ESPN on the FBI investigation

[Sky ball]

Me thinks there is wrongdoing on the athlete's (family) side as well as the institution-NCAA, agents, NBA, etc. But, if we're talking contractual relationship, it's an adhesion relationship, the relationship is inequitable. It's the athlete and perhaps athlete's family in some instances with limited resources vs. institutions -NCAA with a vault. So, while I get holding all involved accountable, I think a clear view shows percentages of assigned fault. Lastly, and I hate being political and slightly OT, but why is it that women's hoops tend to get off scot-free? Certainly, their five-star recruits have a marketplace.

Maybe but who watches? We watch as UConn fans but do other non competing fans watch? Non-competing fans in men's Football and Basketball do watch. The money is minuscule compared to men's sports. We hear little about abuses in men's Tennis, Swimming, Soccer and Polo why? Not to belittle those teams/sports but the fan base (CASH) is just not there.

 

[freescooter]

The football analogy is silly for many reasons. First and foremost it is irrelevant. If football players are being paid that neither justifies nor legitimize paying basketball players. It’s like a bank robber using a defense that he isn’t a stock swindler. It might be true but it is irrelevant

 

[gtcam]

If Sean Miller is doing this, and we now know it's a fact, then there is absolutely no doubt that K, the Squid. Self, Williams, and others who regularly get the top 20 players are doing it either themselves or having others doing it on their behalf. When money is being tossed around there is bidding wars and it takes more than one to participate.\
Being that UConn has had none of these types, it seems doubtful they are/were participants

 

[Sky ball]

The football analogy is silly for many reasons. First and foremost it is irrelevant. If football players are being paid that neither justifies nor legitimize paying basketball players. It’s like a bank robber using a defense that he isn’t a stock swindler. It might be true but it is irrelevant

That is a silly answer. Break it down this way: NCAA Rules and College Athletes. Men's basketball and football = Big bucks to all involved. Anything else not so much. Cheating and corruption follow the money.

 

[intlzncster]

This whole “pay the players” point of view is obtuse. If you allowed payment then everybody gets a slice. Of course nobody will stop there. The Millers of the world will still say “how about an extra 100k to choose me”. It’s a diversion from the corruption to a topic many are sympathetic too. They are playing us.

Yeah, I've never understood this take and argued it before. I mean, I do think they deserve the right to make their own money, but it's not going to stop 'corruption'. It's just going to effectively legitimize it.

The handlers, big companies, agents, and boosters are going to be throwing around that much more cash.

 

[intlzncster]

Me thinks there is wrongdoing on the athlete's (family) side as well as the institution-NCAA, agents, NBA, etc. But, if we're talking contractual relationship, it's an adhesion relationship, the relationship is inequitable. It's the athlete and perhaps athlete's family in some instances with limited resources vs. institutions -NCAA with a vault. So, while I get holding all involved accountable, I think a clear view shows percentages of assigned fault.

As participants, kids and families are definitely at fault, but my personal feeling is that I hold next to nothing against them in that regard. If a kid comes from nothing, even a couple thousand is a huge deal for them.

That said, from simply a moral perspective, if a family member extracts money without the kid's knowledge, thereby putting the his college career at risk, I do have a problem with that.

Lastly, and I hate being political and slightly OT, but why is it that women's hoops tend to get off scot-free? Certainly, their five-star recruits have a marketplace.

Probably a matter of ROI (lack thereof). I'm sure it happens to some degree, but the money at stake is so limited, I'm skeptical anybody bothers. Shoe companies don't make enough off the pros to warrant investment. All but 2 or 3 WCBB schools lose money. I think the most likely scenario is some booster who is into WCBB may dip their toe in the water for their own personal enjoyment.

Maybe there's a little bit going on, but it's not remotely worth the hassle of looking into.

 

[intlzncster]

Thinking about your FBI Strategic in nature comment. It could also be directed at Football. If this is going on in basketball I can just imagine what is going on in Football? 10X? 20X? 100X? 1000X?

I have a feeling football is different, driven far more by boosters and potential pro agents, rather than athletic companies. Shoe deals are a big business in basketball. Not so in football; the average star player isn't as marketable on that front. Nobody cares if Alabama is a Nike school.

And the structure/nature of AAU BB provides a conduit for athletic companies and agents to latch on to and guide both the high school and college careers of individual athletes.

 

[intlzncster]

When money is being tossed around there is bidding wars and it takes more than one to participate. Being that UConn has had none of these types, it seems doubtful they are/were participants

Doesn't mean UCONN hasn't tried.

 

[Drame]

I once had a boss who liked to say “ For every problem there is a solution that is simple, straight forward, and completely wrong.” That is the “paying the players” solution. Especially in basketball but in baseball and a few others too players can already go a route to get paid. There is th d league, Europe, Asia for all I know Australia and Antarctica. So that argument is a total non-starter and utterly irrelevant to the issue st hand. Want to pay for play? Go to Sweden and prove yourself there.

The schools dont have to pay the players but the players should be able to earn money elsewhere from endorsements, EA sports, agents, tournaments, whatever. The amateurism model does not need to apply to college athletes. That way schools/ncaa arent on the hook for being a for profit business and all the other problems associated with paying the athletes.

 

[upstater]

The schools dont have to pay the players but the players should be able to earn money elsewhere from endorsements, EA sports, agents, tournaments, whatever. The amateurism model does not need to apply to college athletes. That way schools/ncaa arent on the hook for being a for profit business and all the other problems associated with paying the athletes.

The reason the NCAA sticks to the model of no extra payment is not because there is a limitation on work (although both athletes and other students are indeed contractual limited from working during the academic school year, which makes sense for a variety of reasons) but because it endangers the whole enterprise. If you allow college players to take money from outside sources, then the schools with the highest bidders are gong to get the players. And this presents a problem for the competitive nature of the sport.