FBI College Basketball Corruption Investigation

Lamont Evans to plead guilty to bribery charge

A third former college basketball coach accused of accepting thousands of dollars in bribes to steer players to certain financial advisers and managers once they turned pro will plead guilty to a federal conspiracy bribery charge in New York on Wednesday.

Former South Carolina and Oklahoma State assistant Lamont Evans, who was accused of accepting $22,000 in bribes, will plead guilty to one felony count of conspiracy to commit bribery, his attorney, Johnny McCray, told The Associated Press.

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-ba...5440/lamont-evans-plead-guilty-bribery-charge
 
This is just going to be the new Exhibit A as to why no school should voluntarily report, if this is the sort of overkill that happens. And I have no love for Mizzou.

Cover up and hush up is all this encourages.
 
Likes: pruman91
That's not a harsh punishment. It's just one player, while they still have a roster stocked with stars.

Its stinks for that kid, but I have zero sympathy for Bill Self or Kansas—one of the dirtiest programs of all time.
Agreed. Frankly, I'm surprised that Bill "Teflon" Self hasn't gotten himself into serious trouble at some point with the NCAA.
 
I’m unclear as to the NCAA’s rationale for distinguishing between the Mizzou case and UNC. As I read the news article, the NCAA seems to stress two (2) differences: (1) in the UNC case the students did their own course work, whereas in the Mizzou case the students didn’t, and (2) Mizzou acknowledged that the credit hours were unearned, whereas UNC continued to assert that the credit hours were earned.

(1) But as I recall, didn’t Raymond Felton and others acknowledge that their tutors wrote their term papers ? I seem to recall reading somewhere that one of the players said when term papers were due the players would cram into a car (apart from possible sexual encounters the only cramming they seem to have done at Chapel Hill) and drive over to get their term papers.

(2) Isn’t this akin to allowing the fox to guard the chicken coop ? Or the defendant to be judge and jury ? Mizzou takes the high road and gets hammered, whereas UNC continues to assert (in the face of what appeared to be overwhelming evidence) that the credit hours were legitimately conferred, with the upshot that the NCAA concludes that merely based upon such stance the matter then becomes an academic issue outside the purview of the NCAA.

I’m really puzzled. Is there a principled difference between the cases ? And, if so, what, exactly, is the principled difference ?
 
BU:1 Trash cans:0
Chicago
From what I've read, one of the differences is that the Mizzou benefits were exclusive to athletes, whereas at UNC the department and classes were open to all students. It also sounds like the NCAA messed up when they notified UNC of the charges. Apparently the NCAA accused UNC of providing academic benefits to only athletes, so UNC effectively beat the charge by demonstrating that those accusations were untrue. The NCAA set the terms of engagement, and they chose poorly.
 
JFGsCoffeeMug —

Thanks for the clarification. But isn’t all of that a red herring ? While the course may have been open to all students, was the fraudulent assistance ? (And even if so, how would that negate the fraudulent assistance to athletes ? Or can that be sheltered by making the fraud available campus-wide ?) Moreover, the fact that the initial charges were inaccurate doesn’t negate the fact of academic fraud. If the NCAA initially levels inaccurate charges, why can’t it simply amend (assuming academic fraud is still present) the charges to more accurately allege the true state of affairs ? (Does double jeopardy apply ?) Doesn’t the NCAA do this all the time ?

I remain puzzled (or, perhaps, a little obtuse) as to what I would deem a principled distinction, whether jurisdictionally or substantively. But I’m probably prolonging the beating of a dead horse. Again, thanks for the clarification.

To interject a little humor into this otherwise somber discourse. “An oxymoron is a two-word contradiction. The claim of this brief paper is that legislative intent, along with military intelligence, jumbo shrimp, and student athlete, belongs in this category.” (Kenneth A. Shepsle, Congress Is a "They," Not an "It": Legislative Intent as Oxymoron, 12 International Review of Law and Economics 239 (June 1992)).
 
Last edited:
BU:1 Trash cans:0
Chicago
From what I can recall, UNC did make a pretty sound jurisdictional argument. They argued that when benefits are provided to only athletes, then the NCAA can police that, because that falls under their limited purview. But when the issue is the management and operation of an entire academic department, then the school itself retains ultimate authority in determining how to organize its household (along with the relevant accreditation agencies). The fact that some athletes were enrolled in the department in question does not necessarily provide a sufficient jurisdictional hook for the NCAA to exercise oversight authority.
 
Stylin' and Profilin'
Agreed. Frankly, I'm surprised that Bill "Teflon" Self hasn't gotten himself into serious trouble at some point with the NCAA.
Anyone with a brain knows all the coaches are aware and complicit. But, they're smart, too, and maintain deniability... IMO, I'm surprised the focus isn't less on players receiving benefits but more on the fact that something like a cartel is created as a result of these practices and denies all but the "blue bloods" (and now we know why they are) participation in the profit.
 
From what I can recall, UNC did make a pretty sound jurisdictional argument. They argued that when benefits are provided to only athletes, then the NCAA can police that, because that falls under their limited purview. But when the issue is the management and operation of an entire academic department, then the school itself retains ultimate authority in determining how to organize its household (along with the relevant accreditation agencies). The fact that some athletes were enrolled in the department in question does not necessarily provide a sufficient jurisdictional hook for the NCAA to exercise oversight authority.
My argument would be that the players should not have been enrolled in such a questionable department. There are loop holes in everywhere.
But then what do I know.

A long time Referee mentioned to me sometime back that Coach Williams left Kansas with some 27 complaints against him, but no penalty. Does anyone know about that?

keep on truckin
joe
 
Last edited:
I can't wait to see what becomes of Coach K and Duke's program. First day of trial and Coach K, Zion Williamson are mentioned in connection with Kansas.

Mike Krzyzewski

Sometimes it takes months or years for public comments to age poorly. For Coach K last week, it took less than 24 hours.

When asked about the trial and about the cleanliness of college basketball in general on Oct. 23, Krzyzewski pulled out his best Pollyanna routine.
...............
Just a day later, Duke super freshman Zion Williamson was dragged into the trial when a recording revealed his father had asked Kansas assistant coach Kurtis Townsend for money, housing and a job. Three months after that conversation took place, Williamson shocked everyone and committed to Duke. Krzyzewski attempted to walk back his “blip” comment following Duke’s exhibition victory over Virginia Union Tuesday night.
https://www.sbnation.com/college-ba...inners-and-losers-arizona-louisville-duke-lsu

I hear there are also questions concerning Carter at Duke.

I wonder how much influence some programs have, if any, with respect to the law? Hopefully none.

But I would be scared to participate in some blue blood programs now. (Maybe that is why "blood" is part of blue blood.) I have to wonder how
some schools became "blue bloods". Kansas and Kentucky I can see, I guess.

keep on truckin
joe
 
Last edited:
My argument would be that the players should not have been enrolled in such a questionable department. There are loop holes in everywhere.
But then what do I know.

A long time Referee mentioned to me sometime back that Coach Williams left Kansas with some 27 complaints against him, but no penalty. Does anyone know about that?

keep on truckin
joe
ps. Forgot to mention that an independent investigation did find wrong doing at UNC, if I remember correctly.

Does it seem that the major investigations are the ACC, Big 12, and one other from teams from other conferences, almost all blue bloods?
 
Last edited:
Likes: pruman91