Arrests in Major NCAA College Basketball Probe

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
16,368
I need some more explanation because I've read the links and I still don't understand it. How is the public the victim? I get the notion of "right to honest services" but the pool of young men with the requisite "resume" to get offered a scholarship to play basketball is tiny --- that's not the public. Is the argument that the kids not getting paid are the victims?
Well it's not intuitively obvious (similar to many legal concepts) so here's the short version.

Bank and wire fraud are criminal offenses. We have a pretty good handle on bank and wire fraud. Traditionally, this means when someone defrauds you of something tangible, like money. Or property. Or jewelry. Etc.

However, there are a bunch of instances (as we’re about to see) where that’s not broad enough. So post-WWII, federal prosecutors tried to incorporate intangible harms into the fraud statute, the most important of which for our purposes is the “intangible right to honest services.”

This culminated in a case called McNally. In this case, the Chair of KY Democratic Party and two accomplices received a $200K kickback for directing the state’s workers comp insurance to a specific agency. The three defendants were indicted on charges of mail fraud for “defrauding the citizens of Kentucky of 'their right to have the Commonwealth's business and its affairs conducted honestly, impartially, free from corruption, bias, dishonesty, deceit, official misconduct, and fraud,' and of 'money and other things of value,' using the United States mail.”

The Chair pled guilty. Subsequently, the accomplices were convicted of conspiracy and fraud. (The fraud statute encompasses both the actual fraud and a “scheme or artifice.”) Upon appeal, SCOTUS ruled that the fraud statute only applied to tangible property and threw out their convictions.

In response, Congress within a year passed Section 1346, which expressly overruled McNally and added a clause prohibiting “a scheme or artifice to defraud another of the intangible right of honest services.” Congress left the term “honest services” undefined.

So federal prosecutors have seized on this to prosecute not only bribery and kickbacks but other self-dealing or conflict of interest cases such as basketball coaches who helped athletes cheat by providing answers to exams, attorneys who paid insurance adjusters to expedite claims, and a purchasing agent who was secretly paid by the company’s suppliers. In the public sector, convictions have been obtained for city employees who doled out government jobs to loyal footsoldiers in mayoral campaigns. (Cite). And while SCOTUS limited the statute somewhat in the Skilling case (to bribery and kickbacks), defense attorneys still argue that those 28 words are unconstitutionally vague.

TL;dr: If you skipped the above, here's the takeaway. The law is currently settled that the public has a right to "fair and honest representation by public officials." In the public official context (which this case is), bribery and kickbacks can violate those rights leading to federal charges. The victim is the public and the injury is the loss of fair and honest representation.

Hope this helps.
 
Last edited:

Philip Jeff Frye

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2001
6,870
Do they have to return the money now?
Wrong sport, but the 30 for 30 on SMU getting the death penalty told the story of the recruiting war for Eric Dickerson among SWC schools. Texas A&M apparently gave him a Trans Am, which other coaches referred to as the Trans A&M. Everybody assumed that this sealed the deal for the Aggies. But when Dickerson chose SMU, Texas A&M couldn't get their car back because to do so would admit their bribery.

When asked, "If A&M gave you a car to go there, what did SMU give you?" Dickerson just laughed.
 

Was (Not Wasdin)

family crest has godzilla
SoSH Member
Jul 26, 2007
1,831
The Short Bus
Wrong sport, but the 30 for 30 on SMU getting the death penalty told the story of the recruiting war for Eric Dickerson among SWC schools. Texas A&M apparently gave him a Trans Am, which other coaches referred to as the Trans A&M. Everybody assumed that this sealed the deal for the Aggies. But when Dickerson chose SMU, Texas A&M couldn't get their car back because to do so would admit their bribery.

When asked, "If A&M gave you a car to go there, what did SMU give you?" Dickerson just laughed.
Jerry Tarkanian used to complain, openly, about getting "vanned." He had offered a recruit a car, and thought he had him, until a rival school offered a fully tricked-out van, and the kid went there.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
5,278
Carolina has not received the death penalty (or any sanctions yet, though they are coming) because of a bullshit kind of jurisdictional issue. The NCAA does not oversee Academics. So as long as Carolina argues that this was an academic scandal at the university and that non-athletes were also benefitting, they can most likely avoid the death penalty. They will be punished for providing impermissible benefits.

In order for Carolina to receive the death penalty the NCAA would have to find that this was orchestrated by the Athletic Department. Thus far, Carolina has been able to avoid that by having an administrator, a tutor and a professor take the fall.
So the key, then, for any athletic program looking to totally skirt the system, is to have their athletes go through sham classes or get extra help from tutors (like in the Syracuse case) but add a couple of non-athletes in there too?

Bigger picture though; the reason Carolina will not get the death penalty, whereas a school like Holy Cross might in this instance, is because of $$$. Carolina is pretty close to "untouchable" due to the money they bring in, their nationwide fanbase, et al. This is why I brought up the issue of "tiers" yesterday because I argue that those teams in the top tier, that cheat just as much or more than any other school despite my funny comments otherwise, are protected by the NCAA. Yes, it is bullshit. But I think that's the reality.

And, in fact, one way this whole investigation sort of confirms that is the NCAA did not bring down these schools. It took the FBI.
Right. Those top top programs seem to get safe passage.
 

DrewDawg

Dorito Dink
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
34,115
I'm probably naive but could someone explain to me why or how this is all illegal? I get that those arrested clearly violated NCAA rules but I fail to see how their actions rise to the level of fraud or bribery.
It's defrauding an institution that receives federal funds. An institution that may, because of this fraud, be forced to pay fines that impact their bottom line, putting federal funds at risk.
 

Clears Cleaver

Lil' Bill
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
11,140
Jerry Tarkanian used to complain, openly, about getting "vanned." He had offered a recruit a car, and thought he had him, until a rival school offered a fully tricked-out van, and the kid went there.
Lute Olsen was the closer. Knew the bid and came over the top in the last minute to steal kids
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
5,134
Jerry Tarkanian used to complain, openly, about getting "vanned." He had offered a recruit a car, and thought he had him, until a rival school offered a fully tricked-out van, and the kid went there.
High school kids like vans?
 

Was (Not Wasdin)

family crest has godzilla
SoSH Member
Jul 26, 2007
1,831
The Short Bus
High school kids like vans?
Back in the day, I'm sure.

From an LA Times Article in 1987

That's a term coined by UNLV basketball Coach Jerry Tarkanian. It means you lost a blue-chip recruit by being outbid by a rival, as in: "We lost the kid. He signed with State." "Lost him! But we offered him a new carl" "Yeah, but they offered him a van."
 

Bernie Carbohydrate

writes the Semi-Fin
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2001
2,514
South Carolina via Dorchestah
So the key, then, for any athletic program looking to totally skirt the system, is to have their athletes go through sham classes or get extra help from tutors (like in the Syracuse case) but add a couple of non-athletes in there too?
Yes, it is a standard move for crooked academic-athletic arrangements to have some non-athletes cut in on the deal. That way the university can claim it is has an academic oversight issue (and thus subject to a wrist-slap from a nearly-powerless accrediting body) rather than an athletics scandal (subject to the NCAA).

In 2006 Auburn was found to have handed over a chunk of their Sociology Department to the football team. When an Auburn professor acted as a whistle-blower, the university claimed that since the bogus courses included non-athletes, this was a academic issue. In a Captain Renault move, Auburn investigated itself, and, not surprisingly, learned that it had a poorly-managed Sociology Department, not a corrupt football program.

So UNC is clinging to the same branch. As long as a few non-athletes were enrolled in the fake classes, UNC can claim that the problem is a rogue academic department, not a rogue athletics program. Then they tell the NCAA to take a hike. So in the link above, the UNC's lawyers claimed "[T]he courses were available to all students, [and] that athletes didn’t receive preferential treatment..."

"Non-athletes did it too" is the heart of North Carolina's defense.


 
Last edited:

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
5,278
Boy then Syracuse was doubly stupid, not merely for doing Fab Melo's paper for him, but for not ALSO doing non-athletes' papers for them. They add in a few drama or med students in the mix and the NCAA can't do anything? How frigging stupid is THAT?
 

StuckOnYouk

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
2,956
CT
How low do things have to go for Louisville before the ACC kicks out Louisville and brings in UConn as a replacement, which is what they should have done in the first place?

Does Louisville have to have its accreditation pulled (Its currently under review)? Most of the current ACC presidents were not at the helm when Louisville was chosen over UConn.

Yes I'm dreaming, but what the hell. UConn is a top 20 public university, basketball background, fits nicely in the ACC/Old Big East footprint, brings back a rival for Syracuse, Pitt and BC. Louisville is a horrible academic university and doesn't fit the ACC "profile". I get why the ACC did it (football) but I'm sure part of them is regretting it.
 

Average Reds

Dope
Staff member
Dope
V&N Mod
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
24,828
Southwestern CT
How low do things have to go for Louisville before the ACC kicks out Louisville and brings in UConn as a replacement, which is what they should have done in the first place?

Does Louisville have to have its accreditation pulled (Its currently under review)? Most of the current ACC presidents were not at the helm when Louisville was chosen over UConn.

Yes I'm dreaming, but what the hell. UConn is a top 20 public university, basketball background, fits nicely in the ACC/Old Big East footprint, brings back a rival for Syracuse, Pitt and BC. Louisville is a horrible academic university and doesn't fit the ACC "profile". I get why the ACC did it (football) but I'm sure part of them is regretting it.
My understanding is that BC and Syracuse effectively vetoed UConn when they were up for conference membership, which is how they ended up with Pitt. BC was especially opposed and cited a desire for territorial exclusivity as the reason. (It probably didn't help that UConn sued BC back in 2005 when BC left the Big East to join the ACC. Of course, Pitt was the other school, so it's believed that the real reason they opposed UConn was to give a big FU to Jim Calhoun.)

Given Calhoun's retirement, maybe they would rethink that stance. But I have my doubts.
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
How low do things have to go for Louisville before the ACC kicks out Louisville and brings in UConn as a replacement, which is what they should have done in the first place?

Does Louisville have to have its accreditation pulled (Its currently under review)? Most of the current ACC presidents were not at the helm when Louisville was chosen over UConn.

Yes I'm dreaming, but what the hell. UConn is a top 20 public university, basketball background, fits nicely in the ACC/Old Big East footprint, brings back a rival for Syracuse, Pitt and BC. Louisville is a horrible academic university and doesn't fit the ACC "profile". I get why the ACC did it (football) but I'm sure part of them is regretting it.
While a reshuffling of the deck chairs is the most likely outcome, I hope someone at the NBA is thinking about how to make the G-League (or whatever they are calling it this month) the big winner. If Nike and/or Reebok also get exposed and multiple schools from multiple power conferences are implicated, there's a small chance the old system collapses entirely and a true professional minor league emerges - where the players can be paid and the shoe companies can "be influential" with their money, legally.

The sham that is "student-athlete" and the NCAA needs to go away. The intersection between big money entertainment/sports and academics has been dreadful for both. The real beneficiaries - the NFL and NBA - are getting tremendous value without having to do or spend anything. And while the money flowing into "universities" is large, it isn't necessary and it undermines their real mission.

Yes, I'm dreaming but there is no good reason to continue the despicable system as it exists. It is literally criminal. It would be better for everyone involved to make the Alabama Crimson Tide and North Carolina Tar Heels official "developmental league" franchises in professional minor leagues (ages 17- 23?). Pay the universities a stipend for the use of the name and give preferential ticket deals to students, but for god's sake, take this opportunity to do what is best for the player, the professional teams, and the universities.
 

TheRooster

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2001
2,224
I don't think so. At many schools the overall athletic program loses money. Even for the big revenue generators, I believe the athletic budgets are often an island.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
16,368
While a reshuffling of the deck chairs is the most likely outcome, I hope someone at the NBA is thinking about how to make the G-League (or whatever they are calling it this month) the big winner. If Nike and/or Reebok also get exposed and multiple schools from multiple power conferences are implicated, there's a small chance the old system collapses entirely and a true professional minor league emerges - where the players can be paid and the shoe companies can "be influential" with their money, legally.

The sham that is "student-athlete" and the NCAA needs to go away. The intersection between big money entertainment/sports and academics has been dreadful for both. The real beneficiaries - the NFL and NBA - are getting tremendous value without having to do or spend anything. And while the money flowing into "universities" is large, it isn't necessary and it undermines their real mission.

Yes, I'm dreaming but there is no good reason to continue the despicable system as it exists. It is literally criminal. It would be better for everyone involved to make the Alabama Crimson Tide and North Carolina Tar Heels official "developmental league" franchises in professional minor leagues (ages 17- 23?). Pay the universities a stipend for the use of the name and give preferential ticket deals to students, but for god's sake, take this opportunity to do what is best for the player, the professional teams, and the universities.
Think it's more likely the big winners will be the overseas leagues, which can pay a lot more than G-league can pay.

I'm guessing that 94% of college coaches and assistant coaches at public universities do not know what honest services fraud is and how it may impact their lives. I wonder how far this goes.
 

DukeSox

Rick Derris
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2005
10,863
How low do things have to go for Louisville before the ACC kicks out Louisville and brings in UConn as a replacement, which is what they should have done in the first place?

Does Louisville have to have its accreditation pulled (Its currently under review)? Most of the current ACC presidents were not at the helm when Louisville was chosen over UConn.

Yes I'm dreaming, but what the hell. UConn is a top 20 public university, basketball background, fits nicely in the ACC/Old Big East footprint, brings back a rival for Syracuse, Pitt and BC. Louisville is a horrible academic university and doesn't fit the ACC "profile". I get why the ACC did it (football) but I'm sure part of them is regretting it.
What's the point of that?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/sports/ncaabasketball/uconn-basketball-is-among-those-to-receive-postseason-ban.html?mcubz=0
 
Aug 24, 2017
397
My understanding is that BC and Syracuse effectively vetoed UConn when they were up for conference membership, which is how they ended up with Pitt. BC was especially opposed and cited a desire for territorial exclusivity as the reason. (It probably didn't help that UConn sued BC back in 2005 when BC left the Big East to join the ACC. Of course, Pitt was the other school, so it's believed that the real reason they opposed UConn was to give a big FU to Jim Calhoun.)

Given Calhoun's retirement, maybe they would rethink that stance. But I have my doubts.
This is my understanding as well and I know that the Carolina and Duke AD's, Coaches and Athletic departments were ripshit pissed. I know I am as well. UCONN belongs in the ACC.

BC has been a drain on our conference and all Syracuse does is bitch and complain.
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
Jul 18, 2005
25,840
Alexandria, VA
I don't think so. At many schools the overall athletic program loses money. Even for the big revenue generators, I believe the athletic budgets are often an island.
Yeah. Even at UNC, which is a fairly lucrative program, athletics is a money-loser that needs millions in student fees to make its budget (UNC fees have gone from $0 20 years ago to over $250/year per student today--and at non top-tier schools it's often worse. Eastern Carolina is over $650/year in student fees to support the athletics program):

Like other schools across the nation, UNC is spending more. Winning isn’t cheap, and behind the Tar Heels’ trip to the ACC Championship in football and national title game in basketball are costs that continue to grow.

To fill in the gaps, UNC turns to students. Student fees made up around 8 percent of UNC’s athletic revenue in 2015. With the University’s razor-thin profit margin, UNC would be solidly in the red without student fees.
Some of that is to support Olympic and other non-revenue sports, but the costs of revenue sports basically increase in lock-step with the revenues:
Coaching salaries at UNC grew from $17 million in 2005 to $31 million in 2015. That includes hiring two new, high-priced head coaches in Butch Davis and Larry Fedora with the purpose of rebuilding the football program — along with firing Davis and extending Fedora’s contract.

Facilities’ costs have also more than doubled in the past decade as the school seeks to attract recruits. It’s a self-perpetuating cycle, as each school is constantly looking to reset the bar in the college sports arms race, making UNC’s new wall of Nike Air Jordan shoes in the men’s basketball locker room seem like a justifiable expense.
http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2016/12/the-cost-of-winning-uncs-growing-athletic-budget-puts-students-on-the-hook
 

BigMike

Dope
Dope
Sep 26, 2000
21,383
How low do things have to go for Louisville before the ACC kicks out Louisville and brings in UConn as a replacement, which is what they should have done in the first place?

Does Louisville have to have its accreditation pulled (Its currently under review)? Most of the current ACC presidents were not at the helm when Louisville was chosen over UConn.

Yes I'm dreaming, but what the hell. UConn is a top 20 public university, basketball background, fits nicely in the ACC/Old Big East footprint, brings back a rival for Syracuse, Pitt and BC. Louisville is a horrible academic university and doesn't fit the ACC "profile". I get why the ACC did it (football) but I'm sure part of them is regretting it.
I can't see it. Obviously the basketball program has been successful, but also has had it's issues. But the big problem is you are talking about adding another dead Northeastern football program.

I would think it would be more likely they would try to make a play for Navy, because if you are forced to replace a dirty program, might as well go after the cleanest program in the country

of course before we even talk of throwing teams out lets see how far this scandal, and the likely ensuing ones go
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
38,264
deep inside Guido territory
Jay Jacobs is on the way out in Auburn.

Auburn's president and board of trustees have laid the groundwork to end Jay Jacobs' tenure as athletics director, AL.com has learned. Unless the leadership changes its current position, which it discussed in a conference call this week, the only variables are who will replace Jacobs and when the transition will take place.

That transition was expected to take place after the current football season, but recent scandals involving the school's softball and men's basketball programs have accelerated the process, according to a source with knowledge of the situation.

One name that may receive consideration to replace Jacobs: David Benedict. Currently the UConn AD, Benedict spent two years as the chief operating officer of Auburn Athletics before taking the Connecticut job in 2016.

http://www.al.com/auburnfootball/index.ssf/2017/09/auburn_leadership_moves_toward.html?platform=hootsuite
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
31,086
This is my understanding as well and I know that the Carolina and Duke AD's, Coaches and Athletic departments were ripshit pissed. I know I am as well. UCONN belongs in the ACC.

BC has been a drain on our conference and all Syracuse does is bitch and complain.
I’m sure you weren’t complaining about BC when they nearly knocked off Duke in the 2006 ACCCG or when Matt Ryan got the team to #2 in the nation in 2007. Once BC cleans up football and hires a competent coach, it will be back.
 

Clears Cleaver

Lil' Bill
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
11,140
I don't think so. At many schools the overall athletic program loses money. Even for the big revenue generators, I believe the athletic budgets are often an island.
Not any more. The power five schools largely have self sufficient athletic budgets now unless you are Rutgers or Louisville who levered up to expand facilities

Reality: many P5 schools attract students because of sports success. It's a huge part of social life on campus
 

koufax32

He'll cry if he wants to...
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2006
6,866
Duval
A total cesspool. College hoops is so rotten and has been for years. I see that Auburn is involved...and we know who runs the Auburn program. Seems trouble just follows Bruce Pearl doesn't it?

A local guy here calls the morning radio show pretty frequently as he's apparently close with the co-hosts. He said he ended up in the airport security line right next to Pearl a few years ago. Pearl was taking his shoes off, belt, etc. when this guys says he leaned over and told him "don't worry coach, they're not looking for recruiting violations."

Pearl told him to F off.
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
Jul 18, 2005
25,840
Alexandria, VA
Not any more. The power five schools largely have self sufficient athletic budgets now unless you are Rutgers or Louisville who levered up to expand facilities
Budgets (and subsidies) have been exploding over the last 15-20 years. Even in the power five this really isn't true anymore outside of a few Alabama-level outliers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/24/AR2010102402853_3.html talks about the student fees that subsidize UVA and Virginia Tech (as well as non-power 5 schools in the state); I linked the discussion of UNC above.

https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/2010-09-21-student-fees-boost-college-sports_N.htm has a broader analysis from 2010:

Students were charged more than $795 million to support sports programs at 222 Division I public schools during the 2008-09 school year, according to an analysis of thousands of pages of financial documents. Adjusting for inflation, that's an 18% jump since 2005, making athletics funding at public schools a key force in the rapidly escalating cost of higher education
Only 42 D-I schools had no direct athletic subsidy from student fees, and many of them include general student fee money in institutional subsidies to their athletics programs.

Not to mention that limiting discussion to power five schools doesn't make sense when discussing a policy change that would affect everyone.
 

riboflav

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2006
7,402
NOVA
I really don't get the "bribe" claim at all especially when again the U.S. Government is arguing that the victims are the universities who employed the assistant coaches who were arrested... not the one who were supposedly clean. As Pierce points out, everyone got what they wanted here. Louisville got the player and the player got paid. Who was defrauded? Duke? Well, they're not the victim according to the feds.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
16,368
I really don't get the "bribe" claim at all especially when again the U.S. Government is arguing that the victims are the universities who employed the assistant coaches who were arrested... not the one who were supposedly clean. As Pierce points out, everyone got what they wanted here. Louisville got the player and the player got paid. Who was defrauded? Duke? Well, they're not the victim according to the feds.
I think this is from the press conference: "these schemes operated as a fraud on the universities involved, all of which provide scholarships to players and salaries to coaches with the understanding and expectation that the players and coaches are in full compliance with all relevant NCAA rules and regulations. Moreover, these schemes subject the universities to substantial potential penalties by the NCAA, including, but not limited to, financial fines and penalties as well as the potential loss of eligibility to compete in various NCAA events."

Basically, coaches had duty not to put university in jeopardy of NCAA violation and the other actors were part of scheme/artifice.

I'm not passing judgement on the legal theory; just trying to explain it. Note, for instance, that one prominent set of participants did not get charged. . . .
 

riboflav

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2006
7,402
NOVA
I think this is from the press conference: "these schemes operated as a fraud on the universities involved, all of which provide scholarships to players and salaries to coaches with the understanding and expectation that the players and coaches are in full compliance with all relevant NCAA rules and regulations. Moreover, these schemes subject the universities to substantial potential penalties by the NCAA, including, but not limited to, financial fines and penalties as well as the potential loss of eligibility to compete in various NCAA events."

Basically, coaches had duty not to put university in jeopardy of NCAA violation and the other actors were part of scheme/artifice.

I'm not passing judgement on the legal theory; just trying to explain it. Note, for instance, that one prominent set of participants did not get charged. . . .
Thanks, WBCD. I get it but it seems like a major stretch and a defense lawyer's dream case.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
16,368
Thanks, WBCD. I get it but it seems like a major stretch and a defense lawyer's dream case.
Not really but that's only because your intuition does not match the breadth of the statute. For example, in 1996, in one case (US v Gray, 96 F.3d 769 (5th Cir. 1996)), the Fifth Circuit upheld the conviction of Baylor University basketball coaches based on their scheme to establish academic eligibility for five transfer students to play basketball at Baylor. The coaches had provided the students with written course work or answers to correspondence exams, which were then sent to the sponsoring schools as the students’ work. According to the 5th Circuit, it was sufficient that the coaches did not disclose their alleged scheme to their employer and the subject of the nondisclosure was material - Baylor did not get the quality student it expected.

Now post-Skilling, this case could not go forward but that's only because there was no bribe involved. In this case there's clearly a bribe.

In saying all of this, I'm just showing how broad the statute can be and am not making any comment whether that is "good" or "bad".
 

axx

lurker
Jul 16, 2005
6,092
Saw on the Twitters that there is an expectation that there will be more indictments soon.
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
This fuckin guy:

Pitino sued Adidas in United States District Court on grounds of intentional infliction of emotional distress, claiming that Adidas’s alleged payments to college recruits went on without his knowledge and cost him his job and his reputation.
 

Average Reds

Dope
Staff member
Dope
V&N Mod
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
24,828
Southwestern CT
Doesn't this open the door to a crapload of discovery and sworn depositions / testimony? If there's a link to him, it'll certainly come out now.
My guess is that Pitinon is either paid a nuisance fee to go away (saving Adidas $$$ and allowing Pitino to claim a meaningless "vindication") or he drops the suit before depositions.
 

Humphrey

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2010
713
I wonder if Pitino is lying about taking a lie detector test. :) Or he is such a psychopath that he beat the machine!