Interesting Day Ahead...

[Schmidtyfactor]

Is anyone at all concerned that Duke was implicated and our headcoach was a key recruiter at Duke? or is this report for time periods after Wojo had left Duke?

[GGGG]

1. The biggest problem there becomes institutional control. If this is happening, why weren't you aware of it and why didn't you take action to stem it off before it occurred?
2. When it comes to amateurs, and I know you don't like the idea of amateurism, I don't see any way it can not be considered a bribe. Until the player has the ability to pay it back, which means they are making money and assured a professional future, it's a gift. Considering how easily an injury or bust could derail a player's ability to pay back these types of sums, I would view it as a bribe, even if they wrote "loan" on their balance sheet.
3. Steering of players (like Smith, who received this before enrolling) and paying players (because they are getting paid while in school) jump out most prominently.

I agree with you that the real question is how amateurism is going to be handled going forward. The reality is this is going on around the country. Some of the schools are involved, some are likely in the dark. But the schools are absolutely profiting off players who are not allowed to profit themselves. That all needs to be sorted out and fixed. I don't know all the answers to that. But this stuff is all preamble to any amateurism changes. Right now, it's dealing with the situation as it is, not as we would like it to be.

Regarding #2, amateurism isn't a legal status.  Someone can give an NCAA athlete all the money they want as a gift or a loan and it's not illegal.  It's just against NCAA rules.

[wadesworld]

Am I reading this right, this is the Only reason not to welcome him back in your thinking. Thanks

As far as I know yes.  If there are character issues with Grimes or other issues that might bring into question his eligibility as an NCAA athlete then sure there would be reasons not to pursue him, but as far as I know the only possible reason would be if Kansas is in trouble with the FBI because Grimes is one of the players they were paying.  I haven't heard any reason to be concerned about Grimes as a person, so my thinking is that other than his connection to a school named in the FBI investigation, there aren't really any red flags.  I could just be unaware of other issues though.

[CTWarrior]

Ordinarily I'd agree with you, but I'm not sure how any of us can reasonably expect any institution to be able to track a player and his parents financial transactions outside of the school's control. If Sumner is getting a "loan" or even harder his dad is getting a "loan" has is X supposed to know that and stop it? At some point the individuals themselves have to have agency to stay within eligibility rules. In this scenario, Sumner should be ineligible but I don't know that X has any responsibility (based on what we know).

This is just another example of why the NCAA has it all wrong when it comes to amateurism. Their model invites more corruption than it prevents, if "star players" were able to profit off the fame outside of university activities (local dealership wants them as a sponsor, etc) these types of things wouldn't matter. This is the hellscape that the NCAA created for itself and I can't wait to watch it burn.

Basically, couldn't their punishment just be forfeiting any game in which they used an ineligible player?  Seems to me that is the best thing to do.  No further sanctions, unless you have proof they were involved in the wrongdoing.

[79Warrior]

Is anyone at all concerned that Duke was implicated and our headcoach was a key recruiter at Duke? or is this report for time periods after Wojo had left Duke?

Not concerned at all.

[Earl Tatum]

I hope it's only the player or 's involved get released. No need to
punish the whole team. I sure most of us knew who
the cheaters were. I wonder how many shoe companys were involed.

[skianth16]

And I know what those concerns are, and I think Wojo rejecting him out of hand would be a mistake.  Conversations can be had.

Anything you would care to share?

[skianth16]

Once the list of schools who have players who got benefits from these agents gets long enough, can it really be said that the schools are benefiting from these payments?  Honestly, if the agents are running around paying kids at dozens of schools, that would seem to suggest, to me at least, that the schools really don't have much to do with it.  The longer the list of schools gets, the more it looks like the agents don't give a crap where the kids go to school, they just want to get into a relationship with the kids.

Obviously, the amateurism issue is something else entirely.

Doesn't the timing of the payment make a pretty significant difference in all of this? If these payments are coming after the kids have enrolled at a school, how can there be any argument that the school benefits from this at all? If someone gives Markus $10K tomorrow, we don't become a better team or get more wins all of a sudden. There's no advantage to the school as far as I can tell.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Would MU welcome him back?  In his recruiting it seemed all the dominos were falling our way and after a long courtship picks he Kansas who I don't think were PG starved.

I remember one of Big Daddy's posts mention he would comment on  it when he was cleared to do it.
I think Stan's twitter after his decission was kinda of Bitter.

I don't think there was anything improper with Grimes' recruitment. But I do believe that Grimes gave the staff some impressions that ended up not playing out. I think if Grimes were to become available (not expecting that to happen at all) that MU would welcome him back.

[lessthannick11]

I'm reading this report to be that most or all of this happened with players looking to turn pro, so this didn't affect recruitments. This was just an agency trying to steer kids to sign with them before the draft

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

1. Nothing in this report (which is what we're talking about) suggests the schools knew.
2. Are they bribes or loans against future earnings? If I go out to lunch with a vendor seeking my company's business, am I being bribed? When my company offers its luxury box to a client, are we committing fraud?
3. Once more, please explain the benefit to the schools revealed in this report. I'm not seeing it.

On number 2, yes a vendor taking you to lunch is a bribe. In my world, I could be fired for letting a vendor pay for my lunch. I nearly lost my graduate assistantship because I let a vendor buy me a drink at a conference. Universities tend to take that stuff very seriously.

That being said, I don't think a vendor buying you a lunch and what is going on here are comparable situations. If this was it, I would be pretty non-plussed (depending on the timing of some of these payments). This is just the first leaked document in what will likely be a boatload of leaked documents.

[Pakuni]

On number 2, yes a vendor taking you to lunch is a bribe. In my world, I could be fired for letting a vendor pay for my lunch. I nearly lost my graduate assistantship because I let a vendor buy me a drink at a conference. Universities tend to take that stuff very seriously.

That's because you're a government employee, not because the act itself is unlawful.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

That's because you're a government employee, not because the act itself is unlawful.

I understand. That doesn't mean its not a bribe. And according to the NCAA, it is against the rules for the students. You may not like but it is against the rules.

[Pakuni]

I understand. That doesn't mean its not a bribe. And according to the NCAA, it is against the rules for the students. You may not like but it is against the rules.

Again, it's a bribe only because you're a government employee, though. There's nothing inherent in the act itself that is illegal.

Against the rules and illegal are not the same.

[GooooMarquette]

That's because you're a government employee, not because the act itself is unlawful.

I'm not a government employee, but I'd be fired if I let a vendor take me to lunch.

[Jockey]

Again, it's a bribe only because you're a government employee, though. There's nothing inherent in the act itself that is illegal.

Against the rules and illegal are not the same.

You're right, but isn't the point that it is not about doing something illegal - at least as far as the athletes are concerned. It is about breaking the rules -for coaches and schools -  that they have ALL agreed to follow.

Unless you think coaches weren't aware of what was happening. Either the rules have to be enforced or all rules need to be eliminated.

[StillAWarrior]

I'm not a government employee, but I'd be fired if I let a vendor take me to lunch.

My brother worked as a buyer in the grocery industry.  The amount of stuff he got from vendors was absolutely stunning.  Tickets to literally anything that he wanted in Phoenix - all four WS games, SuperBowl, Suns, Diamond Backs, Cardinals, concerts, bowl games, WWE, etc.; gaming systems; Bose Home Theater system; travel; golf clubs; etc.  My recollection was that he was allowed one event/item per vendor per month or something like that.  Everything had to be reported and documented, but he got to keep it all.

[dgies9156]

On number 2, yes a vendor taking you to lunch is a bribe. In my world, I could be fired for letting a vendor pay for my lunch. I nearly lost my graduate assistantship because I let a vendor buy me a drink at a conference. Universities tend to take that stuff very seriously.

At the risk of burning in the hell my Journalism ethics professors would make for me, I don't see this is as a big deal, unless, Brother TAMU, as you point out, your institution expressly forbids it.

I once worked for a newspaper editor who thought this stuff was trival and said, "if you can be bought for a lunch, I'm not sure you should be working here."

There are two critical issues TAMU and others bring. The first is whether you have an explicit policy governing lunches, drinks, payments etc. You go by the policy and if you have a tough policy like A&M's and think, as my ex-newspaper editor did, it's trivial, you find another job.

Secondly, was the policy communicated properly. In the NCAA's case, the answer is yes, yes and yes. If you think it is wrong, you have the option of not playing NCAA ball. But if you want to play for an NCAA member institution, you know the rules going in. To that extent, if someone took money, they are ineligible.

Except, if someone at North Carolina cheated, the NCAA will punish the heck out of Notre Dame.

[Pakuni]

You're right, but isn't the point that it is not about doing something illegal - at least as far as the athletes are concerned. It is about breaking the rules -for coaches and schools -  that they have ALL agreed to follow.

Unless you think coaches weren't aware of what was happening. Either the rules have to be enforced or all rules need to be eliminated.

No one is saying this isn't a rule.
I'm saying it's a bad and hypocritical rule.
It's insane that Coack K, for example, can make millions of dollars away from the court endorsing American Express, Chevrolet and Allstate, but Marvin Bagley risks suspension or worse if he gets a free lunch (much less actually profits off his likeness).

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Again, it's a bribe only because you're a government employee, though. There's nothing inherent in the act itself that is illegal.

Against the rules and illegal are not the same.

When did I ever say anything about it being illegal?

[skianth16]

When did I ever say anything about it being illegal?

Well, bribery is illegal. That's why the FBI is involved in this in the first place. So, anything that could be called a bribe, is essentially being called illegal. Obviously this is hugely subjective, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find a DA willing to bring charges over a cup of soup and half a sandwich at Panera.

[GGGG]

I guess under the broadest sense of the word, taking someone to lunch is a bribe.  But most people use a narrower sense of the word that implies illegality or dishonesty.  An agent taking a potential client to lunch is a pretty routine transaction.

[jsglow]

I'm not a government employee, but I'd be fired if I let a vendor take me to lunch.

Not singling you or anyone else but what the hell has happened to our society?  Over the years attorneys and other vendors have done FAR MORE for me than buy me a simple lunch.  NEVER ONCE was my determination of which firm I retained for a particular matter influenced in any way by some perceived perk.  Never once was it ever expected by them either. 

We've done everything from the circus with the entirety of both families in a United Center skybox to courtside seats for the Bulls to Packers/Bears tickets to whatever.  All very standard vendor/client stuff with associates I did business with for decades.  Lunch?  Like I said, what the hell has happened?

One time in my career I certainly exceeded the internal guidelines (with the full blessing of our HR Department and my CEO.)  I still remember our CEO telling me to have a great day and that it was a once in a lifetime experience but to be careful and prudent in my decisions about hiring this particular vendor too often going forward.  I took his advice to heart and the nature of the professional relationship between our two organizations didn't change.  What did I do?  I got on a charter plane at 6am and day tripped to the Masters.  Freakin' awesome.

[GGGG]

Not singling you or anyone else but what the hell has happened to our society?  Over the years attorneys and other vendors have done FAR MORE for me than buy me a simple lunch.  NEVER ONCE was my determination of which firm I retained for a particular matter influenced in any way by some perceived perk.  Never once was it ever expected by them either. 

We've done everything from the circus with the entirety of both families in a United Center skybox to courtside seats for the Bulls to Packers/Bears tickets to whatever.  All very standard vendor/client stuff with associates I did business with for decades.  Lunch?  Like I said, what the hell has happened?

One time in my career I certainly exceeded the internal guidelines (with the full blessing of our HR Department and my CEO.)  I still remember our CEO telling me to have a great day and that it was a once in a lifetime experience but to be careful and prudent in my decisions about hiring this particular vendor too often going forward.  I took his advice to heart and the nature of the professional relationship between our two organizations didn't change.  What did I do?  I got on a charter plane at 6am and day tripped to the Masters.  Freakin' awesome.

I'm not sure why you are making this an issue with "society."  Some companies have gotten more strict about these types of relationships because of the perceived conflict of interest.  I don't think there is anything right or wrong about that.

[jsglow]

I'm not sure why you are making this an issue with "society."  Some companies have gotten more strict about these types of relationships because of the perceived conflict of interest.  I don't think there is anything right or wrong about that.

Society is probably the wrong word.  I guess business is just different these days.  It's different in lots of ways.  Some good.  Some pretty crappy.