NCAA Investigation

[CatsTopPac]

Hey gents (and any ladies, of course),

I'm back in the states for a bit so I thought I'd hop back on here a bit until I leave again. I'm still not following CBB anywhere close to where I have due to the investigations--and being out of the country. I was at a super bowl party catching up with some friends and we got to talking about AZ basketball and the class coming in next year. Of course, they were all stoked. Seems to me that everyone who signs with AZ (and a few other programs) will more or less be subject to NCAA sanctions for the dance next year--and beyond. Some of my buddies took the position that they really won't do anything to AZ because then they'd have to punish dozens of P5 schools--and what would that do to CBB?

Their position then, would be that given the long list of programs who are involved, how could the NCAA punish all of them and there be anything left to the sport? It's a good point, and also my concern. It doesn't have to only be those affected by the FBI investigation. "Failure to foster an environment of compliance" is not only vague, but it doesn't have to rely on the HC knowing beforehand. I think we can agree that dozens of programs failed to foster an environment of compliance. "Accepting improper benefits" is also another violation that could affect dozens and dozens of schools even if paid back. Just taking the Pac for example, obviously AZ, and USC have proven to have cheated through their coaches who pleaded guilty. Although I'm still under the belief that it's pretty tough for the HC to not know while felonies are committed on his behalf, the NCAA has free rein to impose sanctions. Oregon's now been accused of offering money for Bowen, Fultz got paid to go to UW, and Jay Williams straight up admitted on national TV that his group paid Kevin Love a quarter mil to go to UCLA. I think Utah is also on the list. Haha, am I missing anyone? That's half of the Pac right there. What does the conference look like if just those teams are sanctioned? What does a conference tourney look like? And that's just who we know about. Looking at other conferences, it's the same thing. What does March look like with like 1/4 or 1/3 of at-large teams under sanctions (more or less)?

But if the NCAA does nothing to punish them, then it's essentially like giving them the go-ahead to continue to break the rules (if not the law) and CBB is officially a joke. A buddy of mine brought up that the NCAA might not punish the schools because they will move to pay the players. It seems to me that the only way the NCAA could not impose mass sanctions is by changing the system entirely.

What do you think? I'm not asking if you think the players should be paid (or how)--although we can talk about that. I'm asking if you think the NCAA will pay players, and not impose sanctions because of that. That's pretty much the only way they could get away with not punishing programs, right? I'm also not trying to defend AZ, nor do I give a fuck if you just want to talk shit. I'm trying to figure out if you see the same problem I do. Either the NCAA has to bury college basketball for a few years with sanctions, or they have to pay players, right? The only other way is to do nothing. For all the bullshit the NCAA imposes out of nowhere, it seems to me that they would have to act against felons and the system they exploited, right? Seems to me that the NCAA will finish their investigation and realize that they have to pay players or they're fucked. I think it'll take a few years and some different ideas of how to do it so it works, but the writing is on the wall.

Then yahoo prints this article (as you may have seen) so I thought I'd hit you guys up to see what you think.
With NCAA investigation underway, Arizona's Sean Miller faces complicated future

 

[520GGATO]

**Long Post**
Fucking Miller should have fired Book after the first time he fucked up and did some shady shit. Miller is loyal, to damn loyal for his own good.

With that said, so far...
With Book: The main story with him that pertains to Arizona was that he recieved money ($20,000) (bribes, what the FBI cares about) to give to Arizona players (what the NCAA cares about) so that they sign with a specific agent (Dawkins). It hasn't been said at all officially that any players actually got any money besides Book saying he gave some to a player (Rawle Alkins rumored).
It was also rumored that he gave some money to at the time commited PG recruit Jahvon Quinley's mom. But he's been cleared by the NCAA and is playing for Villanova right now.

With Pasternack: I haven't really cared to read about him on this besides he was with Book when some of these shady meetings went down and might have something to do with it.

Now with big fish Miller:

1. Lets start off with the suppose taps about Miller discussing paying Ayton or Ayton's family 100 grand. This has actually only been announced by ESPN's what's his face about there being wire taps on Miller. He actually hasn't heard taps or seen transcripts of it (he's going off somebody's word) and has actually changed the dates three times and to this very day they still don't line up with Ayton's recruitment. *Miller and Dawkins discussing Ayton's recruitment even though Ayton was already committed to Arizona. It is rumored he got this info from Dawkins lawyer. These suppose wires have already been questioned by SI, 247, and some other media sites with 247 saying the wires might actually help Miller. (This was about a week after the ESPN news broke.)
2. Now with another high profile recruit.(name escapes me) His father said in the trial that Dawkins told him that Arizona was offering I think 100 grand. And that's the story on that. It was never brought up again in court. No actual proof was ever shown or let shown.
3. Miller and Dawkins have actually talked before which has been admitted by Miller. This Dawkins guy was the handler of that other high profile recruit (^) and the only way to recruit him and to talk to him was to go through Dawkins.

Also said in trial was that Ayton's friend might have/or was paid to try to convince Ayton to go to Kansas. (His family never received money.)

Dawkins has been indicted for a shit load of bribes and racking up $42,000 in Uber charges on an unnamed NBA player's credit card. Impressive. He's a proven fraud so take everything he says with a few kilos of salt.

That's all I really remember about this whole shit storm. Did Miller order the 100 grand hit on Ayton or was it just for 100 grand worth of tostitos pizza rolls? I don't know. Maybe we'll find out in this upcoming episode.

As far as AZ board of regents meetings go those are all regulary scheduled for updates and have been going on for almost a year now. So some people keep freaking out about it for no reason. BTW, the regents hold no FIRE power.

The only new info in that Yahoo article is the NCAA is now looking at Arizona which was already going to happen. It just happened to start sooner than expected.

Hope this helps @CatsTopPac

Anyone feel free to add to or to point and laugh at. Lolz.

 

[520GGATO]

Shout out to @FORKWDEVIL
Free my homie JahiiCarson_SqodGeneral!

 

[ericd7633]

Hey gents (and any ladies, of course),

I'm back in the states for a bit so I thought I'd hop back on here a bit until I leave again. I'm still not following CBB anywhere close to where I have due to the investigations--and being out of the country. I was at a super bowl party catching up with some friends and we got to talking about AZ basketball and the class coming in next year. Of course, they were all stoked. Seems to me that everyone who signs with AZ (and a few other programs) will more or less be subject to NCAA sanctions for the dance next year--and beyond. Some of my buddies took the position that they really won't do anything to AZ because then they'd have to punish dozens of P5 schools--and what would that do to CBB?

Their position then, would be that given the long list of programs who are involved, how could the NCAA punish all of them and there be anything left to the sport? It's a good point, and also my concern. It doesn't have to only be those affected by the FBI investigation. "Failure to foster an environment of compliance" is not only vague, but it doesn't have to rely on the HC knowing beforehand. I think we can agree that dozens of programs failed to foster an environment of compliance. "Accepting improper benefits" is also another violation that could affect dozens and dozens of schools even if paid back. Just taking the Pac for example, obviously AZ, and USC have proven to have cheated through their coaches who pleaded guilty. Although I'm still under the belief that it's pretty tough for the HC to not know while felonies are committed on his behalf, the NCAA has free rein to impose sanctions. Oregon's now been accused of offering money for Bowen, Fultz got paid to go to UW, and Jay Williams straight up admitted on national TV that his group paid Kevin Love a quarter mil to go to UCLA. I think Utah is also on the list. Haha, am I missing anyone? That's half of the Pac right there. What does the conference look like if just those teams are sanctioned? What does a conference tourney look like? And that's just who we know about. Looking at other conferences, it's the same thing. What does March look like with like 1/4 or 1/3 of at-large teams under sanctions (more or less)?

But if the NCAA does nothing to punish them, then it's essentially like giving them the go-ahead to continue to break the rules (if not the law) and CBB is officially a joke. A buddy of mine brought up that the NCAA might not punish the schools because they will move to pay the players. It seems to me that the only way the NCAA could not impose mass sanctions is by changing the system entirely.

What do you think? I'm not asking if you think the players should be paid (or how)--although we can talk about that. I'm asking if you think the NCAA will pay players, and not impose sanctions because of that. That's pretty much the only way they could get away with not punishing programs, right? I'm also not trying to defend AZ, nor do I give a fuck if you just want to talk shit. I'm trying to figure out if you see the same problem I do. Either the NCAA has to bury college basketball for a few years with sanctions, or they have to pay players, right? The only other way is to do nothing. For all the bullshit the NCAA imposes out of nowhere, it seems to me that they would have to act against felons and the system they exploited, right? Seems to me that the NCAA will finish their investigation and realize that they have to pay players or they're fucked. I think it'll take a few years and some different ideas of how to do it so it works, but the writing is on the wall.

Then yahoo prints this article (as you may have seen) so I thought I'd hit you guys up to see what you think.
With NCAA investigation underway, Arizona's Sean Miller faces complicated future

Welcome back. IMO, I'd much rather see the head coaches in charge be subjected to penalties before the programs, especially in the case of the FBI investigation. If you have assistants/parents/guardians taking money from someone to secure a commitment for a kid to enroll at a specific program(without the players' knowledge) I don't see how you can penalize the player in that instance(this mostly has to do with the Silvio De Sousa ruling). These coaches act like they have no clue what's going, but most of them can be traced back to having some type of communication with these "runner" guys or whatever you want to call them.

I ultimately don't think this will lead to the players getting paid though. I do think we'll see a bunch of programs get placed on a one year postseason ban. And as of now, at least off the top of my head, the only programs I can think of that have been connected someway to the investigation are: Arizona, USC, Auburn, Louisville, Miami, Oklahoma State and Kansas. I know there have been reports that have come out with programs like Washington(Fultz), Michigan State, Duke, Oregon etc. but I don't think those programs have been come up in the internal FBI investigation. Just the first 7 that I've mentioned. If you gave all those first 7 programs a one year post season ban, I don't think it would harm the sport any 4 of those schools aren't making it this year anyways, one is a traditional football school, Louisville was just banned like 3 years ago, and Kansas would obviously be the huge hit, since they are basically a 1 or 2 seed every season.

 

[520GGATO]

Welcome back. IMO, I'd much rather see the head coaches in charge be subjected to penalties before the programs, especially in the case of the FBI investigation. If you have assistants/parents/guardians taking money from someone to secure a commitment for a kid to enroll at a specific program(without the players' knowledge) I don't see how you can penalize the player in that instance(this mostly has to do with the Silvio De Sousa ruling). These coaches act like they have no clue what's going, but most of them can be traced back to having some type of communication with these "runner" guys or whatever you want to call them.

I ultimately don't think this will lead to the players getting paid though. I do think we'll see a bunch of programs get placed on a one year postseason ban. And as of now, at least off the top of my head, the only programs I can think of that have been connected someway to the investigation are: Arizona, USC, Auburn, Louisville, Miami, Oklahoma State and Kansas. I know there have been reports that have come out with programs like Washington(Fultz), Michigan State, Duke, Oregon etc. but I don't think those programs have been come up in the internal FBI investigation. Just the first 7 that I've mentioned. If you gave all those first 7 programs a one year post season ban, I don't think it would harm the sport any 4 of those schools aren't making it this year anyways, one is a traditional football school, Louisville was just banned like 3 years ago, and Kansas would obviously be the huge hit, since they are basically a 1 or 2 seed every season.

^ All this.
I'd also take a post season ban this year If it means saving next seasons incoming class.

 

[rmilia1]

I think it's pretty clear with how the NCAA is handling the players reportedly involved ( despite done of them allegedly having no knowledge ) that every program on the list is fucked for at least 1 year . You can't suspend players for 2 years and not penalize the schools involved . Maybe they'll only ban the schools with concrete proof but my guess is this is going to be example time and if it means the tourney sucks for a year then that will be considered a small price to pay

 

[520GGATO]

BTW @CatsTopPac I wouldn't follow any of the Tucson media on this. They've been putting out a lot of misinformation and misleading headlines through this whole thing. Some are foaming at the mouth like they did for Lute in his final years.

 

[CatsTopPac]

**Long Post**
Fucking Miller should have fired Book after the first time he fucked up and did some shady shit. Miller is loyal, to damn loyal for his own good.

With that said, so far...
With Book: The main story with him that pertains to Arizona was that he recieved money ($20,000) (bribes, what the FBI cares about) to give to Arizona players (what the NCAA cares about) so that they sign with a specific agent (Dawkins). It hasn't been said at all officially that any players actually got any money besides Book saying he gave some to a player (Rawle Alkins rumored).
It was also rumored that he gave some money to at the time commited PG recruit Jahvon Quinley's mom. But he's been cleared by the NCAA and is playing for Villanova right now.

With Pasternack: I haven't really cared to read about him on this besides he was with Book when some of these shady meetings went down and might have something to do with it.

Now with big fish Miller:

1. Lets start off with the suppose taps about Miller discussing paying Ayton or Ayton's family 100 grand. This has actually only been announced by ESPN's what's his face about there being wire taps on Miller. He actually hasn't heard taps or seen transcripts of it (he's going off somebody's word) and has actually changed the dates three times and to this very day they still don't line up with Ayton's recruitment. *Miller and Dawkins discussing Ayton's recruitment even though Ayton was already committed to Arizona. It is rumored he got this info from Dawkins lawyer. These suppose wires have already been questioned by SI, 247, and some other media sites with 247 saying the wires might actually help Miller. (This was about a week after the ESPN news broke.)
2. Now with another high profile recruit.(name escapes me) His father said in the trial that Dawkins told him that Arizona was offering I think 100 grand. And that's the story on that. It was never brought up again in court. No actual proof was ever shown or let shown.
3. Miller and Dawkins have actually talked before which has been admitted by Miller. This Dawkins guy was the handler of that other high profile recruit (^) and the only way to recruit him and to talk to him was to go through Dawkins.

Also said in trial was that Ayton's friend might have/or was paid to try to convince Ayton to go to Kansas. (His family never received money.)

Dawkins has been indicted for a shit load of bribes and racking up $42,000 in Uber charges on an unnamed NBA player's credit card. Impressive. He's a proven fraud so take everything he says with a few kilos of salt.

That's all I really remember about this whole shit storm. Did Miller order the 100 grand hit on Ayton or was it just for 100 grand worth of tostitos pizza rolls? I don't know. Maybe we'll find out in this upcoming episode.

As far as AZ board of regents meetings go those are all regulary scheduled for updates and have been going on for almost a year now. So some people keep freaking out about it for no reason. BTW, the regents hold no FIRE power.

The only new info in that Yahoo article is the NCAA is now looking at Arizona which was already going to happen. It just happened to start sooner than expected.

Hope this helps @CatsTopPac

Anyone feel free to add to or to point and laugh at. Lolz.

Hey Gato, good to see you on here.

Yeah, it'll be interesting. I just think that with Book and Paternack paying players without Miller knowing is too much for me to believe. And again, it screams a lack of institutional control, regardless of if Miller knew or not. And Miller not reporting Dawkins after he asked Miller to pay players is another hit against him. I just think the NCAA is going to come down hard on him, and AZ too. I just can't buy that Miler didn't know when the two people closest to him in the program were buying players behind his back.

I know that the media and ESPN especially tried to tie paying Ayton to Miller and I still don't think that's exactly accurate. But with the shit you mentioned about Alkins, Quinley, and Nasir Little too right?

 

[CatsTopPac]

Welcome back. IMO, I'd much rather see the head coaches in charge be subjected to penalties before the programs, especially in the case of the FBI investigation. If you have assistants/parents/guardians taking money from someone to secure a commitment for a kid to enroll at a specific program(without the players' knowledge) I don't see how you can penalize the player in that instance(this mostly has to do with the Silvio De Sousa ruling). These coaches act like they have no clue what's going, but most of them can be traced back to having some type of communication with these "runner" guys or whatever you want to call them.

I ultimately don't think this will lead to the players getting paid though. I do think we'll see a bunch of programs get placed on a one year postseason ban. And as of now, at least off the top of my head, the only programs I can think of that have been connected someway to the investigation are: Arizona, USC, Auburn, Louisville, Miami, Oklahoma State and Kansas. I know there have been reports that have come out with programs like Washington(Fultz), Michigan State, Duke, Oregon etc. but I don't think those programs have been come up in the internal FBI investigation. Just the first 7 that I've mentioned. If you gave all those first 7 programs a one year post season ban, I don't think it would harm the sport any 4 of those schools aren't making it this year anyways, one is a traditional football school, Louisville was just banned like 3 years ago, and Kansas would obviously be the huge hit, since they are basically a 1 or 2 seed every season.

I'd like to see it follow those doing the actual wrong-doing as well. And as much as I have sympathy for the players (and think they should have the least severe punishment) they still know they're getting paid.

I think a few dozen programs were on the take and the FBI will uncover them even if it's only important for who broke rules and not laws. I have to imagine a lot of lawyers are trying to play it off as rules violations and not laws, which will give the NCAA more ammo. And breaking federal law, or as deep as it is, I think it will be more than a year. I think it's far worse than that.

 

[CatsTopPac]

I think it's pretty clear with how the NCAA is handling the players reportedly involved ( despite done of them allegedly having no knowledge ) that every program on the list is fucked for at least 1 year . You can't suspend players for 2 years and not penalize the schools involved . Maybe they'll only ban the schools with concrete proof but my guess is this is going to be example time and if it means the tourney sucks for a year then that will be considered a small price to pay

I agree with you rmilla. I think it'll be worse than one year, and it will extend to quite a few schools. I know they uncovered a bunch of free means and stuff and I'm not sure the reach will extend that far. But it's pretty clear to me that schools were bidding on top players which means there is plenty of proof of a lack of institutional control and fostering compliance. And as these coaches start singing it'll go deeper (imo).

 

[CatsTopPac]

I just don't think there is a way out of this for the NCAA. Wasn't it like 30 schools that they said did something directly (in terms of participation), or at least bid on players? I'm seeing plenty of names on these lists. I think a few of them are in danger of legal exposure, but so many more will fall under violations for the NCAA. Being that the NCAA just started--I think because they were waiting for the FBI to open it up for them--by the end of next season I think a bunch of teams will be affected. I guess we'll see, but if the NCAA only hands down a year probation for a handful of teams (and not pay players) then it stands to say it's a green light for coaches to keep doing it as long as they can hover between avoiding FBI charges and not getting caught by the NCAA.

 

[ericd7633]

I just don't think there is a way out of this for the NCAA. Wasn't it like 30 schools that they said did something directly (in terms of participation), or at least bid on players? I'm seeing plenty of names on these lists. I think a few of them are in danger of legal exposure, but so many more will fall under violations for the NCAA. Being that the NCAA just started--I think because they were waiting for the FBI to open it up for them--by the end of next season I think a bunch of teams will be affected. I guess we'll see, but if the NCAA only hands down a year probation for a handful of teams (and not pay players) then it stands to say it's a green light for coaches to keep doing it as long as they can hover between avoiding FBI charges and not getting caught by the NCAA.

There were only six schools in the initial FBI investigation. Arizona, USC, Miami, Louisville, Oklahoma State and Auburn. Four adidas-sponsored universities are named in a superseding indictment: Kansas, Louisville, Miami and N.C. State. According to what I've read everything else is minor in detail. If I had to guess I'd any post season bans were to come down it would be for the above 8 programs mentioned.

I think you're confusing the programs that had coaches accepting payments/parents/guardians accepting payments or seek payment and those that had an encounter with these guys and had a lunch/dinner. There is a big difference IMO.

 

[CatsTopPac]

There were only six schools in the initial FBI investigation. Arizona, USC, Miami, Louisville, Oklahoma State and Auburn. Four adidas-sponsored universities are named in a superseding indictment: Kansas, Louisville, Miami and N.C. State. According to what I've read everything else is minor in detail. If I had to guess I'd any post season bans were to come down it would be for the above 8 programs mentioned.

I think you're confusing the programs that had coaches accepting payments/parents/guardians accepting payments or seek payment and those that had an encounter with these guys and had a lunch/dinner. There is a big difference IMO.

Good point. I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing.

You are talking about the schools indicted. I hear ya. But I'm also talking about the schools/coaches who put up bids or bought prior to the FBI investigation that is beyond their scope but still applies to the NCAA. The NCAA it seems to me--from their investigation starting--that they are going to go through and look at all the information from the indictments, but then also the information that breaks NCAA rules even through they didn't break the law.

So when they talk about coaches and programs meeting with students specifically to buy them or they end up actually setting on or inquiring about prices, those are all definite NCAA violations. If they just took the kid to dinner and paid for it, that's separate. But if they we actively trying to inquire about, or set, prices then they absolutely lack compliance and institutional control. That's where you could apply the fact that UW paid for Fultz, etc., as well as the losing bidders for players that the eight bought etc.

Right? I guess that's what I'm talking about. It's one thing to have Bowen to dinner and try to get him to commit and have a coach pay for it. That is an extremely minor infraction that I'm not trying to include. But when coaches are in bidding wars for players, that's still a lot more than 8 and is an infraction for the NCAA that should get more than one year. Again, I get that both Fultz and Romar (along with his staff) are no longer at UW, but until those rules change, the schools is accountable.

 

[ericd7633]

Good point. I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing.

You are talking about the schools indicted. I hear ya. But I'm also talking about the schools/coaches who put up bids or bought prior to the FBI investigation that is beyond their scope but still applies to the NCAA. The NCAA it seems to me--from their investigation starting--that they are going to go through and look at all the information from the indictments, but then also the information that breaks NCAA rules even through they didn't break the law.

So when they talk about coaches and programs meeting with students specifically to buy them or they end up actually setting on or inquiring about prices, those are all definite NCAA violations. If they just took the kid to dinner and paid for it, that's separate. But if they we actively trying to inquire about, or set, prices then they absolutely lack compliance and institutional control. That's where you could apply the fact that UW paid for Fultz, etc., as well as the losing bidders for players that the eight bought etc.

Right? I guess that's what I'm talking about. It's one thing to have Bowen to dinner and try to get him to commit and have a coach pay for it. That is an extremely minor infraction that I'm not trying to include. But when coaches are in bidding wars for players, that's still a lot more than 8 and is an infraction for the NCAA that should get more than one year. Again, I get that both Fultz and Romar (along with his staff) are no longer at UW, but until those rules change, the schools is accountable.

Yeah, I think there needs to be a separation between programs that were involved receiving money from runners, and those that were involved by having a parent/guardian having taken a lunch/dinner with an agent/runner.

I'm also not sure we should lump together the teams that were indicted(Arizona, USC, Auburn, Oklahoma State, Miami, Louisville, Kansas and NC State) and those that have been reported on by the media(Washington, Kentucky, Utah, Seton Hall, and South Carolina). At some point they all might end up in the same category, but I think there's more evidence with the teams that have been indicted. Those are the only schools that I've come across where five figures has been exchanged or reported to have been exchanged. That total is 13. I'd be fine for all of them to get the same punishment, if all the evidence comes to light.

 

[rmilia1]

Yeah, I think there needs to be a separation between programs that were involved receiving money from runners, and those that were involved by having a parent/guardian having taken a lunch/dinner with an agent/runner.

I'm also not sure we should lump together the teams that were indicted(Arizona, USC, Auburn, Oklahoma State, Miami, Louisville, Kansas and NC State) and those that have been reported on by the media(Washington, Kentucky, Utah, Seton Hall, and South Carolina). At some point they all might end up in the same category, but I think there's more evidence with the teams that have been indicted. Those are the only schools that I've come across where five figures has been exchanged or reported to have been exchanged. That total is 13. I'd be fine for all of them to get the same punishment, if all the evidence comes to light.

Ironically only 7 of those 13 are likely tourney teams this year anyway and none of them save maybe Kentucky and Kansas would be favored to win more than a game anyway

 

[CatsTopPac]

Yeah, I think there needs to be a separation between programs that were involved receiving money from runners, and those that were involved by having a parent/guardian having taken a lunch/dinner with an agent/runner.

I'm also not sure we should lump together the teams that were indicted(Arizona, USC, Auburn, Oklahoma State, Miami, Louisville, Kansas and NC State) and those that have been reported on by the media(Washington, Kentucky, Utah, Seton Hall, and South Carolina). At some point they all might end up in the same category, but I think there's more evidence with the teams that have been indicted. Those are the only schools that I've come across where five figures has been exchanged or reported to have been exchanged. That total is 13. I'd be fine for all of them to get the same punishment, if all the evidence comes to light.

No doubt. Until the report comes out about who actually did what beyond what the FBI has convicted, then I have no idea. Full Stop.

All of that being said, we are talking about more schools than 13. I also count that if a coach goes to or sets up a meal specifically to discuss prices with kids/guardians and runners/agents, etc. then that is a pretty clear NCAA violation. But just aside from the ones you mentioned, an Addidas guy in October said Oregon was in on the Bowen sweepstakes. Dawkins turned over a list (given to the NCAA by the FBI) of almost a dozen schools he was supposed to pay, and 19 prospective players, and a few pros. Again, the list could just be a plan, but Dawkins isn't just pulling names (of schools) out of hats. Also, there are the other teams who made offers that weren't the highest bid. So for every kid, there has to be a couple or more bidders because a kid wouldn't need to be getting paid unless it was a bid, right?

Anyway, like I said, I have no idea who or what we're even talking about right now. The FBI investigation had a much different scope than the NCAA. But some of those guys got on the stand and started naming names of at least a dozen programs and that's just as it pertained to crimes. I think once the FBI can't continue because it's not a broken law, the NCAA can keep going because it's a violation.

So you don't think that a coach setting up a dinner to discuss payments between a kid/guardian and a runner/agent knowing that it's to talk price--is a violation? I mean I don't care who paid for the actual meal, but if it was a meeting to talk money and the coach knew or set it up--so the coach/university could benefit--that shouldn't be punished as a violation? If the kid sets up their own meeting and none of the coaches know then that's a different story. But if the coach knows then I don't see how that's not a clear violation.

 

[520GGATO]

Just a little update on Book..

 

[ericd7633]

Interesting thread. It seems like Miller has to have known. Maybe we'll find out?