trying to take a bribe to steer a kid to an agent?

Last I checked you can't pay a recruit to play at your school according to NCAA bylaws:

"The federal indictment says that Richardson participated in a scheme involving a financial manager and sports agents and took $20,000 in bribes last summer and paid a recruit to commit to Arizona."

https://tucson.com/sports/arizonawildca ... 483.html#3" target="_blank

That recruit is eligible, which he would not be if he'd been paid.

That's your opinion. Just wondering why no other school except Louisville has received sanctions from the NCAA.

Because the only evidence is that Book allegedly told Sood that he needed money to land a recruit. There is no evidence he paid anyone anything. And according to people who have known Book, the most likely explanation is that he kept that money for himself.

[ChooChooCat]

Louisville's NCAA sanctions stemmed from them paying for hookers to recruit players and not the FBI investigation genius.

Pitino was the only head man fired because 1. Hookergate and 2. He was directly implicated in the FBI investigation. Louisville had enough.

[atlantakat]

Hope Dickie V reads this one:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/18/maga ... ctionfront" target="_blank

[Merkin]

Have not been following this story, so not sure what is going on and whether or not this has been verified either way.

[UAEebs86]

Fire his ass.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Have not been following this story, so not sure what is going on and whether or not this has been verified either way.

It's a really bad look having Book's wife responding in the comments about how it's BS when you're spreading suicide rumors.