Jump to content

FBI Arrests Coaches in Corruption Scandal


FW_Hoosier

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, BGleas said:

I'm curious as to why you think David Robinson and Grant Hill can't provide substance? Both are highly educated, accomplished guys (on and off the floor) who have been through the process at all levels. I'd trust Grant Hill and David Robinson to provide substance before I would the AD's from Ohio State anf Florida who have a clear conflict. 

I have no problem with the "Admiral" being on it.  Stand up guy.  Grant Hill is meh in my book.  He was at Duke when I first suspected them of being dirty.  Don't get me wrong, I like the guy.  But it does seem like a bad choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
6 hours ago, KoB2011 said:

Didn't Steve Kerr walk off a television set and change basketball as we know it? With no experience coaching. 

I get that it isn't apples to apples, but I don't think having worked in TV disqualifies them. I think they'll bring a much needed point of view. 

I don’t see a comparison with Kerr.  I used to be very impressed with his analysis and have listened to him in media (such as podcasts) at great length for years.  He always provided very good insight.  Looking back now, you could see the link to him being a great coach.  There is also a link to follow with him from player to front office to broadcasting to coaching where we are talking about experience being relevant and not tangential. 

In contrast, the next interesting thing Hill says will be the first.  Tapping Hill and the Admiral looks like a ploy for image purposes.  The history that they have is not correlated to what they are tasked to do.  They have to look into more administrative and big picture analysis, not basketball nuts and bolts.  

Perhaps they will go to meetings and actually contribute ideas and then follow up with action items that they will research and sink their teeth into.  Color me skeptical, but maybe they will make considerable contributions.  

As I posted before, the NCAA needs to self evaluate what they are trying to do, what their aim is, how do they want to be perceived, etc.  Where I disagree with them is their false premise that requiring high ethical standards and enforcing them would be a financial detriment.  Perhaps in the short term, there would be some member institutions take a hit, but this is a marathon and the message needs to be established.  If you take some short term hits, in the end you can have a financially healthy game with engaged fans who are more comfortable and satisfied with a more positive environment as compared with the seedy feeling we have now.

 A major component in this overhaul is you hire investigation experts, perhaps highly credentialed high level ex-FBI at high levels of the NCAA and you give them power.  Then, you put requirements on each participant in intercollegiate sports (players and coaches) about what they have to agree to, as I posted earlier. There are a number of investigative tactics that can be employed that high level experienced investigators would know.  In addition, you simplify the rule book, similar to the way we need to simplify the tax code.  You get out of nonsensical minutiae on which day of the week you can send a text or whatever and get the big picture legislated effectively so there is consistent and predictable enforcement and policies.  I could go on and on about this, but is there proportion when a guy who bought a bumper sticker 25 years ago leads to a ten game suspension for a kid, but a coach gets a few games for a prostitution scandal?  Uniformity and predictability can be established.   Lastly, once they are properly organized, they need an arm that educates member institutions, players, and parents of expectations and what the consequences will be for straying.  Policies need to be established with clear legislative history.  Can a school argue that “we shouldn’t punish the current kids because the acts were five years ago and the bad actors are gone”  or will the guidelines explain clearly that the policy overrides those arguments?  This all needs to be fixed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/10/2017 at 12:40 PM, BGleas said:

Sorry to get into the semantics of all this again, but it wasn't the phone calls or the NCAA that took all the scholarship players away from IU. People always think IU got hammered by the NCAA, but they really didn't. Kelvin Sampson is the one who ruined IU, and not because of phone calls or NCAA penalties, but because he paid no attention to things like character, the drug policy and academics. 

If Kelvin Sampson had fielded a high-character team full of guys with good academic standing and no drug violations, Crean would have ketp them all and taken over a great situation. The NCAA didn't kick guys like Eli Holman, Jordan Crawford, etc. off the team and make guys like Armon Bassett transfer. 

The NCAA didn't really do that much to IU. 

#bumperstickergate #micdrop. Lol

 

But seriously....you're right. For years I thought Cincinati did all of its recruiting from the California Penal League;  but I think Sampson went straight to Levenworth and Guantanamo Bay. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, BobSaccamanno said:

I could go on and on about this, but is there proportion when a guy who bought a bumper sticker 25 years ago leads to a ten game suspension for a kid, but a coach gets a few games for a prostitution scandal?  Uniformity and predictability can be established.   Lastly, once they are properly organized, they need an arm that educates member institutions, players, and parents of expectations and what the consequences will be for straying.  Policies need to be established with clear legislative history.  Can a school argue that “we shouldn’t punish the current kids because the acts were five years ago and the bad actors are gone”  or will the guidelines explain clearly that the policy overrides those arguments?  This all needs to be fixed.

I agree with a lot of what you said, but it isn't all black and white and simple to fix.

For instance, this part of your post: the NCAA does already have uniformity in eligibility issues due to receipt of improper benefits. Keep in mind that no one was punished for buying a bumper sticker - the punishment was for provider improper benefits to a prospective student athlete. Based on the dollar value of those benefits, NCAA guidelines required a 10 game suspension.

The reason they were considered improper benefits is because the guardian was considered a booster, and the reason he was considered a booster was because of the bumper sticker purchase. The NCAA's definition of booster includes this. We can argue now that it's a ridiculous definition, but at the time the NCAA created the definition no one had a problem with it.

So this is all a case of a situation in which NCAA has clear guidelines and followed those clear guidelines - even though the result was probably disproportionately harsh. Any time you have clear and strict guidelines, you'll get results like this at some point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jimsorgi said:

I agree with a lot of what you said, but it isn't all black and white and simple to fix.

For instance, this part of your post: the NCAA does already have uniformity in eligibility issues due to receipt of improper benefits. Keep in mind that no one was punished for buying a bumper sticker - the punishment was for provider improper benefits to a prospective student athlete. Based on the dollar value of those benefits, NCAA guidelines required a 10 game suspension.

The reason they were considered improper benefits is because the guardian was considered a booster, and the reason he was considered a booster was because of the bumper sticker purchase. The NCAA's definition of booster includes this. We can argue now that it's a ridiculous definition, but at the time the NCAA created the definition no one had a problem with it.

So this is all a case of a situation in which NCAA has clear guidelines and followed those clear guidelines - even though the result was probably disproportionately harsh. Any time you have clear and strict guidelines, you'll get results like this at some point.

Maybe I can explain better.  I understand the situation in the sense that Adams bought a laptop and other minor things as a semi-guardian/AAU coach for HMP and Jurkin.  However, the bumper stickers were bought  in the late 80s as I recall.  The fact that Adams has a legitimate and bona fide relationship with the two players and that the bumper stickers were from a generation ago should have been addressed.  This is a case of poorly thought out guidelines.  Then you see Pitino get a similar suspension for having seedy prostitution benefits to recruits.  It’s completely out of whack.  I’m sure the NCAA has current policies.  It’s not that they don’t exist.  It’s that they are hopelessly ineffective, unfair, not a deterrent, lead to disproportionate outcomes, etc.  The best use of the NCAA’s time is establishing, monitoring, and educating on the big picture issues such as academic integrity and eligibility, pay for play tactics, bribery regarding agents and advisors, under the table shoe money.  In the big picture, the NCAA fails.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Snozzwangers_und_covfefe said:

If true, one wonders how this will impact Romeo's decision.  First Louisville, and now perhaps Kansas

Supporting tweet to your link :

Conner Mitchell on Twitter: "BREAKING: FBI says it has documents relating to KU's involvement with Adidas, but can't release them. More: https://t.co/mnMWPWkNxV"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BobSaccamanno said:

Maybe I can explain better.  I understand the situation in the sense that Adams bought a laptop and other minor things as a semi-guardian/AAU coach for HMP and Jurkin.  However, the bumper stickers were bought  in the late 80s as I recall.  The fact that Adams has a legitimate and bona fide relationship with the two players and that the bumper stickers were from a generation ago should have been addressed.  This is a case of poorly thought out guidelines.  Then you see Pitino get a similar suspension for having seedy prostitution benefits to recruits.  It’s completely out of whack.  I’m sure the NCAA has current policies.  It’s not that they don’t exist.  It’s that they are hopelessly ineffective, unfair, not a deterrent, lead to disproportionate outcomes, etc.  The best use of the NCAA’s time is establishing, monitoring, and educating on the big picture issues such as academic integrity and eligibility, pay for play tactics, bribery regarding agents and advisors, under the table shoe money.  In the big picture, the NCAA fails.  

I agree with you - but the point is that it's easy in hindsight to say that it was a poor guideline. Strict guidelines always work great, until there's a situation where they don't work. That same idea applies to Pitino. What guideline covers prostitution? Probably the improper benefits? In which case, it's the dollar value of the improper benefits, which generally seems like a reasonable way to determine level of punishment, except that prostitution feels like it should be punished far more harshly than buying a kid a handful of meals. It's inevitable that you'll have unanticipated consequences with guidelines, and, while the NCAA should certainly endeavor to foresee and account for unexpected situations, it's not a total failure if they run into them.

You're right that NCAA probably needs to simplify and change some of the guidelines (and it certainly never hurts to take a close review of them), but your point about revamping investigation is the more critical one. NCAA's issues are far, far more a failure of enforcement than of legislation (except to the extent that legislation allows or restricts enforcement). Writing new guidelines, by itself, will do little to address the issues, I think, and is very much a secondary issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, milehiiu said:

If true, one wonders how this will impact Romeo's decision.  First Louisville, and now perhaps Kansas

Supporting tweet to your link :

Conner Mitchell on Twitter: "BREAKING: FBI says it has documents relating to KU's involvement with Adidas, but can't release them. More: https://t.co/mnMWPWkNxV"

It's hard to say this is very meaningful. FBI just responded to a FOIA request and said they can't turn over Kansas-related documents. Yes, as the article contends, that implies there is at least some mention of Kansas in at least one document. But that's pretty meaningless - of course Adidas had documents that relate to Kansas (like, for instance, the contract between Kansas and Adidas). There could be more, for sure, but the FOIA response in reality tells us nothing. I'd fully expect to see the same response if someone requested documents that mention IU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jimsorgi said:

It's hard to say this is very meaningful. FBI just responded to a FOIA request and said they can't turn over Kansas-related documents. Yes, as the article contends, that implies there is at least some mention of Kansas in at least one document. But that's pretty meaningless - of course Adidas had documents that relate to Kansas (like, for instance, the contract between Kansas and Adidas). There could be more, for sure, but the FOIA response in reality tells us nothing. I'd fully expect to see the same response if someone requested documents that mention IU.

Oh, I agree with you.  And who knows.... what other Adidas schools the FBI is seeking information on.  Perhaps just to review the contracts with the schools. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jimsorgi said:

It's hard to say this is very meaningful. FBI just responded to a FOIA request and said they can't turn over Kansas-related documents. Yes, as the article contends, that implies there is at least some mention of Kansas in at least one document. But that's pretty meaningless - of course Adidas had documents that relate to Kansas (like, for instance, the contract between Kansas and Adidas). There could be more, for sure, but the FOIA response in reality tells us nothing. I'd fully expect to see the same response if someone requested documents that mention IU.

That makes me almost wish someone would make a FOIA request related to IU just to get a sense of whether or not IU athletics are on the same level as Kansas athletics.  The only telling response would be "we have no documents related to this request."

Wouldn't that be sweet news to go into the weekend with?  Doyel or someone, come on...make a FOIA request!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jimsorgi said:

I agree with you - but the point is that it's easy in hindsight to say that it was a poor guideline. Strict guidelines always work great, until there's a situation where they don't work. That same idea applies to Pitino. What guideline covers prostitution? Probably the improper benefits? In which case, it's the dollar value of the improper benefits, which generally seems like a reasonable way to determine level of punishment, except that prostitution feels like it should be punished far more harshly than buying a kid a handful of meals. It's inevitable that you'll have unanticipated consequences with guidelines, and, while the NCAA should certainly endeavor to foresee and account for unexpected situations, it's not a total failure if they run into them.

You're right that NCAA probably needs to simplify and change some of the guidelines (and it certainly never hurts to take a close review of them), but your point about revamping investigation is the more critical one. NCAA's issues are far, far more a failure of enforcement than of legislation (except to the extent that legislation allows or restricts enforcement). Writing new guidelines, by itself, will do little to address the issues, I think, and is very much a secondary issue.

Good post.  And your point is well taken regarding guidelines.  I am not a criminal lawyer.  But I am sure we could find plenty of examples of someone holding a bag of weed getting something absurd like 20 years while someone who harmed someone else as in a rape or the like got 15.  I don't want to keep harping on it, so I will leave it at this.  I don't think the NCAA's policies are well thought out.  Even if guidelines are inherently not perfect, I think there is room for improvement in whatever the NCAA has been using.

Back on my general feelings, we don't want corruption in this country.  That's why the FBI inserted themselves here.  But my overwhelming feeling is that the NCAA looks the other way and deflects with a shrug as if to say, "hey, we don't have subpoena power, what can we do?"  I don't buy into that whole approach.  You can't enforce what you don't find, and that's how it appears that they handle business.  Protect immediate $$ interest rather than a focus on integrity.  That's where the Cleveland State jokes come from.  It's funny because disillusioned fans understand the failings in the current system..  I'd submit they will have a stronger game if they take on corruption head on.  As I started this paragraph, as a country, we do not want corruption.  This isn't a banana republic.  Be above board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, jimsorgi said:

I agree with a lot of what you said, but it isn't all black and white and simple to fix.

For instance, this part of your post: the NCAA does already have uniformity in eligibility issues due to receipt of improper benefits. Keep in mind that no one was punished for buying a bumper sticker - the punishment was for provider improper benefits to a prospective student athlete. Based on the dollar value of those benefits, NCAA guidelines required a 10 game suspension.

The reason they were considered improper benefits is because the guardian was considered a booster, and the reason he was considered a booster was because of the bumper sticker purchase. The NCAA's definition of booster includes this. We can argue now that it's a ridiculous definition, but at the time the NCAA created the definition no one had a problem with it.

So this is all a case of a situation in which NCAA has clear guidelines and followed those clear guidelines - even though the result was probably disproportionately harsh. Any time you have clear and strict guidelines, you'll get results like this at some point.

I think the issue is that Adams was their guardian. I highly doubt the NCAA has rules differentiating a legal guardian and a parent, so it kinda makes it a moot point that he was a booster. It is a bad rule, but I am of the belief that it wasn't properly enforced. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, milehiiu said:

No problemo, Dano.  Love the fact that you are here.  YOU should be posting more.  Always love to hear from you.  

I try to check in at least once a day, just to keep up! 😂

6 hours ago, milehiiu said:

No problemo, Dano.  Love the fact that you are here.  YOU should be posting more.  Always love to hear from you.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, BobSaccamanno said:

Good post.  And your point is well taken regarding guidelines.  I am not a criminal lawyer.  But I am sure we could find plenty of examples of someone holding a bag of weed getting something absurd like 20 years while someone who harmed someone else as in a rape or the like got 15.  I don't want to keep harping on it, so I will leave it at this.  I don't think the NCAA's policies are well thought out.  Even if guidelines are inherently not perfect, I think there is room for improvement in whatever the NCAA has been using.

Back on my general feelings, we don't want corruption in this country.  That's why the FBI inserted themselves here.  But my overwhelming feeling is that the NCAA looks the other way and deflects with a shrug as if to say, "hey, we don't have subpoena power, what can we do?"  I don't buy into that whole approach.  You can't enforce what you don't find, and that's how it appears that they handle business.  Protect immediate $$ interest rather than a focus on integrity.  That's where the Cleveland State jokes come from.  It's funny because disillusioned fans understand the failings in the current system..  I'd submit they will have a stronger game if they take on corruption head on.  As I started this paragraph, as a country, we do not want corruption.  This isn't a banana republic.  Be above board.

Good thoughts - I definitely agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...