Hope the UW Huskies don't have to forfeit those 9 wins.Former Huskies star Markelle Fultz received $10K from sports agent before arriving at UW, report says
Fultz reportedly received a $10,000 loan from the agency, according to a balance sheet dated Dec. 31, 2015, which is an impermissible benefit and a violation of NCAA recruiting rules. According to that timeline, he received the loan after signing with UW in early November 2015 and before coming to school the next fall.
That's my question also. And if the trial shows so many schools were offering money and the NCAA does nothing about it then you might as well throw out the whole NCAA model and start over.The question for me is, are any of these schools even going to get punished? Or will the NCAA simply sweep under the rug and say there was too much corruption to individually punish. "We've rooted it out now". Which is BS.
That's my question also. And if the trial shows so many schools were offering money and the NCAA does nothing about it then you might as well throw out the whole NCAA model and start over.
Wow, I would have loved to be on that jury. Although I'm not sure I would want to be a juror on a trial that is going to last weeks.I was in the room yesterday as a potential juror. For obvious reasons I was not picked
I was in the room yesterday as a potential juror. For obvious reasons I was not picked
During opening statements Tuesday, attorneys for a former Adidas executive did not deny he conspired to or made payments to the families of high-profile basketball recruits.
"NCAA rules were broken," attorney Casey Donnelly told the jury. "We are not going to waste your time pretending these families did not get funds."
Attorneys: Ex-Adidas exec didn't break laws
James Gatto is not disputing that money changed hands. So now that that's out of the way what does the NCAA do? This is going to be very interesting.
Uh, what about the claims they appropriated those cash payments to bogus expenses accounting wise? Isn't that laundering, wire-fraud, or something like that?
That's my question also. And if the trial shows so many schools were offering money and the NCAA does nothing about it then you might as well throw out the whole NCAA model and start over.
Well if the NCAA is saying it's O.K. to pay recruits with no retribution then doesn't that change the whole model? Opens up a huge can of worms. Do you then put schools in 2 categories - one that wants to pay recruits and another that doesn't?How is this fair to the schools that played by the rules though?
Well if the NCAA is saying it's O.K. to pay recruits with no retribution then doesn't that change the whole model? Opens up a huge can of worms. Do you then put schools in 2 categories - one that wants to pay recruits and another that doesn't?
Well if the NCAA is saying it's O.K. to pay recruits with no retribution then doesn't that change the whole model? Opens up a huge can of worms. Do you then put schools in 2 categories - one that wants to pay recruits and another that doesn't?