Page 74 of 235
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Mon May 11, 2020 9:26 am
by jfish26
ousdahl wrote: ↑Sun May 10, 2020 10:39 pm
aaand regarding the latest dook sitch, we all know how this is gonna end, right?
NCAA rules no violation cuz the money Zion got was not actually from dook, but from a Nike goon, and K didn’t know about it.
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.
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Mon May 11, 2020 9:56 am
by CrimsonNBlue
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.
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Mon May 11, 2020 10:36 am
by ousdahl
ousdahl 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.
oops, I just realized I accidentally put this in the bools thread
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Mon May 11, 2020 10:57 am
by PortlandHawk
ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2020 10:36 am
ousdahl 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.
oops, I just realized I accidentally put this in the bools thread
CnB speculates above that they were promised a cut of the goodies.
Another reason might be vengeance and a desire to raise the stakes. ‘We will go after you and everyone dear to l you’-kind of thing.
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Mon May 11, 2020 11:03 am
by CrimsonNBlue
PortlandHawk wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2020 10:57 amCnB speculates above that they were promised a cut of the goodies.
If it wasn't clear, that was a little tongue-in-cheek. Perhaps, only a little.
I don't know enough about the agent's claims to have any kind of guess how it is relevant. Of course, that objection could be raised when responding to the RFA.
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Mon May 11, 2020 11:04 am
by ousdahl
yeah, if they were promised a cut, couldn't there at least be some sort of contemporaneous record?
an email, or a TeXtMeSsAgE!, or even some quick figures scribbled on a cocktail napkin, or something...
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Mon May 11, 2020 11:06 am
by ousdahl
I think we can expect Zion to deny, deny, deny, right? That's the only real card to play against the NCAA. (well, short of just being Duke about it...)
but could a denial in court get him in trouble down the road if, say, a money trail was eventually somehow otherwise proven?
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Mon May 11, 2020 11:13 am
by CrimsonNBlue
I'm wanting an admission as what the hell does Zion care at this point?
Under Fed Rules, RFA's aren't signed under oath/sworn testimony.
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Mon May 11, 2020 11:18 am
by ousdahl
well, Zion prob doesn't wanna get The Brotherhood in trouble.
K is wont to do some dark arts vampire curse on defectors.
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Mon May 11, 2020 11:19 am
by ousdahl
but maaaybe Zion wants to be that guy who breaks the NCAA's back and liberates the student ath-o-letes. one can only dream.
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Mon May 11, 2020 11:46 am
by jfish26
ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2020 11:19 am
but maaaybe Zion wants to be
that guy who breaks the NCAA's back and liberates the student ath-o-letes. one can only dream.
Unfortunately for us, Zion's primary motivation is probably to avoid doing anything that puts Nike in a bad spot.
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Mon May 11, 2020 11:48 am
by ousdahl
good point.
how much of a bad spot could it really put Nike as a whole though?
Did we put Adidas in that much of a bad spot, save for an isolated handful of peripheral consultant goons?
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Mon May 11, 2020 11:50 am
by jfish26
ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2020 11:48 am
good point.
how much of a bad spot could it really put Nike as a whole though?
Did we put Adidas in that much of a bad spot, save for an isolated handful of peripheral consultant goons?
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.
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Mon May 11, 2020 11:52 am
by ousdahl
that's true.
Nike has a LOT more presence compared to Adidas too.
What's the hardest the NCAA's ever come down on a Nike school? could there be some back alley relationship there too?
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Mon May 11, 2020 1:59 pm
by Deleted User 310
ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2020 11:52 am
that's true.
Nike has a LOT more presence compared to Adidas too.
What's the hardest the NCAA's ever come down on a Nike school? could there be some back alley relationship there too?
We'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.
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Mon May 11, 2020 2:01 pm
by Deleted User 310
ousdahl wrote: ↑Sun May 10, 2020 9:24 pm
IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Sun May 10, 2020 8:27 pm
Geezer wrote: ↑Sun May 10, 2020 7:48 pm
The guy with all the jewelry from NYC
Cory Maggette
Think that was Lance Thomas.
I 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”
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?
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Mon May 11, 2020 2:03 pm
by Deleted User 310
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.
Yup.
Ncaa wishes none of this ever happened...but to save face they are going to rake some of the schools implicated in the trial over the coals and then hope to go back to business as usual letting everything slide as long as you hide it a little bit.
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Mon May 11, 2020 2:15 pm
by NDballer13
IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2020 2:01 pm
ousdahl wrote: ↑Sun May 10, 2020 9:24 pm
I 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”
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?
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.
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Mon May 11, 2020 2:56 pm
by Deleted User 310
NDballer13 wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2020 2:15 pm
IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2020 2:01 pm
ousdahl wrote: ↑Sun May 10, 2020 9:24 pm
I 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”
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?
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.
That would make sense...and would also be a great example of the ridiculous rules the NCAA has.
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Mon May 11, 2020 3:04 pm
by jfish26
IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2020 1:59 pm
ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2020 11:52 am
that's true.
Nike has a LOT more presence compared to Adidas too.
What's the hardest the NCAA's ever come down on a Nike school? could there be some back alley relationship there too?
We'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.
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.