@justanotherfan On internet boards, the ability to recognize satirical, sarcastic, and sardonic comments is inversely proportional to the urgent need to insult.
mayjay
7180 posts
@jayballer73 Don't hurt yourself laughing too hard. When you sue them for intentional infliction of emotional distress, they will just send a jug of bad-batch moonshine.
@JayHawkFanToo I think the point is that there is room for rule changes. Changes that would benefit some more than others and that could free schools from the ridiculous waste of time worrying about whether a kid's mentor or guardian's romantic relationship with a kid's mother stemmed from long enough before he held a bb in his little hands to allow the purchase of a plane ticket for a family vacation when the kid grew up, or a lunch, or a suit, or a computer, or even some food or a car.
Constantly saying, "You know the rules so don't go to college if you don't like it" is a response that totally ignores whether the system could be improved by considering imaginative ideas and getting eveyone together to try to make it work for all parties, and to try to reduce the influence of hidden transactions.
Saying it works for 99% only means that you are ignoring the information coming out from numerous people saying that virtually everyone they knew playing college bb had accepted some type of impermissible benefits.
Back in the '90sI knew a guy who played at Marymount in Salina after that school went coed (1970s?)and when they rather quickly became a powerful team. Even he said he was slipped cash by boosters and businesses after a win or he had a good game. And he was not even a leading scorer.
The 99% you cite may include hundreds in the big sports who just aren't getting caught. And if that is the case, cheating and lying are rife. So, open it up to more options to kids to be like anyone else and earn some money, and then, as the Commission recommends, hit the cheaters hard.
@Woodrow But if the coach talks to the right people and a team which wants to hedge its bets says the guy is draft-worthy, certain in the 2nd round, and the kid declares, he should pay a penalty of forfeiting his college prospects because he listened to the right people and still got screwed? That makes no sense.
@Kcmatt7 After some deliberation on how these issues got so heated here, something I read in recently came to mind that makes our discussion kind of ironic:
One thing about the Commission that was criticized from its inception is that it was not charged with figuring out anything regarding the amateurism rules, or compensation to players. The image/likeness litigation is still being considered by courts, so the NCAA tied the Commission's hands on these issues.
So, we probably should not get too excited about the potential changes regarding $ we have been discussing because the NCAA won't be doing anything for years if ever.
@Woodrow And if the coach is wrong?
What if we converted scholarships to loans that get written off if a kid stays, say, 3 years? Kids going pro early get to pay them back through earnings.
And then athletes could have the extra special modern college normal experience of leaving school with crushing debt.
Ok, this needs refinement....
@dylans I guess I missed that level playing field....
But, honestly, you might find kids more willing to stay at home or nearby, where they already have a name. Zion might have gone to Clemson or SC if a local business had given him an incentive. Instead, he is at that symbol of ordinary recruiting, Duke.
@BeddieKU23 I think of the regular old USC here in Columbia as being in a perpetual sort of Downstate.
More seriously, I think it is an adjunct of the USC system but they don't use city names here as they do for, say, University of California at (wherever).
Upstate is just a reference they use here for the northern part of the state. Like New York Uptown.
People keep responding to the idea of schools paying players but most of us are talking about endorsement or other outside contractual earnings, not paying players. None of the fears raised about Title 9, reduced staff salaries, or eliminated sports, applies to simply not controlling kids' ability to earn something from outside sources.
Frankly, every time we saw Devonte's face on an ad for KU games against OU (with Trae's cute little mug, too), or for our tourney games, I thought it was pretty weird that they get to use him in ads and he gets nothing. No one else has to sign away those image and name rights. Why couldn't kids sell T-shirts with "MVP Battle for Bahamas" on them? or "BIFM"?
@Woodrow How on earth is a 17 or 18 year old kid supposed to know who the right person to listen to is? Alleged "experts" miss on draft picks all the time. Why make a player's decision to trust someone who "misses" in a prediction so absolutely determinative of a kid's prospects? It is as if people deserve to be punished for not controlling what people around them are advising them. And obviously punishes the wrong people.
A better idea, in my view: If you declare but return because you are undrafted, you lose eligibilty for that calendar year and have to sit out until January. Coaches would have an incentive to keep a kid who could contribute, or get a potentially draftable recruit, and kids could still be a part of and benefit from their college experience. But while there would still be a consequence from declaring unwisely, enough to cause second thoughts by the player and any school considering him, it eliminates the stark harshness of losing all eligibility.
@Gunman By some twisted logic, the antitrust laws involving concerted labor practices that create a bar to entry do not apply when the workforce already in the industry has agreed to the barriers under a collective bargaining agreement.
That is the technical reason. The real reason is that the owners give more money in the CBA to the players to extract the agreement to disallow the youngsters. And that is crap. Or, as @drgnslayr says, corruption.
@HighEliteMajor Again, spoken from a position of privilege. Don't get me wrong, I have the same privilege you do: white, middle class, parents who chose the SM school district, and parents who instilled a great set of values.
Unlike you, I don't think I got to where I am solely due to competing more successfully on a level field. That field is tilted heavily in my direction. The difference is that I encourage efforts to recognize that tilt and to find ways for everyone to have my same advantages. You resent those efforts and decry people like me as unAmerican.
No, you are the one with unAmerican values. While you claim to be so patriotic, you ignore the true lesson of America: the constant striving for freedom and equality for everybody regardless of the circumstances of birth. I, the unAmerican, took an oath to defend the country and the constitution, and then spent my professional life working to help people obtain justice. I have not heard of any public service you have performed--other than your constant refrain whining about people who do not see the world through your warped eyes.
I am done with you, because you are just an endless recital of the same BS contributing nothing to civility, discourse, or community information. Unless, as you did before, you want to threaten me again and then we can arrange insults at 10 yards or something.
@drgnslayr People have floated the idea of compensation to the kids that increases for each year they stay in school. You could couple it with increases for higher grades, or even make it dependent on a certain GPA. Incentivize staying in school.
@HighEliteMajor You define the voice of unreasoned privilege that has its own mantra, "I love things the way they are so long as I get to keep mine."
I am sure you struggled hard and long to be white and middle class, and that you carefully chose your SM school district. You have no clue about the world that doesn't look like you, talk like you, or think like you. Your response to people with opposing opinions is invariably to lump them into some group you see as inherently incapable of thought. It is an old, and pathetic, ritual of yours.
Moved my post to this new thread:
@BeddieKU23 In another leap by ESPN, they say the recent indictments included allegations about assistant coaches (true) including KU (not so fast, there, Bub).
@Kcmatt7 Ya ain't doin' so shabby yourself, young man!
@justanotherfan Remember, unionization was going to result in the death of professional sports. Instead, players have earned millions while owners' franchises have become valued as high as 2 billion.
Does anyone else remember the haberdashery sign at old Municipal Stadium where a player could win a free suit if he hit the sign with HR? Quaint! Now the Cavs show up to games in matching $5,000 ($10,000?) suits. It was to symbolize their team unity but in a larger sense also symbolizes players' new power. Too bad the sport is dead, and all that other stuff.
@Kcmatt7 It will be the end of the privileged elite making all the rules, and then the earth will spiral into the sun.
OH, THE HORROR! THE ABSOLUTE HORROR! if we let kids appear at a car dealer and sign autographs...or if they can make a cd with their picture on it and promote it like anyone else...or get free tattoos...or if Devonte and Sherron or Nick could have gotten a portion of the money that has been rolling in due to the thousands of #4 jerseys KU has sold...or if the NCAA said, "Hey, why not clean up the sport by letting legal earnings also be ok by our rules?"
Yes, it would end college basketball. Just like it did the Olympics, where Suzy Chaffee had to wait until she became a pro (and no longer eligible for the Games) before endorsing Chapstick--although the Olympians now are allowed to make millions. Oh wait, I think the games have survived despite Avery & Co.'s decades long handwringing and predictions of doom, gloom, andvthe end of civilization as we know.
Anyone remember when Bobby Knight offered the 8th grader back in the '80s? That was Damon Bailey, who eventually became the leading scorer in Indiana HS history and a 3rd team All American. Never too early!
Here in SC is one we might want to keep an eye on.
"Meet the 7-foot-2 eighth-grader playing basketball in South Carolina"
http://www.thestate.com/sports/high-school/prep-basketball/article209222909.html#navlink=SecList ↗
@HighEliteMajor So, you think kids couldn't make money off their own names without a school affiliation? Luke Axtell, wasn't it, who was not allowed to keep selling his CDs during the school year despite having his musical career independent of his basketball? Good thing the NCAA preserved the sanctity of college bb with this one.
You act as if rule changes by the NCAA to allow kids to earn outside money would be horrible, but you have never explained why. The NCAA can change, and accommodate the desire. Why would that be so horrible?
Edit: http://m.kusports.com/news/2000/aug/22/kansas_axtell_unplugged/?templates=mobile ↗
@justanotherfan And the NCAA monopoly is largely funded by the tax dollars that created most of its membership, as well as being able to exist solely due to the ability to use draconian sanctions to stamp out any schools that choose to compete under a different financial model.
Maybe, for extra incentive and to get some semblance of pride, they should make everyone on the football team try out to be walkons. Anyone wonder if Sosinski, when asked by a new acquaintance if he plays sports, says, "Yeah, I have a scholarship playing tight end for the hopeless, hapless and helpless KU football team!"
Or, "Hell yes! Play basketball for the KU Jayhawks! We went to the Final 4 this year--You might have seen me score our last basket. Man, was that fun!"
@Statmachine Don't know if you saw this but you are right: Sosinski seems to have benefited muchly.
http://m.kusports.com/news/2018/apr/09/basketball-walk-james-sosinski-breaking-tackles-up/ ↗
@nuleafjhawk Oops! Mea culpa! Actually I was not intending it as a slam, although I can see how it looked that way. I was thinking of how people are getting elected due to some single issue they are fervently passionate about. You can be the first college BB candidate.
Slogan: Make Sports Fun Again!
@nuleafjhawk I would not doubt your ability to get elected nowadays!
@Statmachine I don't think I have ever read, outside the arena of political comments, more concentrated levels of pure speculations and adulterated crap as the blog you favorably cited. If you read it through and think it was probative of anything, I think you might have only seen the parts that confirmed your own opinions about Cal. We all have opinions and I enjoy the discussions of them, but that article is totally off the wall.
@nuleafjhawk It would be stupid for the kid if he could initially make as much money leaving earlier, while having a longer career and earning millions more overall.
Bilas makes a strong case that the whole system relies on massive hypocrisy. But he is wrong about whether the schools are technically victims. You can be defrauded even if you get something as a result. Sure, KU got SDS as a result of the 2nd payment that sprang him from Maryland, but look at Billy to understand what harm a school can face when a player falsely enrolls as an amateur and that eligibility then gets questioned or rejected (financial waste of the scholarship, obviously, but also the risk of competitive imbalance, severe planning disruption, and, had he played, possible retroactive forfeits).
@Hawk8086 I think they don't need to. Even the ones who allegedly knew what was going on haven't been indicted yet. They always can have unindicted coconspirators (President Nixon was the most famous) and use the information from them against the main defendants. In the most extreme case, I guess they could indict a parent who was a major participant or who roped others in, but I think that isn't likely unless they run out of evidence from the guys spilling the beans and documents now.
One thing I meant to mention earlier is that the indictment refers to "corrupt assistant coaches" at certain schools (not KU, TG). This thread started with exploration of what knowledge of the payments means, in the context of whether KU was victimized by the conspiracy as discussed in my prior post. I don't think the participation of any assistant coaches creates knowledge of the schools sufficient to defeat the charge of fraud. (Unless the co-conspirator coach was the one making all eligibility determinations, that is. It is no different from a bank teller working with a customer to defraud the bank by cashing a check known to be a forgery--the bank doesn't become knowledgeable of the forgery when the teller criminally acts without authority. Same for almost all employees--virtually no one who wields lawful power to act in a criminal fashion detrimental to their employer.)
@JayHawkFanToo I will guess: genetics.
Well, I finally had a chance to look at the Gatto indictment more carefully, and I fear that all of you who think it is based purely on payments to families or students, or on alleged violations of NCAA rules, are incorrect. The thrust of the indictment is based on conspiracy to defraud by willfully concealing material information (payments) from the victims (universities) to allow the students to obtain something of value (scholarship) under false pretenses (misrepresenting their eligibility to receive a scholarship). @justanotherfan was correct about it being based on covering up money, but it was not really money laundering as we know that term (but future charges could be brought against the recipients if they did so). Federal jurisdiction lies by virtue of the wire fraud and conspiracy allegations.
The key here is the same as any other fraud indictment, that being the allegation that the defendants (and others acting with them) purposely acted to conceal material information from the victims (the conspiracy charge alleges they acted in concert to do so). This can be simplified: Gatto and others provided money to families and/or students that, if known to the schools, would have resulted in ineligibility and not getting their promised scholarships. They are allleged specifically to have induced the recipients (1) to conceal the money from the schools and (2) to falsely certify their eligibility to receive the scholarships.
That is conspiracy and inducement to obtain something of value under false pretenses.
An analogy here: You all may be familiar with the Stolen Valor scandals--people pretending to be combat veterans, wearing uniforms and medals, and the like. Those people were not commiting crimes despite their public lies, so long as they made no attempt to get anything for it. (I do not address the bar drinks they got.) But let's say I run a home renovating business. I want customers. So, I give a guy a false DD214 discharge paper, and tell him how he can now register at Lowe's to get their military discount of 10% based on his fake 214, saving thousands of dollars on his $40,000 remodel, and we agree he will pay me a commission on those savings. We have now entered into a conspiracy to defraud Lowe's by presenting false information to receive something of value.
Violating the Defense Department rules on who is a veteran is not an element of the crime. It is sufficient to prove simply his status as a nonveteran and that he concealed that from Lowe's both when falsely registering and every time he received something for which by his status he was not eligible.
Similarly, the NCAA's rules are clear that receiving money from someone to attend a school impacts a player's eligibility. A player is not eligible to compete until he receives a confirmation of amateur status from the NCAA, in conjunction with information provided to the school and by the school to the NCAA. The actors here worked hard to make sure that the players did not reveal payments in amounts that would made the schools know that the student was not in fact eligible under NCAA rules and rulings. More importantly, the players falsely asserted their eligibilty to get scholarships. Possibilities of appeals and waivers are irrelevant to the status determination. (It is arguable that the feds could have avoided some questions by having the NCAA do its determinations first, but no prosecutor wants to rely on private adjudications with no known timelines.)
I only address here whether the indictment alleges federal crimes and they do. If any defense is raised about whether a player was automatically not eligible until the NCAA made a determination, the answer is that the universities will no doubt swear up and down that no scholarships would have been given if they knew of the payments. Not "if they knew of NCAA amateur rules being violated."
The existence of the payments was what the universities needed to know in deciding whether to grant a scholarship, which is the definition of a material fact. The bad guys acted to conceal that information, and by doing so helped the students obtain scholarships worth @$40,000 or whatever the amounts would be at each school.
A bigger problem for the indictment is whether the recipients actually have sufficient nexus to the students to render their receipt of money disqualifying. It would be for any parent or guardian (i.e., anyone with financial responsibility to the kid) providing false documents to the school, but if there were any who got money who have nothing to do with a kid's finances, it seems the Newton rule could extend to that kid's part of the case. (I don't think that applies to SDS.)
I will probably need to edit this later, but I need to go to Lowe's to get my discount.
Lots of legal theorists here! I know @justanotherfan is an attorney. I am (make that "was"!), too, but my experience in criminal law was military, although my federal career was in the arena of investment fraud. Both fields involved extensive legal research into fraud related crimes, but I never did anything on the technicalities of money laundering.
Does anyone opining here have any expertise in the statutes cited in the addidas-related indictment? Are there more lawyers here than I thought?
@Buster-1926 I am going to make a few calls trying to get contracts for a few of those 5-stars going to Duke. Give their parents some frequent flyer miles or something.
This article suggests that the "hear and see no evil" defense might work to avoid vacatings. Based on the infamous Myron Piggie case and how Duke avoided losing its 1999 NC despite David Maggette having taken money. So, I take one step back from my pessimism. Then again, it was Duke....
http://m.kusports.com/news/2018/apr/13/former-prosecutor-ku-not-clear-yet-one-past-case-p/ ↗
@nuleafjhawk There was probably a lot of that going around. I thought I was banned for being pessimistic about possible sanctions.
@Kcmatt7 My wife was wondering why our kitchen reno advanced so much in one day.
@approxinfinity Thanks as always for keeping us in here. It was a great idea to put the twitter updates at the URL.
@wissox Lots of factors at play!
My wife and I had tickets last year here in Columbia to see the Fireflies play when T Tebow was still here. It was horrible, cold, drizzly weather. So we didn't go and never regretted it. The W Sox fans who got rescheduled out of being able to go b/c of the move to the afternoon might have been secretly grateful they didn't have to go to a miserable weather game that night.
Don't get me wrong: I think he is clearly an idiot. I just don't think a KSU alum could ever be capable of pulling off a scheme that sophisticated. Incompetence is a more believable explanation!
@BShark The comments on that tweet are a large part of why I cringe when I click on one....
@Buster-1926 Not sure I buy the theory that SZ might be secretly undermining KU. Bad things that happen in college sports usually cause AD's heads to be among the ones rolling away from the chopping block. And, when institutional control is implicated, they get fired for cause, not collecting their big buyouts.
But it definitely shows creative thinking!
JayHawkFanToo said:
On the other hand, NBA coaches have to deal with millionaire, moody divas that make more money than they do and can get them fired.
They get fired, they still collect millions for not working. Then they get another job. I would rather face that than greedy families of kids screwing up everything I spend all year busting my ass to accomplish.
@JayHawkFanToo I will listen to it sometime. I agree the headline was provocative, but it certainly reflected the concerns that have been raised everywhere. Sort of like when Michael Phelps got caught with marijuana here in Columbia with some SC students, along the lines of: "Has Phelps' Run of Olympic Medals Gone to Pot?"
As to coaches and writers talking: I absolutely believe they talk and speculate about all types of stuff. They go to the same locales, they eat together, they talk to the same people, they yak OTR constantly, and I am sure they speculate (again, OTR) constantly. It boggles my mind to think you believe no one, in those conversations, would ever have said: "God, that payola crap looks messy. And it is addidas! Look at Louisville--that is a big-time take-down. You think KU will get caught in this--they get more money from addidas than anyone?"
I am not saying I think the writers haven't gotten their quills sharpened to make more hay out of this. But I think most sports journalists see and hear about far worse things than they report, including athletes getting tons of benefits from boosters, etc, so I think they are quite cynical, not biased against any particular program, conference, or region.
@JayHawkFanToo Wortying about media bias is distracting you from the real areas of concern. We would be engaged in exactly the same speculations--for example, the thread on Stumpy trashed him and UAz completely. Other media, not just east coast, are wondering where it could lead, and many posters here are worried about it. Rob Dauster's article on NBCSports started with him saying exactly the same thing about all the questions since last fall about when the addidas inquiries would get to its most heavily supported program.
Here is my bigger take from your informative post about the interview: The discussion of Gatto being a close friend of Bill is pretty much a bombshell because I hadn't seen that before. Why Parrish would say it was more than a business relationship is puzzling. Unless Bill knew him before, or got him the job at addidas or something. That road is one that doesn't lead anywhere good.
Incidentally, for him to say he doesn't believe someone on staff didn't know about the payments should not concern us about bias or think that means he is smelling blood in the water. How many people here have stated as absolute certainty that Pitino, Boeheim, Roy, Cal, and K had to have known what was going on when their players or programs got in trouble? How many have responded to this indictment by trying to deflect it to Nike programs ("UK and Duke must be dirty to get so many 5-stars").It is an almost instinctive suspicion and it is only when our own get questioned that we scream "Bias! Innocent until proven guilty!"
@Kcmatt7 The recent indictments and all the fallout probably make Stevens quite happy he doesn't have to worry about this type of crap. Coaches "declaring" for the NBA almost universally cite not having to recruit as a major advantage. I cannot see him willingly going back to it.
@Buster-1926 I think Justin Wesley went back and forth from scholie and walkon. Isn't he the one who is the cousin of Keith Langford who footed his bills?
@Gorilla72 Still a few days to report the 2017 payments, but there might be penalties for not making sufficient estimated tax payments when the money was received.
Unless, of course, the IRS waives the penalty because of the unexpected nature of accepting a large corruption payment from a shoe company.
@dylans That peanut thing is crazy to have to worry about. I don't envy you. My D-I-L's niece had to be monitored for 5 years after she reacted badly at 2. Now, recent testing (and retesting) has determined she is no longer sensitive, but we still check with her mom whenever we have all the kids over. Good job avoiding the mass murder thing.
@dylans Is calling a teacher stupid one of those improper things you think is important to keep your children from thinking is okay? JK!