• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

College basketball bribery scandal

I realize people like to rip on Wellman and Wake for allegedly not "doing whatever it takes" to compete in the modern sports landscape. But I do feel a bit of confidence that Wake tries to keep things on the up and up. And I feel good about that right now. Hopefully we've steered clear of this scandal.
 
Smith's Dad was the AAU coach for an Adidas sponsored AAU team. They didn't have to bribe anyone. They could/did/can pay him legally. He's not going to be the problem if NCSU gets caught up in this.
I said I didn't think NC State was involved already. Also, there is a difference between being paid for running an AAU team and actually giving under the table payments to ensure a player (even his own son) goes to a certain school or brand of schools.
 
I realize people like to rip on Wellman and Wake for allegedly not "doing whatever it takes" to compete in the modern sports landscape. But I do feel a bit of confidence that Wake tries to keep things on the up and up. And I feel good about that right now. Hopefully we've steered clear of this scandal.

I've got a lot of problems with Wellman, but I'm glad we've had him instead of a guy like Tom Jurich. That guy was nothing but a mob boss.
 
Nike was probably paying kids to NOT go to Wake during the Bzz era.
 
Getting rid of the one year rule would allow kids that want quick money to turn pro out of high school (or even before). They could go to the G league, get sponsorships, etc. I think it would help quite a bit regarding the under-the-table shady deals. I also don't think it would affect college hoops, as the team is way more important than individuals in terms of college viewership interest. As a comparison, MLB is a multi billion dollar business, but you don't hear of shady recruiting, runners, etc. trying to get kids to go to certain colleges because they can just turn pro out of high school.

NCAA basketball viewership would slowly drop closer and closer to baseball viewership.

And the simple solution to paying players right out of high school is to pay college athletes.
 
I'm kinda surprised they didn't go after Nike. They are the 800 pound gorilla.
 
A good overview of how and why the investigation got started and how it proceeded.

The step-by-step process of how the words "corruption" and "fraud" came to college basketball
espn.com
Mark Schlabach
ESPN Senior Writer
Wed. 4/27/2017 4:29pm

On Tuesday, the FBI announced that 10 people, including four college basketball assistant coaches, were arrested as part of a three-year investigation into bribes and other corruption in the sport.

Assistant coaches from Arizona, Auburn, Louisville, Miami, Oklahoma State and USC were implicated in the investigation, and on Wednesday, Louisville announced that athletic director Tom Jurich and longtime basketball coach Rick Pitino were placed on administrative leave.

Joon H. Kim, acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, told reporters that the investigation was ongoing. There might be additional arrests and more schools involved.

Court records and sealed complaints released by the U.S. Attorney's office reveal an elaborate, clandestine FBI investigation that involves wiretaps, surveillance video, undercover agents and cooperating witnesses. Here is a look at some of the findings:

First the coaches ...

On May 6, 2016, Louis Martin "Marty" Blazer III, a Pittsburgh-based financial adviser, was charged by the Securities and Exchange Commission with wire fraud and accused of siphoning $2.35 million from the accounts of several professional athletes in order to invest in movie projects and make Ponzi-like payments. According to the SEC's complaint, when its examiners uncovered the unauthorized withdrawals and asked Blazer to explain them, he lied and produced falsified documents in an attempt to hide his misconduct...

From the article....

In 2015, Blazer was also linked to an investigation of improper cash payments to University of North Carolina football players. A grand jury indicted former Tar Heels player Christopher Hawkins for violating the state's sports agent law by giving money to a UNC player and illegally contacting another about signing a contract. During the investigation, former UNC linebacker Robert Quinn told state investigators that Hawkins gave Quinn money to steer him to Blazer and agent Peter Schaffer, according to court documents. Kendric Burney, the other former UNC player, told investigators that Hawkins arranged and attended Burney's meetings with Blazer and Schaffer.

How is Carolina not yet been punished by the NCAA? Still don't understand....
 
F
How is Carolina not yet been punished by the NCAA? Still don't understand....

Federal crime. NCAA doesn't have jurisdiction and UNC-CH is already loading up for a lawsuit.
 
Nike has been subpoenaed per Mike and Mike.
Greenberg cited the source ? some lawyer and Nike had no response.
 
Last edited:
Maybe the feds can get rid of AAU as we know it and have the kids coached again.
 
Seems to me a private school assistant coach could take money and though unethical and against NCAA rules would not be illegal. The Public school assistants seemingly can be pounded because they are employed by the public and therefore are taking bribes.

Yeah, this is what I don't get. I'm certainly no expert in federal criminal law, but don't federal bribery crimes deal with payments to government officials? I can see how, loosely, an assistant coach for a state school could be considered a public official. But in the long ESPN explanation article it discusses payments circling around Miami (a private school) for Nassir. Say in the most direct example, Adidas pays a Miami assistant coach money to give to a player's parent to get that player to commit to Miami ... what is illegal about that? Obviously it violates NCAA eligibility requirements, but none of that is an actual crime. How is that any different than paying a real estate broker to get one person to buy a house from another person? Or any other sort of broker or consultant fee? Assuming the underlying act is not a crime (like drug dealing or prostitution), I can pay anyone for anything. Choosing a college isn't a crime.
 
NCAA basketball viewership would slowly drop closer and closer to baseball viewership.

And the simple solution to paying players right out of high school is to pay college athletes.

I just dont see how this works. Do you you have to pay equally with genders because of Title IX? Do you pay commensurate to value? Is there a salary cap? How do non High Majors compete in this environment when their programs are either breaking even or losing money? I get what you are saying, but a college payment structure introduces more problems than it solves imo. I would probably go the baseball route. You can leave out of high school or you have to play 3 years. College basketball would lose some talent, but it would also gain some talent. Guys like Collins would be there an extra year and dominate. This would allow the uber elite players to go make millions out of high school, and it would protect the beauty of college basketball, which is the art of the upset. Mid Majors simply cannot afford to pay 13 basketball players and 85 football players. Due to Title IX, you would have to equally pay 98 women athletes who are bringing in a negative stream. The numbers don't work. Even at a low payment rate of $15k / year (which by the way, wouldn't stop the underground market for the highest paid players), you are talking about a cost of $3,000,000 to $4,000,000 per year. There is now way smaller schools and absorb that. And that is with a flat, low pay model. Baseball has a 0/3 system and football has a 3 year requirement. 18 year old basketball elites can clearly safely compete in the NBA, so I don't see the NFL model as applicable. I would probably go on the MLB model, and beef up the G-League.
 
Yeah, this is what I don't get. I'm certainly no expert in federal criminal law, but don't federal bribery crimes deal with payments to government officials? I can see how, loosely, an assistant coach for a state school could be considered a public official. But in the long ESPN explanation article it discusses payments circling around Miami (a private school) for Nassir. Say in the most direct example, Adidas pays a Miami assistant coach money to give to a player's parent to get that player to commit to Miami ... what is illegal about that? Obviously it violates NCAA eligibility requirements, but none of that is an actual crime. How is that any different than paying a real estate broker to get one person to buy a house from another person? Or any other sort of broker or consultant fee? Assuming the underlying act is not a crime (like drug dealing or prostitution), I can pay anyone for anything. Choosing a college isn't a crime.

From Page 2 of the complaint against Lamont Evans et al (includes Bland at USC). Emphasis added:

"2. It was a part and object of the conspiracy that LAMONT
EVANS, EMANUEL RICHARDSON, a/k/a "Book," and ANTHONY BLAND,
a/k/a "Tony," the defendants, being agents of organizations that
received, in a one-year period, benefits in excess of $10,000
under a Federal program involving a grant, contract, subsidy,
loan, guarantee, insurance, and other form of Federal
assistance
, to wit, University-2, University-3, University-4,
and University-5,1 corruptly would and did solicit and demand for
the benefit of a person, and accept and agree to accept,
something of value from, among others, CHRISTIAN DAWKINS and
MUNISH SOOD, the defendants, and a cooperating witness for the
Government ("CW-1") and undercover law enforcement officers,
intending to be influenced and rewarded in connection with a
business, transaction, and series of transactions of such
organizations, involving something of value of $5,000 and more,
in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section
666(a)(1)(B)."
https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/us-attorney-announces-arrest-10-individuals-including-four-division-i-coaches-college#_ftn1
 
Last edited:
Yeah, this is what I don't get. I'm certainly no expert in federal criminal law, but don't federal bribery crimes deal with payments to government officials? I can see how, loosely, an assistant coach for a state school could be considered a public official. But in the long ESPN explanation article it discusses payments circling around Miami (a private school) for Nassir. Say in the most direct example, Adidas pays a Miami assistant coach money to give to a player's parent to get that player to commit to Miami ... what is illegal about that? Obviously it violates NCAA eligibility requirements, but none of that is an actual crime. How is that any different than paying a real estate broker to get one person to buy a house from another person? Or any other sort of broker or consultant fee? Assuming the underlying act is not a crime (like drug dealing or prostitution), I can pay anyone for anything. Choosing a college isn't a crime.

That's where the money laundering charges come in. It's not like anyone is reporting this money on their tax returns. You're talking about a series of six figure under the table payments where the source and the destination of the money is being hidden. If you pay a real estate broker, they hopefully aren't hiding this fact from the IRS.
 
The easiest solution would be the NCAA relaxing rules on players receiving income and endorsements from outside parties. If adidas or nike wants to pay a player, let them. If they want to get endorsements from local business, let them. Allow schools to provide a modest stipend on top of that and that should eliminate most of these problems.
 
I just dont see how this works. Do you you have to pay equally with genders because of Title IX? Do you pay commensurate to value? Is there a salary cap? How do non High Majors compete in this environment when their programs are either breaking even or losing money? I get what you are saying, but a college payment structure introduces more problems than it solves imo. I would probably go the baseball route. You can leave out of high school or you have to play 3 years. College basketball would lose some talent, but it would also gain some talent. Guys like Collins would be there an extra year and dominate. This would allow the uber elite players to go make millions out of high school, and it would protect the beauty of college basketball, which is the art of the upset. Mid Majors simply cannot afford to pay 13 basketball players and 85 football players. Due to Title IX, you would have to equally pay 98 women athletes who are bringing in a negative stream. The numbers don't work. Even at a low payment rate of $15k / year (which by the way, wouldn't stop the underground market for the highest paid players), you are talking about a cost of $3,000,000 to $4,000,000 per year. There is now way smaller schools and absorb that. And that is with a flat, low pay model. Baseball has a 0/3 system and football has a 3 year requirement. 18 year old basketball elites can clearly safely compete in the NBA, so I don't see the NFL model as applicable. I would probably go on the MLB model, and beef up the G-League.

It can't work under Title IX. This is when it the argument again comes up for a group of 40-80 "schools" to form their own league and cease being amateur athletics.

I do think the argument that getting rid of the one and done's turns basketball in to college baseball is flawed. There are only two rounds of NBA draft and if you figure that the 60 kids drafted each year would be about 30 high school, 20 international and 10 college you're really only taking 30 kids out of college basketball each year (who are only there for 1-2 years anyway).
 
The easiest solution would be the NCAA relaxing rules on players receiving income and endorsements from outside parties. If adidas or nike wants to pay a player, let them. If they want to get endorsements from local business, let them. Allow schools to provide a modest stipend on top of that and that should eliminate most of these problems.

And solves the Title IX problem, too.
 
Back
Top