I would point out that the NCAA is now saying shoe company personnel are in fact boosters.
But of course consistency is not really the NCAA's bag, baby.
I would point out that the NCAA is now saying shoe company personnel are in fact boosters.
oops, I just realized I accidentally put this in the bools threadousdahl wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2020 10:17 am what does the agent gain by getting Zion to admit as much?
If it's relevant to a suit now, wouldn't there potentially be some sort of paper trail at least mentioning some benefits in some context prior?
and there are others named in the suit. It might just be a matter of time til other birds start chirping.
CnB speculates above that they were promised a cut of the goodies.ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2020 10:36 amoops, I just realized I accidentally put this in the bools threadousdahl wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2020 10:17 am what does the agent gain by getting Zion to admit as much?
If it's relevant to a suit now, wouldn't there potentially be some sort of paper trail at least mentioning some benefits in some context prior?
and there are others named in the suit. It might just be a matter of time til other birds start chirping.
If it wasn't clear, that was a little tongue-in-cheek. Perhaps, only a little.PortlandHawk wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2020 10:57 amCnB speculates above that they were promised a cut of the goodies.
I mean, quite a bad one? Getting pulled into this bullshit would seem to threaten a way of doing business that has been good to Nike.
We've been punished as a nike school.
well, its a little different. There was no indication duke was involved in convincing the jewelry store to give him a LOC....and iirc he paid them back and they basically said it didn't happen by the time the NCAA looked into it, right?ousdahl wrote: ↑Sun May 10, 2020 9:24 pmI can’t believe that one was shrugged off so quickly.
Dude crapped out on a $70,000 line of credit at a jewelry store, yet the NCAA saw no “threat to the collegiate model”
Yup.CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2020 9:56 am The NCAA's blind eye to the parent AAU coach loophole shows that the current system is exactly what it wants.
The NCAA doesn't want the apparel contracts to go away. The NCAA just wasn't expecting the wind of public opinion to go against its sails following the DOJ revealing the underbelly.
I thought the Thomas deal was more one of those things where he got a LOC so he could look shiny and pretty for his moment in his parents living room if he got drafted. Not really a here's a benefit for playing for Duke.IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2020 2:01 pmwell, its a little different. There was no indication duke was involved in convincing the jewelry store to give him a LOC....and iirc he paid them back and they basically said it didn't happen by the time the NCAA looked into it, right?
That would make sense...and would also be a great example of the ridiculous rules the NCAA has.NDballer13 wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2020 2:15 pmI thought the Thomas deal was more one of those things where he got a LOC so he could look shiny and pretty for his moment in his parents living room if he got drafted. Not really a here's a benefit for playing for Duke.IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2020 2:01 pmwell, its a little different. There was no indication duke was involved in convincing the jewelry store to give him a LOC....and iirc he paid them back and they basically said it didn't happen by the time the NCAA looked into it, right?
I think the truth is somewhere in the middle - there's more than enough smoke around Zion to support opening an investigation. And yet, crickets.IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2020 1:59 pmWe've been punished as a nike school.
This isn't some conspiracy to get Kansas and adidas and save Duke and Nike....it was simply unlucky for Kansas how it all went down. Could have easily been anyone else from any brand who got snitched on.