Shoe money trial

[jfish26]

I enjoyed K saying the other day, "[Cheating is] not what's happening. ... We haven't lost guys because someone cheated."

So...um...you're saying that Duke hasn't lost a guy to someone else because someone else paid a kid?

I wonder how that could be.

[holidaysmore]

Even more refreshing when Coach K came out and said that his program never EVER would do something like that.

I wonder what is going on behind the scenes with adidas and KU. Fish paints an interesting picture about adidas holding leverage over our heads.
I would find it hard to cut ties with the three stripes considering the large marketing effort they were a part for Late Night and some how, even though we didn't sign the new deal the Athletics Dept. still got 1.5 million in royalties.

[MICHHAWK]

We got some turbulence coming our way. You can be sure about that.

[Deleted User 57]

What's funny to me is that KU is holding off on signing their Adidas contract. In my opinion, KU's "response" to this should be to dump Adidas and switch back to Nike. We look like we're making a moral stand while actually switching to the biggest cheaters in the sport. Nike is simply better at this stuff than Adidas.

Then we move into the top tier of recruits more and come out of this stronger than ever. Sure we have to apend a little more money be ause the Nike contract will be smaller but we get that money back and then some by the recruiting benefits.

It's like saying you're electing Donald Trump because you don't like the DC swamp. You get to claim mkral high ground that you want to clean things up while benefitting from the dirtier than ever new group.

Yeah, except it's not hard to think that Adidas has a metric fuckton of leverage over us right now.

For the sake of this idiot (me) will you please elaborate on why you feel they have "a metric fuckton of leverage over us right now".

[MICHHAWK]

[/quote]

For the sake of this idiot (me) will you please elaborate on why you feel they have "a metric fuckton of leverage over us right now".
[/quote]

Just guessing here. But if we have secrets, and if anyone knows our secrets, it is likely Adidas.

We got secrets. we know this much. they are trickling out now because our people are too stupid not to leave a trail.

We are not so good at this covert $#!t apparently.

[Deleted User 57]

So the Adidas people who have incriminated themselves have secrets on us. True.
Now can't we use that as a bargaining chip against them too?
Like I said, I'm an idiot and I'm just trying to understand every possible avenue this could go.

[holidaysmore]

Really who initiated, or more importantly has the evidence to show whether paying players was an adidas or a KU idea. Whoever has that is has the leverage.

[MICHHAWK]

adidas is going to be sucking the fuzzy end of the lollipop no matter what. Now it's just a matter of who they take with them.

[jfish26]

So the Adidas people who have incriminated themselves have secrets on us. True.
Now can't we use that as a bargaining chip against them too?
Like I said, I'm an idiot and I'm just trying to understand every possible avenue this could go.

I would think that the leaking of details on which players were paid (directly or indirectly) by Adidas to go to KU is far, far more damaging to KU than it would be to Adidas.

Particularly if - 100% certain if - these stooges are found not guilty (which they should be, because it is batshit insane to think these stooges defrauded the schools out of anything).

[jfish26]

adidas is going to be sucking the fuzzy end of the lollipop no matter what. Now it's just a matter of who they take with them.

Why, exactly? Even if these guys are found guilty, you think Adidas cares?

If anything, this is fine for them and the other shoe companies, because it's a few million bucks they won't have to spend on players for a while.

[twocoach]

What's funny to me is that KU is holding off on signing their Adidas contract. In my opinion, KU's "response" to this should be to dump Adidas and switch back to Nike. We look like we're making a moral stand while actually switching to the biggest cheaters in the sport. Nike is simply better at this stuff than Adidas.

Then we move into the top tier of recruits more and come out of this stronger than ever. Sure we have to apend a little more money be ause the Nike contract will be smaller but we get that money back and then some by the recruiting benefits.

It's like saying you're electing Donald Trump because you don't like the DC swamp. You get to claim mkral high ground that you want to clean things up while benefitting from the dirtier than ever new group.

Yeah, except it's not hard to think that Adidas has a metric fuckton of leverage over us right now.

You think they are going to blackmail us into signing that extension? You find that easy to believe? While Adidas employees are under the FBI microscope? Ok.

I personally do not believe that is a likey outcome.

[jfish26]

What's funny to me is that KU is holding off on signing their Adidas contract. In my opinion, KU's "response" to this should be to dump Adidas and switch back to Nike. We look like we're making a moral stand while actually switching to the biggest cheaters in the sport. Nike is simply better at this stuff than Adidas.

Then we move into the top tier of recruits more and come out of this stronger than ever. Sure we have to apend a little more money be ause the Nike contract will be smaller but we get that money back and then some by the recruiting benefits.

It's like saying you're electing Donald Trump because you don't like the DC swamp. You get to claim mkral high ground that you want to clean things up while benefitting from the dirtier than ever new group.

Yeah, except it's not hard to think that Adidas has a metric fuckton of leverage over us right now.

You think they are going to blackmail us into signing that extension? You find that easy to believe? While Adidas employees are under the FBI microscope? Ok.

I personally do not believe that is a likey outcome.

Do I think they're going to send a letter through the mail that says, "sign this extension or we will publish a list," of course not. Do I think KU is keenly aware that there are a lot of people in the Adidas network who know (and have profited from, and stand to continue to profit from) a lot of things? Sure.

This is part of the bargain from being forced to do all this shit through handlers and intermediaries and hangers-on - there's a web of shady actors out there that know where bodies are buried.

It is here I stress, again, that this is all the NCAA's fault. It should not be this way. But this is the inevitable, and deserved, outcome of insisting that a puritanical, paternalistic structure is workable and desirable.

[jfish26]

The whole text of this link is required reading, in my opinion.

The NCAA Is Gaslighting You

https://deadspin.com/the-ncaa-is-gaslig ... 1829716653

Prior to 1948, the NCAA never asserted any right to actually enforce its amateur status, leaving it to each conference to assess its own fans’ competing desires—for high quality play on the one hand and for amateurism on the other—and make offers to athletes consistent with its own assessment. Schools did different things. Big Ten schools did not give scholarships, but they gave their athletes jobs on campus. (Yes, they were employees of their schools despite Mark Emmert’s claim that such a thing is incompatible with college sports.) SEC schools gave athletic scholarships that included cash stipends. Starting in 1948, the NCAA tried, but failed to enforce its rules, and did not succeed in establishing real national oversight until 1956.

So we have a hypothesis, which just so happens to be a crux of the NCAA’s legal argument: Paying higher than the amateur line will destroy demand for college sports.

And we have had multiple tests of that hypothesis: Many schools in major college football and basketball paid their athletes more than that.

College sports are more popular and more profitable than ever. The only scientific conclusion is to reject the hypothesis.

[...]

There is an economic term for when a group of competitors agrees to a maximum price each will spend on a needed input to their product. The term is “cost-cutting cartel” and that is what the NCAA revealed itself to be when, starting in 1976, it rolled out its new definition of amateurism by redefining the GIA to exclude necessary supplies, to exclude any book recommended by the professor but not required, and to exclude the “laundry money” stipend.

So now we had a new hypothesis to test. If the NCAA’s assertion is that consumer demand will decline if athletes receive more than their definition of amateurism, then it should hold that when athletes received less money, demand should have immediately shot up. There is no evidence that it did. And yet that rule remained on the books as the NCAA’s definition of the line beyond which the sport would collapse, all the way up until Aug. 1, 2015, when the magical line moved yet again.

[...]

Well, as we know, in the wake of the O’Bannon trial, when many witnesses testified that they did not see any justification for capping pay below cost of attendance, even though the NCAA had been doing so for almost 40 years, the NCAA relented and allowed the Power 5 conferences to start paying more. Laundry money was back, baby, in the form of COA stipends which in some cases exceeded $6,000 per year.

And so we had yet another test of the NCAA’s hypothesis. And now, with more compensation allowed, college sports’ popularity did not drop and did not spike, but continued to grow at the same pace. Athletes are now being paid more, and nevertheless college sports continue to exist!

[...]

And so we come to the scandal of the day, the criminal fraud and corruption cases currently being tried in federal court in New York City, in which several non-NCAA members are accused of defrauding major college basketball programs by providing side payments to athletes to ensure they attended those schools. The government’s theory is basically nuts, because it relies on the premise that when a sneaker company pays an athlete to go to a school that wears that company’s shoes, that school is somehow harmed—of course, we all know that schools hate getting great athletes who can pack their arenas and help generate donations.

Both the government and the defendants in the case admit that money was given to athletes. In some cases, these athletes played for those schools—e.g., Dennis Smith played a year for N.C. State and the Federal Government alleges, and the defendants do not dispute, that he received $40,000 on top of his scholarship to do so. He was, so to speak, paid and he played. And no one cared. Where’s the magical line?

Smith finished his college career without detection by the NCAA’s beat cops. The allegation of Smith’s payment was leveled a year ago. N.C. State has not been charged with an NCAA violation. N.C. State has not seen its fans storm to the athletic department offices and demand that the AD or the compliance staff be fired for failing to catch this egregious violation. No. One. Cares.

So what should we expect to see when college basketball tips off next month?

If you believe the NCAA’s “amateurism” hypothesis, it’s now clear that many of the best athletes in college basketball were paid by third parties to play for their AAU teams, and many were also paid to choose a school based on the shoe company those schools have contract with, so the inescapable result is that consumer demand for college basketball will plummet because of systemic payment above the magic line that was not kept under control by rigorous NCAA enforcement efforts.

Once again, the “Amateurism is Essential” argument will be put to the test. Be ready for it, because if the NCAA is correct, then College Basketball May Die Next Month. People might boycott in droves. And if so, the elusive magical line will finally have been found.

But if instead what we see if business as usual, maybe this time we’ll finally stop accepting the ever-shifting goalposts, the amateurism gaslighting, and just acknowledge that what fans care about is college sports played by college athletes, no matter what they’re earning.

[MICHHAWK]

Serious question, if the ncaa is as monsterous as we say they are, why don't the member institutions bolt? Could it be there is too much money to be made. Maybe they are not so bad that we are willing to give up those big fat checks that come with being a member institution.

Sure the ncaa sucks. But so does academia.

[jfish26]

Serious question, if the ncaa is as monsterous as we say they are, why don't the member institutions bolt? Could it be there is too much money to be made. Maybe they are not so bad that we are willing to give up those big fat checks that come with being a member institution.

Sure the ncaa sucks. But so does academia.

Well yeah - the NCAA is, by its very definition, its membership. It is a way for member institutions to consolidate power and, where necessary, put some space in between their own brands and the shitty stuff the association does.

[MICHHAWK]

So the member institutions are gonna crab about the institution, but they are not gonna do anything about it. Got it.

This thread is 18 pages of crabbing about the monster that is the ncaa. Yet on November ?? 16,300 will pack the Fieldhouse to cheer for KANSAS. 16,300 don't care about the kids being pimped. Our way of showing solidarity for the children that are being pimped by the monster is to pack the biggest indoor sports facility we can find for the Final Four and for the College football playoff and for the Frozen Four.

Better idea to show our solidarity for the children.....boycott everything.......No. We don't care that much.

Maybe the fans are......

[jfish26]

So the member institutions are gonna crab about the institution, but they are not gonna do anything about it. Got it.

This thread is 18 pages of crabbing about the monster that is the ncaa. Yet on November ?? 16,300 will pack the Fieldhouse to cheer for KANSAS. 16,300 don't care about the kids being pimped. Our way of showing solidarity for the children that are being pimped by the monster is to pack the biggest indoor sports facility we can find for the Final Four and for the College football playoff and for the Frozen Four.

Better idea to show our solidarity for the children.....boycott everything.......No. We don't care that much.

Maybe the fans are......

This is all over the place. Where, anywhere in this thread or in the news, has a school - a member institution - broken with the NCAA on this?

Also: the 16,300 who will pack the Fieldhouse to cheer for KANSAS are...with the exception of a small handful of people, not employees or other representatives of the member institution.

I'm just not sure what your point is. I don't think that attending a KU game, or buying a KU hat, or filling out a bracket, should be regarded as agreeing with how things are done.

[MICHHAWK]

The fans don't agree with how things are done. The alumni don't agree with how things are being done. The athletes don't agree with how things are being done. The member institutions don't agree with how things are done. Who's left?

Assuming the monster isn't willing to change. Who is left to facilitate the change we all yearn for. Who is our change agent.

Yes I am being silly. This whole episode is silly.

[jfish26]

The fans don't agree with how things are done. The alumni don't agree with how things are being done. The athletes don't agree with how things are being done. The member institutions don't agree with how things are done. Who's left?

Assuming the monster isn't willing to change. Who is left to facilitate the change we all yearn for. Who is our change agent.

Yes I am being silly. This whole episode is silly.

Again: where, publicly, is a member institution taking this position?

[Geezer]

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)[a] is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,281 North American institutions and conferences. It also organizes the athletic programs of many colleges and universities in the United States and Canada, and helps more than 480,000 college student-athletes who compete annually in college sports. The organization is headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana.

In its 2016–17 fiscal year the NCAA took in $1.06 billion in revenue, over 82% of which was generated by the Division I Men's Basketball Tournament.