FBI College Basketball Corruption Investigation

Status
Not open for further replies.
#52
Ultimately, though, it's the one-and-done rule and/or amateurism rules that need to change to make a real dent in this. If the kids who are already good enough to get paid are allowed to get paid, either by pro clubs or by profiting off their own names and likenesses, then you have less need for the bags of cash approach to recruiting. It would still exist, but drastically reduced, IMO. Replace illicit payments with totally allowed payments, in essence.
We should definitely get rid of the one-and-done rule, kids who want and can go pro, should be allowed to go pro. The rule serves no purpose. But I do not think paying college kids will solve anything. The scholarship package is still a pretty good package considering the cost of education. But even if you increase the stipend to let's say pay kids $50K, the ones who currently demand money for their services (the really top prospects) will still demand extra money above the allowable stipend and will probably get it because as everyone can see, it is a bidding war. So at the end, you have just increased the opening bid.

Given the budget problems in academia, it will also eliminate sports in many mid and low majors, and also reduce/eliminate non-revenue sports in many high-majors. JMO.
 
Likes: BananaShampoo
#53
I work and interact with multiple Div. I players every year, it is actually naive to think that all kids are getting paid. There is a threshold level and Snider never reached that threshold. Most kids, even relatively high ranked players, never do.
I mean, it's not entirely about talent either, kids and their families can play in that world more or less depending on what their priorities are, and depending what part of the basketball universe they're in. Places like Chicago, the tippy-top of the AAU world, the world of basketball factory prep schools, this stuff is just a part of life there, whereas if you're out in the middle of nowhere you would need to find your way into that world somehow.

But let's give Snider a bit of credit here, he was RSCI #37, only 7 spots behind JaQuan Lyle, who you mentioned. Certainly a player with the possibility of an NBA future, which is what agents and shoe companies are spending the money for. Zero-star guys going low-D1 are of no interest to Nike or Adidas, though that doesn't mean impermissible benefits don't come their way in a variety of other fashions.

And you add the context of Snider's commitment to UI being a glorified hostage video which made clear he knew nothing about Illinois and like, put two and two together here.

Did Louisville pay to flip him, or was he willing to walk away from the Illinois arrangement because Louisville is where he wanted to go all along? Who the heck knows. There's more to it than money sometimes, as the Bowen case indicates.
 
#54
I mean, it's not entirely about talent either, kids and their families can play in that world more or less depending on what their priorities are, and depending what part of the basketball universe they're in. Places like Chicago, the tippy-top of the AAU world, the world of basketball factory prep schools, this stuff is just a part of life there, whereas if you're out in the middle of nowhere you would need to find your way into that world somehow.

But let's give Snider a bit of credit here, he was RSCI #37, only 7 spots behind JaQuan Lyle, who you mentioned. Certainly a player with the possibility of an NBA future, which is what agents and shoe companies are spending the money for. Zero-star guys going low-D1 are of no interest to Nike or Adidas, though that doesn't mean impermissible benefits don't come their way in a variety of other fashions.

And you add the context of Snider's commitment to UI being a glorified hostage video which made clear he knew nothing about Illinois and like, put two and two together here.

Did Louisville pay to flip him, or was he willing to walk away from the Illinois arrangement because Louisville is where he wanted to go all along? Who the heck knows. There's more to it than money sometimes, as the Bowen case indicates.
There are many impermissible benefits that come their way in other forms, and if you talk to HS ADs they all have many stories. Calls, merchandise, food here and there, transportation, etc. There is a lot of gray. But bidding wars and actual cash payments are reserved for really top ranked kids. I do not claim that I know what JaQuan Lyle got or if he got anything, but knowing some of the people around him I would not be surprised. He was a great talent, but with a lot baggage/problems/red flags that also affected rankings and his eventual path, away from the traditional path of someone of his talent caliber in HS.
 
#55
He was a great talent, but with a lot baggage/problems/red flags that also affected rankings and his eventual path, away from the traditional path of someone of his talent caliber in HS.
I certainly agree with that. He was one of those guys who had "wow" Youtube videos in HS.

Sadly he's just suffered a ruptured achillies at New Mexico.
 
#56
I certainly agree with that. He was one of those guys who had "wow" Youtube videos in HS.

Sadly he's just suffered a ruptured achillies at New Mexico.
I saw him just a few times in HS, but the one thing that really stood out to me watching him was his incredible court awareness. I believe I had posted that on this board. He had that special gift/talent when it came to court awareness.
 
#57
Mad Scientist
Arizona, USA
To be clear, I'm not necessarily advocating that schools should be outright paying players when I bring up amateurism rules. I primarily just think a player should be allowed to profit off of his or her own name and likeness. If the player can make a buck by signing memorabilia or by selling Oxiclean, then I think that should be allowed. This, I would think, eliminates the issue of losing low-major programs and non-revenue sports, as it isn't the schools themselves doing any paying. It's based entirely on the talent level and visibility of the player, regardless of school.

Ultimately, this is a problem of economics. Some players are good enough to get paid when they leave high school, but right now the only options are to go overseas or to do so illicitly. As long as those conditions exist, programs will continue finding ways to funnel money to players that aren't eligible to go to the NBA yet but could, if allowed. For players below that caliber, there is far less of an economic reason for schools to try to pay them in some way.
 
Likes: Obelix
#58
Michigan
I said try, not succeed.
And I still would laugh. The NCAA is here to do one thing, make money. Lots of it. As much as possible. And what they did in the face of the Feds swooping in was to propose "sanctioning" hs events, to generate more money, as though that would somehow solve the problem. They KNOW it won't, but it could put money in their hands, so that's the solution.

When you have a hammer, everything's a nail. Substitute 'you' with NCAA, and hammer with 'insatiable desire for money.' The nail is all the stupid policies they wind up.
 
Likes: Chukwuwumba
#59
To be clear, I'm not necessarily advocating that schools should be outright paying players when I bring up amateurism rules. I primarily just think a player should be allowed to profit off of his or her own name and likeness. If the player can make a buck by signing memorabilia or by selling Oxiclean, then I think that should be allowed. This, I would think, eliminates the issue of losing low-major programs and non-revenue sports, as it isn't the schools themselves doing any paying. It's based entirely on the talent level and visibility of the player, regardless of school.

Ultimately, this is a problem of economics. Some players are good enough to get paid when they leave high school, but right now the only options are to go overseas or to do so illicitly. As long as those conditions exist, programs will continue finding ways to funnel money to players that aren't eligible to go to the NBA yet but could, if allowed. For players below that caliber, there is far less of an economic reason for schools to try to pay them in some way.
I would agree with you, maybe signing memorabilia is not the best example (as it opens the door to boosters) but I would not object to some royalties (small percentage) to be put into an account for the player when he leaves college from the sell of merchandise by the University with the player's name. That is often too common and it involves use of personal data, which is too often exploited by Universities, the general use of player's name for commercial purposes.
 
#60
Cary, IL
To be clear, I'm not necessarily advocating that schools should be outright paying players when I bring up amateurism rules. I primarily just think a player should be allowed to profit off of his or her own name and likeness. If the player can make a buck by signing memorabilia or by selling Oxiclean, then I think that should be allowed. This, I would think, eliminates the issue of losing low-major programs and non-revenue sports, as it isn't the schools themselves doing any paying. It's based entirely on the talent level and visibility of the player, regardless of school.

Ultimately, this is a problem of economics. Some players are good enough to get paid when they leave high school, but right now the only options are to go overseas or to do so illicitly. As long as those conditions exist, programs will continue finding ways to funnel money to players that aren't eligible to go to the NBA yet but could, if allowed. For players below that caliber, there is far less of an economic reason for schools to try to pay them in some way.
Problem, the companies that want to commercialize the player can easily tell the kid, if you go to this school, you get $X, but if you go to this school, you get $3X. Same problem, just more legal.
 
#61
You could easily pass rules against booster involvement. Enforcement would be tricky, but I really don't like the idea that a person can't use their own name for profit if they so choose.
Not sure about that. I understand trying to decrease the exploitation from Universities with royalties, etc. but I find it hard to believe that top players will have time to concentrate on basketball full time, attend classes full time, and on top of that run entrepreneurial ventures using their name for profit. From a time management and skills perspective, this equation has no solution and they will depend on help from outside sources. I really doubt that "help" will come from just the random "friend" so it opens the door wide open, which will be impossible to enforce. Even if the NCAA had the willingness, they would definitely not have the resources to monitor.
 
#62
Then the NCAA will have NO credibility at all to the fans. I think they will have to act, because of public opinion. They didn't want to know, but now the world knows.
I think that ship sailed some time back. For me it was their three blind mice routine with Sam Gilbert and John Wooden.
 
#63
Mad Scientist
Arizona, USA
Problem, the companies that want to commercialize the player can easily tell the kid, if you go to this school, you get $X, but if you go to this school, you get $3X. Same problem, just more legal.
Not sure about that. I understand trying to decrease the exploitation from Universities with royalties, etc. but I find it hard to believe that top players will have time to concentrate on basketball full time, attend classes full time, and on top of that run entrepreneurial ventures using their name for profit. From a time management and skills perspective, this equation has no solution and they will depend on help from outside sources. I really doubt that "help" will come from just the random "friend" so it opens the door wide open, which will be impossible to enforce. Even if the NCAA had the willingness, they would definitely not have the resources to monitor.
On the one hand, you could try enacting such a policy that attempts to mitigate things like this. For example, you set a rule that says, in effect, that a player cannot ink a deal like that or engage in discussions like that until after they've signed a NLOI. Of course, the problem here is nearly unenforceable.

The good news is that if you do the other part of what I said, which is to abolish the one-and-done rule and let those high 5-star guys just go pro right away, then the problem (likely) solves itself. Those guys go pro and get their payday and the big shoe deals, and the remaining guys aren't generally going to be good enough for shoe companies to be inking those sorts of deals with them before seeing them perform on a bigger stage anyway. My main point about profiting off of their own name and likeness is that the players ought to get some of the benefit (delayed or not) of jersey sales with their number, which clearly represent said players and aren't just random numbers. They should be able to sell autographs and the like if people are interested. If those 5-star guys are already pro, then the remaining 4-star and under players are likely unpolished enough in their games that they are going to have to earn the ability to profit off of these sorts of things anyway.

It's not a perfect solution, but, in my opinion, it's the least bad solution out of the things I've heard proposed. It is the cheapest, most effective way to fix the problem: take away the economic incentive for the problem to exist.
 
#64
The good news is that if you do the other part of what I said, which is to abolish the one-and-done rule and let those high 5-star guys just go pro right away, then the problem (likely) solves itself. Those guys go pro and get their payday and the big shoe deals, and the remaining guys aren't generally going to be good enough for shoe companies to be inking those sorts of deals with them before seeing them perform on a bigger stage anyway. My main point about profiting off of their own name and likeness is that the players ought to get some of the benefit (delayed or not) of jersey sales with their number, which clearly represent said players and aren't just random numbers. They should be able to sell autographs and the like if people are interested. If those 5-star guys are already pro, then the remaining 4-star and under players are likely unpolished enough in their games that they are going to have to earn the ability to profit off of these sorts of things anyway.
I think you may be overestimating the number of HS players that will go pro every year. There will be a few at the top but the majority of 5* players will still go to college.
 
#65
I don't think I am by too wide a margin. I think this is maybe just an example of perhaps a difference of opinion on just how many recruits are actually being bought currently. I'm not 100% sure where you stand on that issue, but I'm absolutely not of the mind that a majority of recruits are getting payments as are some others around here.
As I have said before (Snider), not every good player is a candidate for receiving payments and many very good 4 stars never do. The set of players who are candidates to receive large sums of money is currently smaller than many others perceive. But by allowing HS players to go straight to the NBA, you are not eliminating the problem. The majority of 5* players will still go to college and there is plenty of room for corruption. Tugs Bowen, who is in the middle of this, is an example. An excellent player, 5* player, yet not projected as a candidate for NBA draft right out of HS even if allowed. He is not projected as a candidate now either (he is playing pro in Australia), he really needed college, competition and experience. Yet a 5* talent that would attract "money." I think the majority of the 5* players fall in this category, sans the very top 5* players who IMO should just be allowed to go straight to the NBA.
 
#66
Illini optimist
Charleston
...even if you increase the stipend to let's say pay kids $50K, the ones who currently demand money for their services (the really top prospects) will still demand extra money above the allowable stipend and will probably get it because as everyone can see, it is a bidding war. So at the end, you have just increased the opening bid.
Also, you make it MUCH Harder for the NCAA, coaches and schools to monitor this. "How much was he paid? What percent of his income was from the school? The donors?"

That makes it VERY tough to follow.
 
#67
We should definitely get rid of the one-and-done rule, kids who want and can go pro, should be allowed to go pro. The rule serves no purpose. But I do not think paying college kids will solve anything. The scholarship package is still a pretty good package considering the cost of education. But even if you increase the stipend to let's say pay kids $50K, the ones who currently demand money for their services (the really top prospects) will still demand extra money above the allowable stipend and will probably get it because as everyone can see, it is a bidding war. So at the end, you have just increased the opening bid.
.
Does it really serve no purpose? I would be curious to see how many players tried to go pro right our of high school and failed before this rule was established. I do not know the answer. Sure the great talents like Lebron and KG made it. A player like K Whitney might be able to make it as well. But they are the exception to the rule, not the norm. I do know there are a large number of parents out there with unrealistic expectations. I would suspect that the number of kids failing at going pro right out of HS would grow exponentially today as opposed to 15 years ago.
If a kid is good enough to go pro right out of HS, he is good enough to go pro after a year of college. If he doesn't want to risk injury, then fake a back surgery and you wont have to play for that year. He still will get drafted in the first round and get his money. I am assuming this rule saves a lot more lives than it ruins.
JMO
 
#68
If you want to lower the amount of cheating, you have to take money out of college sports. No you cannot take all of it out, that is unrealistic. This idea is probably just as unrealistic to be honest. But if a publicly funded program gets to the point of making money, they should pay back all tax payers money to the state until they have either broke even or paid back all the money.
Right now college sports is a business filled with people making millions of dollars. That will only change if you can bring the amount of money down to a reasonable level. No one within that business is going to lessen the amount of money they make. Therefore it has to come from the outside, like the state government that provides them with funds.
 
#69
Does it really serve no purpose? I would be curious to see how many players tried to go pro right our of high school and failed before this rule was established. I do not know the answer. Sure the great talents like Lebron and KG made it. A player like K Whitney might be able to make it as well. But they are the exception to the rule, not the norm. I do know there are a large number of parents out there with unrealistic expectations. I would suspect that the number of kids failing at going pro right out of HS would grow exponentially today as opposed to 15 years ago.
If a kid is good enough to go pro right out of HS, he is good enough to go pro after a year of college. If he doesn't want to risk injury, then fake a back surgery and you wont have to play for that year. He still will get drafted in the first round and get his money. I am assuming this rule saves a lot more lives than it ruins.
JMO
That rule was not about protecting players. That rule was about protecting nba teams.

They get a free development and scouting year vs top level competition.
 
#70
That rule was not about protecting players. That rule was about protecting nba teams.

They get a free development and scouting year vs top level competition.
Exactly.
Its an NBA rule, not a college rule.
Consequently, college cannot change it.
Lobby to change it? Sure, I suppose.
But can't change it.
 
#71
That rule was not about protecting players. That rule was about protecting nba teams.

They get a free development and scouting year vs top level competition.
I didn't say what it was about. The result of the rule did protect players regardless of its original purpose.
 
#72
Exactly.
Its an NBA rule, not a college rule.
Consequently, college cannot change it.
Lobby to change it? Sure, I suppose.
But can't change it.
Not really sure what you are saying here. I replied to a comment that the rule served NO PURPOSE. That is what my post was about. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
#73
Not really sure what you are saying here. I replied to a comment that the rule served NO PURPOSE. That is what my post was about. Nothing more, nothing less.
I didn't reply to you, I replied to FiveStar. I agreed with him that the rule is not college's to change. Not disagreeing with you.

Rules purpose is to protect league owners. They were spending too much money on unproven flash in the pan high schoolers and want them validated by college level competition. If rule happens to benefit players as well, that is just icing on the cake imo.
 
Likes: Dude
Status
Not open for further replies.