This is going to get interesting...looks like the NCAA is definitely telling teams and coaches to avoid these events in the future, enough that is scared off a lot of coaches this year (don't blame the coaches one bit)
http://ncaabasketball.fanhouse.com/2010/08/14/cowboys-david-and-dana-pump-take-stand-against-ncaa/
Don't walk away, RUN!
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on August 15, 2010, 11:25:07 PM
This is going to get interesting...looks like the NCAA is definitely telling teams and coaches to avoid these events in the future, enough that is scared off a lot of coaches this year (don't blame the coaches one bit)
http://ncaabasketball.fanhouse.com/2010/08/14/cowboys-david-and-dana-pump-take-stand-against-ncaa/
So a bunch of coaches didn't honor their committments and you're happy about it? Interesting.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on August 16, 2010, 09:45:09 AM
So a bunch of coaches didn't honor their committments and you're happy about it? Interesting.
You must be an absolute idiot, if you think these coaches should have kept their commitments to this after the NCAA put out a warning.
Interesting choice of words from this article:
"They also ran a search firm -- ChampSearch -- for universities conducting athletic director and basketball coach searches, until the NCAA determined last year it was
illegal for schools to use their service, David Pump said."
Maybe some of our posters were a bit misplaced in their argument that using the word illegal to describe actions banned by the NCAA is "without merit."
Maybe its more common than they want to admit.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on August 16, 2010, 09:45:09 AM
So a bunch of coaches didn't honor their committments and you're happy about it? Interesting.
The real question is why those coaches made a commitment to the Pump brothers in the first place.
Quote from: bilsu on August 16, 2010, 10:43:28 AM
You must be an absolute idiot, if you think these coaches should have kept their commitments to this after the NCAA put out a warning.
This is why teal text sometimes works better I guess...
Isn't it a cancer research charity? I'd be all for that, maybe NCAA doesn't want anyone cutting into coaches vs. cancer money?
Until they come out and give reasons you can assume the worst or best of the NCAA's intentions.
I guess Caliparri and Pitino were very lonely
Quote from: Lennys Tap on August 16, 2010, 09:45:09 AM
So a bunch of coaches didn't honor their committments and you're happy about it? Interesting.
Did they sign a NLI or contract to be there....interesting.
Keep the comedy coming Lenny.
Quote from: SacWarrior on August 16, 2010, 11:22:19 AM
This is why teal text sometimes works better I guess...
Except he wasn't being sarcastic...I'm a psychic like Lenny and know his absolute intentions of everything he writes.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on August 05, 2010, 11:06:25 PM
To this day, there are still some people on this board that actually think it's no big deal to not honor commitments. Strange to say the least.
Talltitan...the NCAA said don't go. Really, are you suggesting he should go against what the governing agency says?
But you guys are right, revoking a NLI in July when the kid did nothing wrong (had the test scores, had the grades, no problems with the law) is the same as not going to a coaching seminar that the NCAA tells you not to go to.
Definitely parallels.
Quote from: Marquette84 on August 16, 2010, 11:17:26 AM
Interesting choice of words from this article:
"They also ran a search firm -- ChampSearch -- for universities conducting athletic director and basketball coach searches, until the NCAA determined last year it was illegal for schools to use their service, David Pump said."
Maybe some of our posters were a bit misplaced in their argument that using the word illegal to describe actions banned by the NCAA is "without merit."
Maybe its more common than they want to admit.
Or maybe most of us would know not to go to David Pump for legal advice.
Seriously, you can't change the definition of words you know.
Incidentally, note how the folks that keep saying the Newbill thing is beating a dead horse are some of the same that brought it up in this thread. Oh the irony.
Quote from: bilsu on August 16, 2010, 10:43:28 AM
You must be an absolute idiot, if you think these coaches should have kept their commitments to this after the NCAA put out a warning.
Surveys show a high correlation between the humorless and name callers.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on August 16, 2010, 12:19:44 PM
But you guys are right, revoking a NLI in July when the kid did nothing wrong (had the test scores, had the grades, no problems with the law) is the same as not going to a coaching seminar that the NCAA tells you not to go to.
Definitely parallels.
For the record, the NLI was not "revoked". Marquette asked Newbill to sign a release--which he did--so he could have time to land as he did as Miss St. Again, this is an allowable practice under NCAA and BE guidelines where over signing is allowed. MU could have waited until then end of the summer to decide who was odd man out, which would have sent us all over the edge. It is pretty clear Buzz soured on Newbill right after he signed his LOI for a number on reasons--unstated publically but can be mostly inferred.
Chicos, on the Pump Brothers, they are obviously overt with their influence peddling...while WWW is UTR. Since you worked in various AD's, I assume you have plenty of stories of the circuit. How does it all work and come together? Where is the grey areas and when are they crossed? Will the NCAA ever have enough backbone to take on the shoe companies? I just finished Feinstein's "Last Dance" book and he basically said the NCAA regulators were powerless and clueless. Would love your perspective.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on August 16, 2010, 12:31:54 PM
Incidentally, note how the folks that keep saying the Newbill thing is beating a dead horse are some of the same that brought it up in this thread. Oh the irony.
There is absolutely nothing ironic about poking a little fun at sanctimony.
These guys smell of trouble. I was at a party they were throwing in NY 2 years ago during Coaches versus Cancer. I heard about ticket scalping, acting as agents and involvement with Addidas. The kicker was that Jim Harrick was there. Enough said?
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on August 16, 2010, 01:20:14 PM
For the record, the NLI was not "revoked". Marquette asked Newbill to sign a release--which he did--so he could have time to land as he did as Miss St. Again, this is an allowable practice under NCAA and BE guidelines where over signing is allowed. MU could have waited until then end of the summer to decide who was odd man out, which would have sent us all over the edge. It is pretty clear Buzz soured on Newbill right after he signed his LOI for a number on reasons--unstated publically but can be mostly inferred.
Chicos, on the Pump Brothers, they are obviously overt with their influence peddling...while WWW is UTR. Since you worked in various AD's, I assume you have plenty of stories of the circuit. How does it all work and come together? Where is the grey areas and when are they crossed? Will the NCAA ever have enough backbone to take on the shoe companies? I just finished Feinstein's "Last Dance" book and he basically said the NCAA regulators were powerless and clueless. Would love your perspective.
We'll agree to disagree. They weren't going to honor it because they were giving his scholarship to someone else, essentially pulling his off the table.....they revoked it
REVOKE: transitive verb 1 : to annul by recalling or taking back : rescind <revoke a will>
2 : to bring or call back
On your other question, too many things have changed since I was there. At IU, Knight didn't even recruit, he left it to his assistants and only became involved to close the deal if it was even needed. The AAU scene was much different than it is today. At KU, I was only an intern, no exposure to that part of the business. On the MU front, again, AAU was a lot different and many of these groups (Pump Bros, etc) didn't have the power then that they do today.
I will say this, some of the things we are doing now we (the department) blasted other schools for 10-15 years ago. So there is definitely some hypocrisy going on in terms of how we've changed. Now, some will say "good, we're a lot better now than 10-15 years ago"....they would be right. But everything comes at a price. There are a lot of ways to win in college hoops and I would have preferred the path with fewer landmines that can bite us in the ass, but it is what it is.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on August 16, 2010, 01:20:14 PM
Chicos, on the Pump Brothers, they are obviously overt with their influence peddling...while WWW is UTR. Since you worked in various AD's, I assume you have plenty of stories of the circuit. How does it all work and come together? Where is the grey areas and when are they crossed? Will the NCAA ever have enough backbone to take on the shoe companies? I just finished Feinstein's "Last Dance" book and he basically said the NCAA regulators were powerless and clueless. Would love your perspective.
If you want to get a grasp of how things worked in the late 1990s/early 2000s in regards to the influence of shoe companies, read "Sole Influence" by Dan Wetzel.
Some other examples of how things go down:
-Subscribing to subscription scouting services that are run by someone connected to a recruit.
-Paying coaches/mentors close to a recruit to speak at a camp or booster event.
-Paying coaches connected to recruits to coach at summer camps (although this was recently outlawed)
-Season tickets for basketball/football
-Paying coaches to work as "consultants" of the program.
-"Donations" directly to the AAU program...which is often set up as a non-profit, and donations to non-profits may be kept confidential.
-And who can forget the time-honored tradition of the "hundred dollar handshake."
Recent article from Gary Parrish, explaining the influence of agents:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/13742583/sad-truth-college-hoops-coaches-need-player-agents?tag=coverlist_footer;coverlist_photo_content
Quote from: Lennys Tap on August 16, 2010, 01:21:07 PM
There is absolutely nothing ironic about poking a little fun at sanctimony.
No there's not, unless you don't mean to poke fun. And who doesn't just love to point out the sanctimony here? Not me.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on August 16, 2010, 11:48:30 AM
Did they sign a NLI or contract to be there....interesting.
Keep the comedy coming Lenny.
So you're fine with people breaking oral contracts, just not incomplete written ones?
Glad to know your moral outrage over such things only extends to agreements involving ink and dead tree matter.
Any hoo..... let's not start a new dead horse thread.
Besides, has anyone seen either the NLI from DJN or the RSVP to Pump-a-Palooza from Buzz? Do they even exist?
Quote from: Pakuni on August 16, 2010, 04:21:41 PM
So you're fine with people breaking oral contracts, just not incomplete written ones?
Glad to know your moral outrage over such things only extends to agreements involving ink and dead tree matter.
You and Lenny should open up a comedy club. You could call it "Moral Equivalencies" and stand up all day making absurd comparisons. I'll bet it would be a hoot.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on August 16, 2010, 03:32:44 PM
We'll agree to disagree. They weren't going to honor it because they were giving his scholarship to someone else, essentially pulling his off the table.....they revoked it
REVOKE: transitive verb 1 : to annul by recalling or taking back : rescind <revoke a will>
2 : to bring or call back
On your other question, too many things have changed since I was there. At IU, Knight didn't even recruit, he left it to his assistants and only became involved to close the deal if it was even needed. The AAU scene was much different than it is today. At KU, I was only an intern, no exposure to that part of the business. On the MU front, again, AAU was a lot different and many of these groups (Pump Bros, etc) didn't have the power then that they do today.
I will say this, some of the things we are doing now we (the department) blasted other schools for 10-15 years ago. So there is definitely some hypocrisy going on in terms of how we've changed. Now, some will say "good, we're a lot better now than 10-15 years ago"....they would be right. But everything comes at a price. There are a lot of ways to win in college hoops and I would have preferred the path with fewer landmines that can bite us in the ass, but it is what it is.
It's common for unsuccessful programs to pontificate. It's the old we're inferior on the playing field, so we'll CLAIM either moral or intellectual superiority off of it. Some truth with the truly rogue programs but mostly sour grapes and excuse making. When Michigan would be beating Northwestern 49-3 in the 4th quarter the NU faithful would chant "That's alright, that's ok, you're gonna work for us someday". The Michigan fans would just laugh and point at the scoreboard.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on August 16, 2010, 03:32:44 PM
On your other question, too many things have changed since I was there. At IU, Knight didn't even recruit, he left it to his assistants and only became involved to close the deal if it was even needed. The AAU scene was much different than it is today. At KU, I was only an intern, no exposure to that part of the business. ON the MU front, again, AAU was a lot different and many of these groups (Pump Bros, etc) didn't have the power then that they do today.
I will say this, some of the things we are doing now we (the department) blasted other schools for 10-15 years ago. So there is definitely some hypocrisy going on in terms of how we've changed. Now, some will say "good, we're a lot better now than 10-15 years ago"....they would be right. But everything comes at a price. There are a lot of ways to win in college hoops and I would have preferred the path with fewer landmines that can bite us in the ass, but it is what it is.
I think you are romanticizing a bit. Earl Smith, street agent in Hoop Dreams? Al had the New York pipeline sewed up. ABA agents swarming all over Milwaukee for Chones, Lucas, Lackey mid-season. Crean had the Hurley's in for Elite camps. Is it more sophisticated and more $$ involved today? Yes...but that is because of modern day media which ESPN, DTV, CBS feed as well. Instant glory of high school games on tv.Throughout it, the NCAA sits by as a co-conspirator.
Thanks 1104 for the references.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on August 16, 2010, 04:29:13 PM
You and Lenny should open up a comedy club. You could call it "Moral Equivalencies" and stand up all day making absurd comparisons. I'll bet it would be a hoot.
Great comeback. Based on this witty retort, Lenny and I will be sure to make you headliner when we open our club.
I'll assume that by avoiding the question and responding ad hominem, you're admitting that your moral outrage over the sanctity of a commitment surfaces only when it furthers your agenda.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on August 16, 2010, 04:50:32 PM
I think you are romanticizing a bit. Earl Smith, street agent in Hoop Dreams? Al had the New York pipeline sewed up. ABA agents swarming all over Milwaukee for Chones, Lucas, Lackey mid-season. Crean had the Hurley's in for Elite camps. Is it more sophisticated and more $$ involved today? Yes...but that is because of modern day media which ESPN, DTV, CBS feed as well. Instant glory of high school games on tv.Throughout it, the NCAA sits by as a co-conspirator.
Thanks 1104 for the references.
No question it existed then, what I'm saying is where I was in that point in time it was a minor factor in comparison to today. IU and Knight had their way of doing things that were largely old school and didn't often deal with the underside of college hoops. Deane wasn't exactly the elite recruiter, certainly not having the connections that McGuire did in New York. A lot of interesting things happened in the days of Wooden, Rupp, McGuire, etc before the NCAA rulebooks were changed.
What I find interesting is that things that our university and athletic department were upset about that was going on at places like, UWM under Pearl, we have no problem today doing those same things.
Quote from: Pakuni on August 16, 2010, 05:37:07 PM
Great comeback. Based on this witty retort, Lenny and I will be sure to make you headliner when we open our club.
I'll assume that by avoiding the question and responding ad hominem, you're admitting that your moral outrage over the sanctity of a commitment surfaces only when it furthers your agenda.
Pakuni....I find your comparisons ridiculous, just as I find Lenny's preposterous. But if I must spell it out for you, I will.
I have no problem with oral contracts, and have said so here on many occasions. I do handshake deals all the time that involve a lot of money and somehow both sides honor their commitments.
So, no, I don't value one over the other.
You are comparing not attending an event that the NCAA has said NOT TO ATTEND in the same context as not honoring a NLI? Please....why should I answer you when your logic is so failed it doesn't justify one. You might as well ask someone why they like the taste of tangerines over the the taste of mucus. Technically, they are both edible and beyond that, a foolish comparison on all levels....just like yours.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on August 16, 2010, 05:42:56 PM
You are comparing not attending an event that the NCAA has said NOT TO ATTEND in the same context as not honoring a NLI? Please....why should I answer you when your logic is so failed it doesn't justify one. You might as well ask someone why they like the taste of tangerines over the the taste of mucus. Technically, they are both edible and beyond that, a foolish comparison on all levels....just like yours.
Nice try, but I made no comparisons of any sort.
I'm merely pointing out how fickle your sanctimony over the importance of upholding commitments is.
Backing out of an oral deal to make an appearance? OK.
Pulling a job offer because of someone's sexual preference? OK.
Pulling a NLI because of arbitrary and capricious "academic standards"? OK.
Asking out of a deficient national letter of intent? EVIL!
Sorry, but your outrage and firm belief in the sanctity of one's commitment is spotty, at best. If it angers you when such inconsistency is pointed out, try not to be so inconsistent. Or better yet, try not to litter the board with so many holier-than-thou absolutes about honoring commitments.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on August 16, 2010, 05:37:31 PM
No question it existed then, what I'm saying is where I was in that point in time it was a minor factor in comparison to today. IU and Knight had their way of doing things that were largely old school and didn't often deal with the underside of college hoops. Deane wasn't exactly the elite recruiter, certainly not having the connections that McGuire did in New York. A lot of interesting things happened in the days of Wooden, Rupp, McGuire, etc before the NCAA rulebooks were changed.
What I find interesting is that things that our university and athletic department were upset about that was going on at places like, UWM under Pearl, we have no problem today doing those same things.
Honest question. No sarcasm. When MU went to the final 4 led by a superstar prop 48 and a transfer from intellectually and ethically challenged Mississippi State (by way of the lowly Milwaukee public school system) were you ashamed? Did it make you want to take a bath? If you answer no (as I do) I think you're hypocritical bemoaning the current state of the program.
Quote from: Marquette84 on August 16, 2010, 11:17:26 AM
Interesting choice of words from this article:
"They also ran a search firm -- ChampSearch -- for universities conducting athletic director and basketball coach searches, until the NCAA determined last year it was illegal for schools to use their service, David Pump said."
Maybe some of our posters were a bit misplaced in their argument that using the word illegal to describe actions banned by the NCAA is "without merit."
Maybe its more common than they want to admit.
Maybe because you used it in reference to what Buzz did, which was not even close to illegal. Then you were put in your place by another poster, yet can't seem to stomach that you have no idea what you're talking about. When you say illegal, I now think of something less offensive than an illegal forward pass, rather than an NCAA infraction.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on August 16, 2010, 05:37:31 PM
What I find interesting is that things that our university and athletic department were upset about that was going on at places like, UWM under Pearl, we have no problem today doing those same things.
I'd appreciate some examples. It doesn't seem like things should have changed so fast at MU.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on August 16, 2010, 07:00:21 PM
Honest question. No sarcasm. When MU went to the final 4 led by a superstar prop 48 and a transfer from intellectually and ethically challenged Mississippi State (by way of the lowly Milwaukee public school system) were you ashamed? Did it make you want to take a bath? If you answer no (as I do) I think you're hypocritical bemoaning the current state of the program.
Not to mention a couple of key contrubutors whose high school academics were so lacking they had to attend prep school for a year.
Thank God they didn't go to a junior college for a year instead.
Quote from: avid1010 on August 16, 2010, 07:15:20 PM
I'd appreciate some examples. It doesn't seem like things should have changed so fast at MU.
Privately, I'm happy to send you, but not publicly.
Quote from: Pakuni on August 16, 2010, 06:37:45 PM
Nice try, but I made no comparisons of any sort.
Yes you did
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=21250.msg228414#msg228414
This is why it's impossible to talk to you. You made a comparison that one sort of commitment was ok with me (paper) and another one wasn't (oral)...and now a mere few hours later you deny it. Christ, and you wonder why I don't like responding to you. The goalposts move every play with you.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on August 16, 2010, 07:00:21 PM
Honest question. No sarcasm. When MU went to the final 4 led by a superstar prop 48 and a transfer from intellectually and ethically challenged Mississippi State (by way of the lowly Milwaukee public school system) were you ashamed? Did it make you want to take a bath? If you answer no (as I do) I think you're hypocritical bemoaning the current state of the program.
No, I didn't feel ashamed. I was quite thrilled and felt great for the kids and the university.
But what I'm "bemoaning" that has changed hasn't even been addressed publicly in any of these posts so you really don't know what I'm bemoaning, do you? It's not the JUCO stuff, it's not the Newbill stuff (though that is crap). Is it legal...yup. Is it stuff we used to do, nope and we complained a ton about it, too.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on August 16, 2010, 07:46:44 PM
Yes you did
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=21250.msg228414#msg228414
This is why it's impossible to talk to you. You made a comparison that one sore of commitment was ok with me and another one wasn't...and now a mere few hours later you deny it. Christ, and you wonder why I don't like responding to you. The goalposts move every play with you.
Are you serious?
I asked a
question, to wit: whether you were fine with breaking one kind of commitment, but not another.
A question is
not a comparison. In fact, by its very nature the question implied a difference between the two situations.
Again, nice try.
And I love the whole "I know super secret stuff that the rest of you don't" routine.
Give us a break, Mr. Insider.
Quote from: avid1010 on August 16, 2010, 07:07:47 PM
Maybe because you used it in reference to what Buzz did, which was not even close to illegal. Then you were put in your place by another poster, yet can't seem to stomach that you have no idea what you're talking about. When you say illegal, I now think of something less offensive than an illegal forward pass, rather than an NCAA infraction.
First, I didn't say Buzz made an illegal side deal--others made that allegation. I merely pointed out that such deals are now illegal under new NCAA rules.
Second, that other poster doesn't know what he's talking about. He made the same mistake you did. You and he both apparently don't know that there are multiple definitions of the term Illegal:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/illegal–adjective
1. forbidden by law or statute.
2. contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc.: The referee ruled that it was an illegal forward pass.
In the bizzaro world that this site has become, I cite up an alleged side deal which is now contrary to or forbidden by the official rules, which makes it by defintion illegal, and your protest is that such a deal "was not even close to illegal."
Hell, not only is is it close--its dead on the bullseye.
In MUCam's argument, he starts out with "In the law, we always look to the plain meaning of the statute" Note which of the two definitions above include the words "law" and "statute." Not only did he not "put me in my place", he basically set up his own Emily Litella moment by basing his entire argument on the WRONG definition of the word illegal.
All that's left is for him to say "Never mind".
But if you STILL think I was so terribly wrong to use the word illegal in the context of a possible rule violation, why is it that when you search for NCAA illegal recruiting on google, you get over 1.8 MILLION hits?
http://bit.ly/anMhPJ (http://bit.ly/anMhPJ)
Isn't that enough to prove to you that the word "illegal" is commonly used when describing things that potentially violate NCAA rules--including the NY Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Sports Illustrated, etc.--and most recently the Pump Brothers article linked in this thread.
If I'm wrong, then they're all wrong as well. And so is Webster's dictionary.
All I can say is that it is obvious your protests are misplaced. You're the one who can't stomach being put in your place. The term "illegal" is by definition a perfectly appropriate word in the context of discussing things that are contrary to the official rules.
Thank God we have another thread like this going since the other is locked.
::)
Quote from: Pakuni on August 16, 2010, 07:56:18 PM
Are you serious?
I asked a question, to wit: whether you were fine with breaking one kind of commitment, but not another.
A question is not a comparison. In fact, by its very nature the question implied a difference between the
Are you serious? Go back and read what you said the very next line after your "question"...it was an assertion "Glad to know your moral outrage over such things only extends to agreements involving ink and dead tree matter.".....yeah, tell me again how it was simply a question and the immediate following sentence wasn't a comparison. Turnip trucks must be rampant in your area, but not mine. This is why I don't enjoy talking to you, because of your constant changing of the rules, goal posts and then your outright denial of reality.