Basketball Coaches Arrested

[Walter]

Sept 27, 2017 12:03:53 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Sept 27, 2017 10:02:29 GMT -5 Walter said:

So what? Johnny has a Nike deal, your school has an Adidas deal, but Johnny can slam it with his left foot, is a nightly triple double threat with lockdown D talent and wants to commit to your school. What would you do? As AD, I renegotiate my apparel deal for the Bball program immediately.

The "so what" is apparel companies only want exclusive deals with college teams and that includes shoes. A non-exclusive deal is worth less to the company and, in turn, the school gets less as well.

...and a guy who can drain threes with his eyes closed should care about that....why?
"Fine. I won't go to your school. I'm sure that there are other places I might go who will accept it. Oh, and see you in the Final Four...I'll probably be the one in that Squidunk Tech jersey, posterizing your best player!"

[daleko]

Sept 27, 2017 12:13:15 GMT -5 Walter said:

Sept 27, 2017 11:13:07 GMT -5 daleko said:

And then after he's done in a yr? Ya I know change back. You must have been every mom's dream for their daughters, back in your dating years. (Hinting you're a MILF stalker)  

You are missing the point. The NCAA needs to change the nature of school apparel deals to cut off that conflict of interest. That is the problem, not the deal with the kid.
No school should be allowed to give out carte blanche exclusivity. A kid with a Nike deal should be free to play in his Nikes. If the school's deal is different, pound sand. Too bad. the kid's well-being should come before the school's or the apparel vendor's.

In a way, isn't that what the Lavar Ball escapades are all about?

I started w a punch line and framed it backwards. My bad. Re what you said. Perhaps but, at the school level, it's part of the revenue stream for the school, which returns us to the school making money on the backs of the kids, be it CFB or CBB. BUT the kid has options if he doesn't like the shoe, which comes with the scholly. Europe or a new, better funded, NBA development league. NBA could certainly afford to create a MLB type of "minor league". But even then, would the development league team not also cut a shoe deal? The player is still nothing but a gladiator,unless you're a top whatever, easily replaced. That trail would have a lot of implications.

[oujour76]

Sept 27, 2017 12:13:15 GMT -5 Walter said:

Sept 27, 2017 11:13:07 GMT -5 daleko said:

And then after he's done in a yr? Ya I know change back. You must have been every mom's dream for their daughters, back in your dating years. (Hinting you're a MILF stalker)  

You are missing the point. The NCAA needs to change the nature of school apparel deals to cut off that conflict of interest. That is the problem, not the deal with the kid.
No school should be allowed to give out carte blanche exclusivity. A kid with a Nike deal should be free to play in his Nikes. If the school's deal is different, pound sand. Too bad. the kid's well-being should come before the school's or the apparel vendor's.

In a way, isn't that what the Lavar Ball escapades are all about?

Well, you're talking about changing the structure altogether and that is a different discussion. That said, this is one of those times where I agree with the school...it's their uniform and they have every right to determine which company supplies it.

[daleko]

Sept 27, 2017 12:42:18 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Sept 27, 2017 12:13:15 GMT -5 Walter said:

You are missing the point. The NCAA needs to change the nature of school apparel deals to cut off that conflict of interest. That is the problem, not the deal with the kid.
No school should be allowed to give out carte blanche exclusivity. A kid with a Nike deal should be free to play in his Nikes. If the school's deal is different, pound sand. Too bad. the kid's well-being should come before the school's or the apparel vendor's.

In a way, isn't that what the Lavar Ball escapades are all about?

Well, you're talking about changing the structure altogether and that is a different discussion. That said, this is one of those times where I agree with the school...it's their uniform and they have every right to determine which company supplies it.

This all started w coach's contracts back in the late-70s/early to mid-80s, I think. All w NCAA approval. Then the schools saw $s and said we want some. All supported by someone who is, today, willing to buy a $350 BB shoe. That if its a kid, he grows out of in 9 months. <shaking head>

[oujour76]

Sept 27, 2017 13:02:13 GMT -5 daleko said:

This all started w coach's contracts back in the late-70s/early to mid-80s, I think. All w NCAA approval. Then the schools saw $s and said we want some. All supported by someone who is, today, willing to buy a $350 BB shoe. That if its a kid, he grows out of in 9 months. <shaking head>

It was a way to pay the coach without actually paying the coach out of the school's pocket. Not a new concept at all, same idea as the HC having a TV show, free use of a car from a local dealer or free country club membership and the like.

[daleko]

Sept 27, 2017 13:06:59 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Sept 27, 2017 13:02:13 GMT -5 daleko said:

This all started w coach's contracts back in the late-70s/early to mid-80s, I think. All w NCAA approval. Then the schools saw $s and said we want some. All supported by someone who is, today, willing to buy a $350 BB shoe. That if its a kid, he grows out of in 9 months. <shaking head>

It was a way to pay the coach without actually paying the coach out of the school's pocket. Not a new concept at all, same idea as the HC having a TV show, free use of a car from a local dealer or free country club membership and the like.

That and a brick 4 bedroom center hall colonial in a upscale U neighborhood, living around the shakers of the U was a big deal. Now they can buy the neighborhood. Times have changed.

[Walter]

Sept 27, 2017 12:42:18 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Sept 27, 2017 12:13:15 GMT -5 Walter said:

You are missing the point. The NCAA needs to change the nature of school apparel deals to cut off that conflict of interest. That is the problem, not the deal with the kid.
No school should be allowed to give out carte blanche exclusivity. A kid with a Nike deal should be free to play in his Nikes. If the school's deal is different, pound sand. Too bad. the kid's well-being should come before the school's or the apparel vendor's.

In a way, isn't that what the Lavar Ball escapades are all about?

Well, you're talking about changing the structure altogether and that is a different discussion. That said, this is one of those times where I agree with the school...it's their uniform and they have every right to determine which company supplies it.

They have the right to demand a player wear whatever they want. But the player should then be able to make a side deal that doesn't infringe on the school's deal. You could do it that way as well, by making the kid's deal not include the school uniform. But as he's being interviewed by ESPN on his way to the bus after draining the winning three, the kid sure should be able to pop on a Nike lid if that's HIS deal.

[daleko]

Sept 27, 2017 13:30:27 GMT -5 Walter said:

Sept 27, 2017 12:42:18 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Well, you're talking about changing the structure altogether and that is a different discussion. That said, this is one of those times where I agree with the school...it's their uniform and they have every right to determine which company supplies it.

They have the right to demand a player wear whatever they want. But the player should then be able to make a side deal that doesn't infringe on the school's deal. You could do it that way as well, by making the kid's deal not include the school uniform. But as he's being interviewed by ESPN on his way to the bus after draining the winning three, the kid sure should be able to pop on a Nike lid if that's HIS deal.

You'd also have to change NCAA rules and regs re employment while in school on an athletic scholly, no? Might be a big hill to climb.

[oujour76]

Sept 27, 2017 13:30:27 GMT -5 Walter said:

Sept 27, 2017 12:42:18 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Well, you're talking about changing the structure altogether and that is a different discussion. That said, this is one of those times where I agree with the school...it's their uniform and they have every right to determine which company supplies it. They have the right to demand a player wear whatever they want. But the player should then be able to make a side deal that doesn't infringe on the school's deal. You could do it that way as well, by making the kid's deal not include the school uniform. But as he's being interviewed by ESPN on his way to the bus after draining the winning three, the kid sure should be able to pop on a Nike lid if that's HIS deal.

Pop on a Nike lid? LOL...Walter, never knew you were such a hipster.

[Walter]

Sept 27, 2017 13:40:40 GMT -5 daleko said:

Sept 27, 2017 13:30:27 GMT -5 Walter said:

They have the right to demand a player wear whatever they want. But the player should then be able to make a side deal that doesn't infringe on the school's deal. You could do it that way as well, by making the kid's deal not include the school uniform. But as he's being interviewed by ESPN on his way to the bus after draining the winning three, the kid sure should be able to pop on a Nike lid if that's HIS deal.

You'd also have to change NCAA rules and regs re employment while in school on an athletic scholly, no? Might be a big hill to climb.

That's exactly what I'm saying should be done. The key is to de-link a kid's deal to any possible advantage a school might gain as a condition or element of such a deal. IOW, Nike would not be allowed to make a deal that says, essentially, "...and we'll sweeten the deal by a million if you decide to play for a school we already have a deal with." or, "This deal is only good if you play for the following list of schools."

Basically, what I'm saying is start from scratch and build a system that rewards a kid's talent in the private sector, away from the court, if his talent allows it, without screwing up the college game. IMO, that shouldn't be terribly difficult.

[daleko]

Sept 27, 2017 14:09:27 GMT -5 Walter said:

Sept 27, 2017 13:40:40 GMT -5 daleko said:

You'd also have to change NCAA rules and regs re employment while in school on an athletic scholly, no? Might be a big hill to climb.

That's exactly what I'm saying should be done. The key is to de-link a kid's deal to any possible advantage a school might gain as a condition or element of such a deal. IOW, Nike would not be allowed to make a deal that says, essentially, "...and we'll sweeten the deal by a million if you decide to play for a school we already have a deal with."

Basically, what I'm saying is start from scratch and build a system that rewards a kid's talent in the private sector, away from the court, if his talent allows it, without screwing up the college game. IMO, that shouldn't be terribly difficult.

I don't think that'll happen w/o a court decision as the result of a lawsuit. The tall hill I was referring to. One of the talking heads today, likened the NCAA's position on athlete earning value compensation to prohibition, which didn't end drinking but merely drove it underground. Not a bad comparison.

The NCAA can trace its creation in 1906, I think, under a cloud, to a request by the POTUS, T-Rex, to "encourage reforms" . Another POTUS getting involved.  And under a cloud they have been since, it seems. One cloud after another. But that doesn't mean, as you have suggested, that adjustments shouldn't be made. I am suggesting that w/o outside involvement, it'll be a big hill to climb. The issue won't go away. Money will find a way. And even if "adjustments" are made, more money will still find a way. Doesn't mean the system can't try but........... I think it is terribly difficult. And complicated.

CBB is a multi-billion dollar business so they won't just give it up w/o some kind of accommodation, lest the NBA just start their own minor league, which I assure you the players won't like. They then will lose any leverage until their mid-20s, in return for a signing bonus out of HS. 

[Walter]

Sept 27, 2017 14:33:50 GMT -5 daleko said:

Sept 27, 2017 14:09:27 GMT -5 Walter said:

That's exactly what I'm saying should be done. The key is to de-link a kid's deal to any possible advantage a school might gain as a condition or element of such a deal. IOW, Nike would not be allowed to make a deal that says, essentially, "...and we'll sweeten the deal by a million if you decide to play for a school we already have a deal with."

Basically, what I'm saying is start from scratch and build a system that rewards a kid's talent in the private sector, away from the court, if his talent allows it, without screwing up the college game. IMO, that shouldn't be terribly difficult.

I don't think that'll happen w/o a court decision as the result of a lawsuit. The tall hill I was referring to. One of the talking heads today, likened the NCAA's position on athlete earning value compensation to prohibition, which didn't end drinking but merely drove it underground. Not a bad comparison.

The NCAA can trace its creation in 1906, I think, under a cloud, to a request by the POTUS, T-Rex, to "encourage reforms" . Another POTUS getting involved.  And under a cloud they have been since, it seems. One cloud after another. But that doesn't mean, as you have suggested, that adjustments shouldn't be made. I am suggesting that w/o outside involvement, it'll be a big hill to climb. The issue won't go away. Money will find a way. And even if "adjustments" are made, more money will still find a way. Doesn't mean the system can't try but........... I think it is terribly difficult. And complicated.

CBB is a multi-billion dollar business so they won't just give it up w/o some kind of accommodation, lest the NBA just start their own minor league, which I assure you the players won't like. They then will lose any leverage until their mid-20s, in return for a signing bonus out of HS. 

BTW...here's something I don't quite get.
The FBI is investigating bribery, they say, but bribery of who? A kid who wants to make money and play basketball? Isn't that a little like prosecuting some hot 20-something teacher for seducing a randy 17 year old boy?

[daleko]

Sept 27, 2017 15:03:53 GMT -5 Walter said:

Sept 27, 2017 14:33:50 GMT -5 daleko said:

I don't think that'll happen w/o a court decision as the result of a lawsuit. The tall hill I was referring to. One of the talking heads today, likened the NCAA's position on athlete earning value compensation to prohibition, which didn't end drinking but merely drove it underground. Not a bad comparison.

The NCAA can trace its creation in 1906, I think, under a cloud, to a request by the POTUS, T-Rex, to "encourage reforms" . Another POTUS getting involved.  And under a cloud they have been since, it seems. One cloud after another. But that doesn't mean, as you have suggested, that adjustments shouldn't be made. I am suggesting that w/o outside involvement, it'll be a big hill to climb. The issue won't go away. Money will find a way. And even if "adjustments" are made, more money will still find a way. Doesn't mean the system can't try but........... I think it is terribly difficult. And complicated.

CBB is a multi-billion dollar business so they won't just give it up w/o some kind of accommodation, lest the NBA just start their own minor league, which I assure you the players won't like. They then will lose any leverage until their mid-20s, in return for a signing bonus out of HS. 

BTW...here's something I don't quite get.
The FBI is investigating bribery, they say, but bribery of who? A kid who wants to make money and play basketball? Isn't that a little like prosecuting some hot 20-something teacher for seducing a randy = any 17 year old boy?

FIFY

In the current system, which you'd like to see changed, that's what it is. Another rabbit hole, imo. There's never enough money for some. The bribery, I believe, involves some of the adults involved. Everyone wants a taste. We're talking about inner city kids, who for the most part don't have a male "father figure" in the household and could be subject to influence that doesn't focus on their option A. Not that they aren't OK served w the option that the adult benefits from but not option A. 

[Mickey34jb]

Sept 27, 2017 10:58:35 GMT -5 beuycek said:

Pitino is toast.. finally.

Are you wondering when Caliparis' name will surface? stay tuned.

[beuycek]

Sept 27, 2017 17:11:50 GMT -5 Mickey34jb said:

Sept 27, 2017 10:58:35 GMT -5 beuycek said:

Pitino is toast.. finally.

Are you wondering when Caliparis' name will surface? stay tuned.

I haven't followed the entire situation closely but I don't believe people associated with Nike are involved so the NCAA and FBI would need to dig deeper than they have in this initial situation, I think.

Does Cal cheat still? Impossible to believe he doesn't but he has managed to avoid taking the rap for any of the previous situations under his watch so who knows.