As far as I still know, sure you can, and you'd be well-advised to do so (but very probable most are not well-advised). The tax crime is not paying your taxes on the income, not the nature of the income.
FBI College Basketball Corruption Investigation
- Status
As far as I still know, sure you can, and you'd be well-advised to do so (but very probable most are not well-advised). The tax crime is not paying your taxes on the income, not the nature of the income.
Has this been posted, yet (sorry, hard to keep up with this thread)? Jay Williams (former Duke and Bulls player) funneled $250,000 to Kevin Love's AAU coach in 2009 while working as a recruiter for a sports agency. Love did not end up signing with the agency, partly because he didn't want to work with someone "reckless" like Jay Williams.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...-paid-kevin-loves-aau-coach-250000/106062594/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...-paid-kevin-loves-aau-coach-250000/106062594/
Well, sure, you can report it, but then you risk getting the program in trouble and losing your son's eligibility. I imagine that most people don't report this kind of income.
Is this a class in situational ethics ? What's going to be on the exam ? I'm also reminded of the old saw — we've already determined what you are, we're only dickering over the money.
RichBradIllini
- Peoria
Let's say you've got two kids and mom and dad are college educated making a combined $150,000. The $50k you're offered for the oldest child doesn't make a whit of difference in your quality of life bit you're reassured everyone else is doing. And, let's not pretend these parents don't get the offers as well. Same rules still apply because everyone else is doing it?
The amount of pressure some parents put on kids to be the income generators IS a crime.
Just to keep things clear:
Univeristy 1 - Auburn (Assistant coach shenanigans)
University 2 - South Carolina (Assistant coach shenanigans)
University 3 - Oklahoma State (Assistant coach shenanigans)
University 4 - Arizona (Bidding war with at least Miami (also implicates Nike) over Nassir Little, possible payments to Jahvon Quinerly)
University 5 - USC (Assistant coach shenanigans)
University 6 - Louisville (tied to paying Brian Bowen $100,000)
University 7 - Miami (Bidding war with at least Arizona over Nassir Little)
I don't know that I want to try to decipher all the players involved but that is the current gist
Univeristy 1 - Auburn (Assistant coach shenanigans)
University 2 - South Carolina (Assistant coach shenanigans)
University 3 - Oklahoma State (Assistant coach shenanigans)
University 4 - Arizona (Bidding war with at least Miami (also implicates Nike) over Nassir Little, possible payments to Jahvon Quinerly)
University 5 - USC (Assistant coach shenanigans)
University 6 - Louisville (tied to paying Brian Bowen $100,000)
University 7 - Miami (Bidding war with at least Arizona over Nassir Little)
I don't know that I want to try to decipher all the players involved but that is the current gist
Last edited:
mattcoldagelli
- The Transfer Portal with Do Not Contact Tag
Why would the same rules apply when you've completely altered the cost-benefit?
RedRocksIllini
- Morrison, CO
How could anyone possibly doubt someone having MULTIPLE SOURCES with deep knowledge? :tsk:
The only thing missing from that bio is the steaming pile emoji.
SublimeBeast
- Dieterich, IL
I disagree, but that's what forums are for - discussion :thumb:. Wrong and right are black/white to me - to this degree anyway. I can understand the weakness of some being tempted though - but that's where morals come into play. Some are stronger than others.
And I have had my share of poverty and hard times...
This.
Can I personally understand taking the money? No. But I've been fortunate to never need to consider it (not that I've had the option).
I can appreciate that it is "wrong" but also appreciate that it is wrong that these kids are growing up in the circumstances they are to begin with.
As I stated, I don't disagree with your last statement. But one is far better off declaring the income and paying the taxes. The odds are likely pretty high that you won't be audited, and if you are there is no authority -- to my knowledge, and the Lois Lerners of the world notwithstanding -- for the IRS to refer a case to the NCAA. And if it "somehow" makes it's way there anyway, and the school is is "in trouble" and/or your kid loses his/her eligibility, you're still better off than getting whacked with civil and/or criminal repercussions by the IRS.
Last edited:
RichBradIllini
- Peoria
Because everyone else is doing it. That's your rule.
Well to be fair, the kids are generating a ton of income at college, just not for themselves or their family.
SublimeBeast
- Dieterich, IL
I agree.
How would you claim that income on your taxes? I don't imagine the bag of cash comes with a 1099 form attached to it.
mattcoldagelli
- The Transfer Portal with Do Not Contact Tag
That's not my "rule" - read better.
RichBradIllini
- Peoria
So then your rule is ethics don't apply if you live in poverty? That's a pretty cynical and condescending point of view. I think there's plenty of people living in poverty who wouldn't agree with your ethics.
mattcoldagelli
- The Transfer Portal with Do Not Contact Tag
My rule is that people will act according to how they weigh the costs and the benefits of their actions. If the money can really help, the benefit part of that equation goes up. If there's a belief that everyone is doing it and people very rarely get caught, the cost part of that equation goes down.
I'm not about to speak for mattcoldagelli - he can do that very well on his own - but it isn't cynical and condescending to say you shouldn't judge because you haven't been in that position. Plenty of people living in poverty might not take the money, but that doesn't automatically make them "moral" or "ethical."
Cliff Alexander's mom was living in one of the worst neighborhoods in Chicago with multiple children and working at a grocery store. I'm not about to judge the decisions someone in that situation makes.
Ethics and morals are not the same as laws and rules. Laws and rules are arbitrary and created by people for all sorts of reasons -- reasons that are not always "moral" or "ethical". In fact, it's entirely possible to have an immoral law or an unethical rule.
I also won't judge the person but it doesn't take away the fact that their particular actions were either illegal or unethical.
The whole conversation got started when someone suggested that parents should be held responsible for accepting recruit money the same as the booster/school/coach/shoe company/etc. They may have made a bad ethical decision to accept the money, but does that mean they should be held just as responsible as a multi-billion dollar athletic company who is taking advantage of their situation?
BananaShampoo
Captain 'Paign
- Phoenix, AZ
Well, that escalated quickly. Already almost up to 1,000 posts and it's been one day?
With regards to the ethics and poverty question, I think it's not a huge stretch nor is it a controversial position to take that those on the lower socio-economic end of the spectrum are more likely to engage in less ethical activity and take higher risks in the hopes of improving their financial position. Data showing crime rate concentrations and proportion of people that play the lottery bear this out and have since people started looking at statistical data. Why? They have less to lose and much more to gain that somebody who is already well off. Ethics sometimes take a backseat when it comes to the difference between being able to feed your family and provide a better future for your kids versus not.
With regards to the ethics and poverty question, I think it's not a huge stretch nor is it a controversial position to take that those on the lower socio-economic end of the spectrum are more likely to engage in less ethical activity and take higher risks in the hopes of improving their financial position. Data showing crime rate concentrations and proportion of people that play the lottery bear this out and have since people started looking at statistical data. Why? They have less to lose and much more to gain that somebody who is already well off. Ethics sometimes take a backseat when it comes to the difference between being able to feed your family and provide a better future for your kids versus not.
- Status