Arrests in Major NCAA College Basketball Probe

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
5,278
Can someone help me understand what is criminal about this, as opposed to just a violation of NCAA rules? I read the money paragraph referenced earlier:


...and went huh?

OK, so you're taking money from boosters and surreptitiously funneling it to the players, or people connected to the players, so that they come play for you and your school gets more media attention, reputation, and millions of dollars in TV contracts, student morale / enthusiasm / enrollment, your employers make out like bandits... and therefore, you are depriving your employer of honest services and have defrauded them?

The original sin here is the farce of amateurism, no question. But short of fixing outcomes such that it upsets gamblers, what's the FBI's interest here? I feel like it's obvious to everyone in this thread, and meanwhile I'm watching this and to me it looks like Kafka's The Trial.
This is where I'm at. Clear NCAA violations and the NCAA should be kicking some ass right now (cannot believe Ayton was allowed to play, for example), but the FEDS? Did the Feds get involved when Syracuse got punished for the Fab Melo nonsense? Did the Feds get involved when USC was funneling money to Reggie Bush's family?

I mean maybe the IRS for unreported income? I dunno.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
16,368
Can someone help me understand what is criminal about this, as opposed to just a violation of NCAA rules? I read the money paragraph referenced earlier:


...and went huh?

OK, so you're taking money from boosters and surreptitiously funneling it to the players, or people connected to the players, so that they come play for you and your school gets more media attention, reputation, and millions of dollars in TV contracts, student morale / enthusiasm / enrollment, your employers make out like bandits... and therefore, you are depriving your employer of honest services and have defrauded them?

The original sin here is the farce of amateurism, no question. But short of fixing outcomes such that it upsets gamblers, what's the FBI's interest here? I feel like it's obvious to everyone in this thread, and meanwhile I'm watching this and to me it looks like Kafka's The Trial.
The main charge is the honest services fraud. The university is being deprived of its right to honest services. There was a bit on this upthread.
 

DrewDawg

Dorito Dink
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
34,115
A major oversimplification: The schools also participate in federal loan programs. Fraud that endangers the school's ability to possibly pay back federal funds is essentially defrauding the government. Also, student athletes may receive Pell Grants. A student that receives $100,000--well, technically, that means that student wouldn't be eligible that Pell Grant--having $100,000 in assets is going to jack up one's EFC. You've participated in defrauding the federal government's grant program.
 

InstaFace

MDLzera
Sep 27, 2016
7,592
The main charge is the honest services fraud. The university is being deprived of its right to honest services. There was a bit on this upthread.
Yes, you had an elaborate and excellent post at the top of page 4, which I've just re-read. I do understand the concept of honest services (Skilling was the first introduction to it that I had), when personal profit for the perpetrator is involved. I get it with respect to kickbacks for public officials (where the public is the victim) or the various stock schemes you'd see with corporate executives (where the company and its shareholders are the victim). The victims in those cases are getting a poorer service (and financial return) than they'd paid for from their agents, as a result of those agents' self-dealing - their lack of honest services.

Here, Richardson, Miller et al went to some great lengths (and career risk, in flouting the NCAA so blatantly) in order to provide their employer excellent service. With Ayton as the most obvious example, they successfully steered much greater talent to their university, and thereby success and profits, than would have been at all likely under a coaching staff that scrupulously followed NCAA rules. Every player they bribed to secure their matriculation was going to go to college anyway, and receive a federal scholarship anyway. The only difference is where. And the only people who care where he goes are the students and alums who get to watch him play for their team (or not). So, who's the victim? What tangible harm has been caused, and absent that, whose intangible right to honest services has been infringed upon?

Then we come to all the other charges just unsealed. Mail fraud? Wire fraud? I'd expect to see that in a kickback scheme or gambling scandal. But those are crimes with tangible harm attached. Where is that harm?

A major oversimplification: The schools also participate in federal loan programs. Fraud that endangers the school's ability to possibly pay back federal funds is essentially defrauding the government. Also, student athletes may receive Pell Grants. A student that receives $100,000--well, technically, that means that student wouldn't be eligible that Pell Grant--having $100,000 in assets is going to jack up one's EFC. You've participated in defrauding the federal government's grant program.
OK, following along, the school's ability to pay back federal loans is contingent on the students to whom they award those loans being properly eligible for them. Or, if I understand you, something about their (eventual) ability to repay the loan being properly represented. What about their eligibility, or repayment abilities, has shifted as a result of these revelations?

If any of the recruits bribed to attend these universities were receiving Pell Grants that the bribes would have made them ineligible for, that's coherent to me as a charge. It's in the category of a gangster going down for tax evasion, but I can at least see how the marginal awardee of a Pell Grant is a victim here. Somehow I doubt the students in question are in the Pell bucket, though, especially since their room and board is getting paid for with the university's own scholarship "funds" (no actual funds change hands, of course, because 'scholarships' are just price discrimination between different classes of customer, but that's a digression). It's kinda a left hand / right hand thing, no? The financial aid office steers this discretionary bit or that discretionary bit, plus whatever fund is set aside for athletic scholarships, to make up the "package" and the kid signs it.


edit: I guess what feels a bit icky here is that nobody criticizes a high school senior for going to a school that offers the best price for a college education, or the best value for that education. But the minute that student crosses the break-even point, and goes from paying dollars to attend to making a personal profit on that decision of where to go, bring down the full weight of the federal law enforcement on them! For the tiny group of people where the school needs them more than they need the school, where they're viewed as "the product" rather than as "the customer", it seems we're saying the practice of boosters paying them to attend is not only against the rules of some silly Victorian-era classist idea of amateurism, but it's also criminal. How dare they take the best financial deal for themselves when marketing their talents, and how dare the coaches use what resources are at their disposal to put the best product on court and on TV.

I just kind of think of the whole pool of resources (from both the school and the boosters, and the shoe companies) as being part of what a given athletic director can steer towards his goals, and make part of the compensation package for his coaching staff to incentivize them. So this kinda feels like some factory general manager just had a budget meeting, and when he decided the break room was going to get a face lift this year, the SWAT team came in through the windows and hauled him away, because someone thought he should have bumped wages instead.
 
Last edited:

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
17,629
Portsmouth, NH
Well, it *is* against the rules. He can't pay the kids even if he thinks they deserve it.

And he's not paying them so they can buy a meal, he's paying them so they come play for him.
I get both of those points and I also get he’s not doing it altruistically, he’s doing it so his team is good, it helps his own contract/salary and it keeps him employed because the boosters love him. I just think if one is going to complain that the kids should get paid - not to buy a meal, but for a portion of the revenue they generate for the university; which they should - I find it tough to go as far as ‘he should never coach again’. I think we agree that pretty much every major program does this on some level, I’m just not ready to hang him up by his thumbs. The whole system is fucked.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
16,368
Yes, you had an elaborate and excellent post at the top of page 4, which I've just re-read. I do understand the concept of honest services (Skilling was the first introduction to it that I had), when personal profit for the perpetrator is involved. I get it with respect to kickbacks for public officials (where the public is the victim) or the various stock schemes you'd see with corporate executives (where the company and its shareholders are the victim). The victims in those cases are getting a poorer service (and financial return) than they'd paid for from their agents, as a result of those agents' self-dealing - their lack of honest services.

Here, Richardson, Miller et al went to some great lengths (and career risk, in flouting the NCAA so blatantly) in order to provide their employer excellent service. With Ayton as the most obvious example, they successfully steered much greater talent to their university, and thereby success and profits, than would have been at all likely under a coaching staff that scrupulously followed NCAA rules. Every player they bribed to secure their matriculation was going to go to college anyway, and receive a federal scholarship anyway. The only difference is where. And the only people who care where he goes are the students and alums who get to watch him play for their team (or not). So, who's the victim? What tangible harm has been caused, and absent that, whose intangible right to honest services has been infringed upon?

Then we come to all the other charges just unsealed. Mail fraud? Wire fraud? I'd expect to see that in a kickback scheme or gambling scandal. But those are crimes with tangible harm attached. Where is that harm?



OK, following along, the school's ability to pay back federal loans is contingent on the students to whom they award those loans being properly eligible for them. Or, if I understand you, something about their (eventual) ability to repay the loan being properly represented. What about their eligibility, or repayment abilities, has shifted as a result of these revelations?

If any of the recruits bribed to attend these universities were receiving Pell Grants that the bribes would have made them ineligible for, that's coherent to me as a charge. It's in the category of a gangster going down for tax evasion, but I can at least see how the marginal awardee of a Pell Grant is a victim here. Somehow I doubt the students in question are in the Pell bucket, though, especially since their room and board is getting paid for with the university's own scholarship "funds" (no actual funds change hands, of course, because 'scholarships' are just price discrimination between different classes of customer, but that's a digression). It's kinda a left hand / right hand thing, no? The financial aid office steers this discretionary bit or that discretionary bit, plus whatever fund is set aside for athletic scholarships, to make up the "package" and the kid signs it.


edit: I guess what feels a bit icky here is that nobody criticizes a high school senior for going to a school that offers the best price for a college education, or the best value for that education. But the minute that student crosses the break-even point, and goes from paying dollars to attend to making a personal profit on that decision of where to go, bring down the full weight of the federal law enforcement on them! For the tiny group of people where the school needs them more than they need the school, where they're viewed as "the product" rather than as "the customer", it seems we're saying the practice of boosters paying them to attend is not only against the rules of some silly Victorian-era classist idea of amateurism, but it's also criminal. How dare they take the best financial deal for themselves when marketing their talents, and how dare the coaches use what resources are at their disposal to put the best product on court and on TV.

I just kind of think of the whole pool of resources (from both the school and the boosters, and the shoe companies) as being part of what a given athletic director can steer towards his goals, and make part of the compensation package for his coaching staff to incentivize them. So this kinda feels like some factory general manager just had a budget meeting, and when he decided the break room was going to get a face lift this year, the SWAT team came in through the windows and hauled him away, because someone thought he should have bumped wages instead.
Good post. You raise some good policy questions. However, the actual law is a lot less intuitive.

First of all, here's the complaint against Lamont Evans, who was the assistant coach at OSU. https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/press-release/file/999011/download. If you read the charges, a couple of things become clear.

(1) A bunch of the counts involve the solicitation of bribes/gratuities by an agent of a federally funded organization. If you google the statute (18 USC 666(a)), you will find that courts have read this expansively, in a way that may be far broader than intended by the drafters or covered by good public policy. Be that as it may, under an expansive reading, the defendants are in a really bad place.

(2) With respect to "honest services" fraud, you're placing the emphasis on "services" while the interpretation of the statute emphasizes "honest." You're correct in pointing out that the university got the better deal by getting the player; but the statute says that the university is still deprived of the right to "honest" services, so it's a crime.

As a side note, from what I have read (not a ton so someone can correct me if I'm wrong) but the FBI's case is based almost totally on expansive readings of the statutes in question. If the US Gvt doesn't like this, they should deal with it by legislation.

Also, the people who really should be concerned about this are the workers at the shoe companies. They are the ones who are most at risk for being arrested. Note that at this point no coaches have been arrested to my knowledge, just the assistant coaches.

(3) As far as the players, I don't believe any of them have been indicted. The latest storm of publicity was the FBI releasing their investigative material to show violations of NCAA rules, not criminal violations.

Like I said, I haven't been following this very closely so if any of this is incorrect, I'm sure someone will post that shortly.
 

InstaFace

MDLzera
Sep 27, 2016
7,592
Yeah, I'm fine with expansive readings of overbroad statutes if the conduct in question "feels like a crime". To the loyal adherents of "Amateurism" in sport, I'm sure this feels crime-y. But I remain unsold that anything that resembles a crime here was committed, certainly not anything deserving the full weight of the FBI.

I'll spot you that it fits the letter of the law that you've laid out - you understand it far better than I do. But it feels much closer to the "everyone commits three felonies a day" line of concern from civil libertarians, than anything else. Some of those people don't think that intangible harms can be committed, and I break from them there - e.g. personal injury to reputation and such. But there's a not-unreasonable notion that if these laws are so broad that they can cover a situation like this, where there's no practical argument of harm being done, that it runs counter to public interest and the notions of freedom. Which is ultimately why I care, since I couldn't give two shits about Arizona Basketball.

As to point #2, about the emphasis being on "honest" rather than "services", I realize there isn't going to be some universally-agreed-upon definition of what constitutes honest conduct. But I do wonder whether an argument of "literally everybody does this, it's accepted practice in the industry, just because it's covert or against the rules of a private organization (NCAA) doesn't mean it's dishonest in a legal sense" would hold water. Dishonesty means you're not being straight with some other party. Here, the closest party I can identify with whom these coaches are not being honest is probably the NCAA. They have a don't-ask-don't-tell dynamic going on with their university superiors, their students, their fans and boosters (frankly, they may just tell the boosters, or at least the ones putting up the gray money). That doesn't quite fit what I think of as dishonest, any more than imprisoning gay members of the military (pre-2011) on the same theory would have done.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
16,368
Yeah, I'm fine with expansive readings of overbroad statutes if the conduct in question "feels like a crime". To the loyal adherents of "Amateurism" in sport, I'm sure this feels crime-y. But I remain unsold that anything that resembles a crime here was committed, certainly not anything deserving the full weight of the FBI.

I'll spot you that it fits the letter of the law that you've laid out - you understand it far better than I do. But it feels much closer to the "everyone commits three felonies a day" line of concern from civil libertarians, than anything else. Some of those people don't think that intangible harms can be committed, and I break from them there - e.g. personal injury to reputation and such. But there's a not-unreasonable notion that if these laws are so broad that they can cover a situation like this, where there's no practical argument of harm being done, that it runs counter to public interest and the notions of freedom. Which is ultimately why I care, since I couldn't give two shits about Arizona Basketball.

As to point #2, about the emphasis being on "honest" rather than "services", I realize there isn't going to be some universally-agreed-upon definition of what constitutes honest conduct. But I do wonder whether an argument of "literally everybody does this, it's accepted practice in the industry, just because it's covert or against the rules of a private organization (NCAA) doesn't mean it's dishonest in a legal sense" would hold water. Dishonesty means you're not being straight with some other party. Here, the closest party I can identify with whom these coaches are not being honest is probably the NCAA. They have a don't-ask-don't-tell dynamic going on with their university superiors, their students, their fans and boosters (frankly, they may just tell the boosters, or at least the ones putting up the gray money). That doesn't quite fit what I think of as dishonest, any more than imprisoning gay members of the military (pre-2011) on the same theory would have done.
I'm not arguing for or against an expansive reading of 666, but 666 has been used to prosecute scores of people who have defrauded the government or accepted bribes, such as governors, mayors, deputy mayors, city council members, hospital administrators, real estate developers, etc.
A lot of times, the defendants don't contest the actions being alleged but contest whether there is a legal statute under which they can be charged, particularly when people are more sophisticated than asking for cash for votes. (I can't find a good list of examples, but here's one place to start: https://www.scribd.com/document/255768031/Theft-or-Bribery-Concerning-Programs-Receiving-Federal-Funds-18-USC-666-Criminal-Law, most of which are clearly crimes.) 666 was specifically designed to allow the Feds to stop these kind of briberies from taken place, and for better or for worse, the various courts have agreed to read the statute expansively.

Bad facts make bad law.

And yes, from what I gather from what people do around here, there are a lot of us who are probably federal criminals under this statute.
 

DrewDawg

Dorito Dink
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
34,115
OK, following along, the school's ability to pay back federal loans is contingent on the students to whom they award those loans being properly eligible for them. Or, if I understand you, something about their (eventual) ability to repay the loan being properly represented. What about their eligibility, or repayment abilities, has shifted as a result of these revelations?
Again, I was giving a major oversimplification.

If you're saying "Hey, is the federal government possibly overreaching here?" then my answer would be "WHEN DOES THE GOVERNMENT EVER DO SUCH A THING???"

These universities are involved with the federal government and federal money and the schools are considered "federally funded". That gives our government (WHICH AGAIN, TOTALLY NEVER OVERREACHES) the change to investigate.

Soliciting of bribes is a common one. The United States doesn’t have a blanket law making all bribery illegal. But the positions of the people involved in these cases made it easy for the government to go after them.

The feds are charging four former assistant coaches at Division I schools as “agents of federally funded organizations.” They can do that because all of their former schools do more than $10,000 a year in business with the federal government, whether through grants, loans, contracts, or other collaborations.
https://www.sbnation.com/college-basketball/2018/2/25/17048132/fbi-ncaa-investigation-charges-crimes
 

soxhop411

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
34,110
Sean Miller totally denying the conversation took place. Giving himself zero wiggle room should his comments today be proven false.
 

scott bankheadcase

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2006
683
hoboken
Smart move by Miller and the University right? If he is on a wire, they're dead no matter what. This allows him to keep coaching this season, see if they can get a run in the tournament, and if he eventually gets fired for it, he still gets his 10m.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
16,368
Smart move by Miller and the University right? If he is on a wire, they're dead no matter what. This allows him to keep coaching this season, see if they can get a run in the tournament, and if he eventually gets fired for it, he still gets his 10m.
Good article from Deadspin addressing some of the questions raised about Miller's call. Of course, as the article points out, whether or not the calls were made, the arrest of the assistant coach was probably enough to get Miller fired.

So yes, I guess Miller has nothing more to lose - including his integrity.
 

Humphrey

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2010
713
I guess there's no expectation that the feds will turn over the evidence at any point soon, so, yes, smart move.
 

MillarTime

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
1,265
Beginning to wonder if ESPN effed up the Ayton/$100k story. I get that Miller has nothing to lose, but why would the university run him out there with such an emphatic denial unless they know it's not true/can't be proven.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
16,368
Beginning to wonder if ESPN effed up the Ayton/$100k story. I get that Miller has nothing to lose, but why would the university run him out there with such an emphatic denial unless they know it's not true/can't be proven.
Michael McCann appears to be reporting that the player in question wasn't Ayton so maybe that's the issue. Or the other issue is that recruits get paid after they finish the season, not before.

Here's Miller's full statement. Two quotes of interest:

(1) "I have never paid a recruit or prospect or their family or representative to come to Arizona. I never have and I never will. I have never arranged or directed payment or improper benefits to a recruit or prospect or family or representative and I never will." (Note that he didn't say that he has never discussed payment, nor does it say that a recruit has never been paid to go to his program.)

(2) "Let me be very very clear: I have never discussed with Christian Dawkins paying Deandre Ayton to attend the University of Arizona. In fact, I never even met or spoke to Christian Dawkins until after Deandre publicly announced he was coming to our school. Any reporting to the contrary is inaccurate, false and defamatory." (Two things: one, if McCann is right and the player isn't Ayton, that would fit. Or, if there's something about paying Ayton after he finishes the season - which would make sense because once players' seasons finish, they do take benefits, that would also fit.)

Question: why was Miller talking to Dawkins after Ayton committed? I guess we'll never know.

One more thing: these statements from various ARI officials that "if there was enough evidence, Miller would be arrested" is a red herring. There are almost no circumstances in which Miller could be arrested under the various statutes assuming he is not an idiot. The FBI acknowledges this and releases the information only because it would be a NCAA violation.

NCAA isn't going to dig very deeply into any of this, correct? Survival instincts.
 

Average Reds

Dope
Staff member
Dope
V&N Mod
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
24,828
Southwestern CT
Beginning to wonder if ESPN effed up the Ayton/$100k story. I get that Miller has nothing to lose, but why would the university run him out there with such an emphatic denial unless they know it's not true/can't be proven.
The timing of Miller’s emphatic-sounding denial is very, very odd, as the act of waiting five days allows the image of Miller on tape directing a payoff to be cemented in the public consciousness.

What this feels like is Miller, his lawyers and the university coming to the realization that there are significant problems with the ESPN story and deciding to push back in areas they know (believe?) can’t be refuted.

Maybe he’s actually clean, in which case he’ll probably be well compensated by ESPN down the line. But I have my doubts.
 

DrewDawg

Dorito Dink
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
34,115
This may deserve it's own thread, but it's an offshoot of all of this: https://sports.yahoo.com/nhl-model-perhaps-offers-best-reform-solution-wake-ncaa-hoops-scandal-150355518.html

Imagine Deandre Ayton suiting up to play down the stretch in the NBA like Donato is for the Bruins.

The NCAA should consider it the standard for all of its sports and the NBA should examine it as well.

Basketball is engulfed in scandal after a sweeping federal fraud case last year led to the arrest of 10 men and rocked college athletics. It prompted the NCAA to create an independent commission chaired by former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to offer suggestions on reform. Likewise, the NBA is reviewing its procedures, including the elimination of the one-and-done rule for draft eligibility. The problem is age old: this is a sport that too often eats its young talent.

If nothing else, someone should address why Ryan Donato can play NCAA hockey last week and NHL hockey this week, but basketball stars can’t even dream of such a thing.
 

SoxJox

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2003
3,617
Rock > SoxJox < Hard Place
The problem is age old: this is a sport that too often eats its young talent.
I say so what? Let 'em declare at ANY age (Ok, maybe 18 min).

There are a plethora of professions out there that eat their young. Adding, there are many who go to college and never find a job or work a single day in that chosen field. So they have a gift at some sport - as a professional it is still a chosen employment field, What are they left to do if they fail there or never get there and fail elsewhere? Move on...like the rest of the world.
 
Last edited:

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
16,368
I say so what? Let 'em declare at ANY age (Ok, maybe 18 min).

There are a plethora of professions out there that eat their young. Adding, there are many who go to college and never find a job or work a single day in that chosen field. So they have a gift at some sport - as a professional it is still a chosen employment field, What are they left to do if they fail there or never get there and fail elsewhere? Move on...like the rest of the world.
The 1 & Dun rule was instituted not for the players but to protect the owners from themselves, whose teams really couldn't figure out how to evaluate the talent properly.

The draft salary cap should help if the Owners want to get rid of the rule. However, I wonder how much it will hit the NCAA. At some point, losing all of the best players has to hurt, doesn't it?
 

SoxJox

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2003
3,617
Rock > SoxJox < Hard Place
The 1 & Dun rule was instituted not for the players but to protect the owners from themselves, whose teams really couldn't figure out how to evaluate the talent properly.
Wade, not arguing with you...maybe I'm coming from a position of fatigue on hearing about gifted athletes this, and gifted athletes that (OK, I'm just f**in' envious), but again I say so what that owners can't evaluate their talent properly? That differs how from the torrential flood of hiring managers and shithole HR departments that also don't have a clue but with whom a prospective or hired employee must deal? (And, for any HR folks out there, I'm not casting a wide net - just over those that are dark chasms of nothing, which certainly exist).

Because an athlete has a special talent or skill, we want to continue treating them different just so that we can see them in a position where we can get pleasure from watching them? OK. I wish that some of those interviewers with whom I did not "click" or make their cut could have somehow seen my unique or excellent skill set and had nurtured me and instituted a hiring process that I could - while earning well above the average Joe - determine if my boss is capable of evaluating me sufficiently well to ensure my continued employment and success.
 
Last edited:

DrewDawg

Dorito Dink
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
34,115
Marvin Bagley III:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaabk/report-bagley-family-received-direct-benefits-from-nike-sponsorship-of-aau-club-team/ar-BBKO7lZ?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=ientp

The ongoing investigation into finances surrounding amateur basketball have cast an ongoing shadow over some of college basketball's most talented young players. Chief among them is Marvin Bagley III, Duke's uber-talented freshman who is sure to be a top five pick in the forthcoming NBA Draft.


While Bagley III and Duke escaped any punitive measures during the FBI's initial investigation into youth basketball finances, that doesn't mean it will remain so in the future. In fact, according to an investigation by The Oregonian and OregonLive.com, the Bagley family may have been one of the more notable beneficiaries of direct sneaker company aid in the youth basketball scene.


http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/page/the_loyalty_game.html

Marvin Bagley Jr. and his wife filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in April 2008, during the Great Recession, listing their combined annual income at just over $44,000. Property records indicate the Bagley home was sold in 2011 at a trustee's sale -- typically a sign of a foreclosure.

Four years later, shortly after Nike's sponsorship of the team became public, they left their working-class neighborhood in Phoenix for Southern California. In a tax filing, the Bagleys listed a home address in a gated subdivision in Northridge called Porter Ranch. Similarly sized homes in the vicinity typically sell for $750,000 to $1.5 million, said Jose Contreras, a Coldwell Banker real estate broker active in the area. Rents in the neighborhood range from $2,500 to $7,500 a month.


After Nike agreed to sponsor his club team, Marvin Bagley Jr. posted a video on Instagram on April 17, 2017. "I got a truckload for the Nike Phamily," the driver says. In turn, Bagley commented: "Boxes still coming! #Nike #EYBL #Phamily
 

DrewDawg

Dorito Dink
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
34,115
From same article.

Josh Jackson:

Under Armour confirmed this week that it sponsored two club teams run by the parents of star players. The company backs a team led by Apples Jones, whose son Josh Jackson was selected by the Phoenix Suns in the first round of the 2017 NBA draft. Documents obtained during the corruption probe and reported by Yahoo Sports include emails that describe monthly $10,000 payments from the Baltimore-based company to Jones.

"Under Armour is giving her 10k a month, and she's also getting paid by adidas now — so she's plenty taken care of," Dawkins wrote of Jones.

The cryptic email doesn't address why Adidas would pay into a program sponsored by a competing shoe company. But in Jackson's only year of college basketball, he played for the University of Kansas, which is sponsored by Adidas.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
38,264
deep inside Guido territory
Trials have started and there is some very interesting testimony.

NEW YORK -- During opening statements Tuesday, attorneys for a former Adidas executive did not deny he conspired to or made payments to the families of high-profile basketball recruits.

"NCAA rules were broken," attorney Casey Donnelly told the jury. "We are not going to waste your time pretending these families did not get funds."

But James Gatto's defense team alleges that the former executive was simply asked to match other offers being made from rival programs to prospects, in order to level the playing field for Adidas schools. As a result, Donnelly argued, Gatto was helping the universities determined to be the victims of fraud -- not hurting them, as the government argues.

But Donnelly said in her opening statements that coaches at Adidas-sponsored schools asked Gatto for help in securing the highly ranked players.

Specifically, Donnelly alleged the evidence will show that Gatto agreed to pay Brian Bowen's father, Brian Bowen Sr., $100,000 for Bowen to attend Louisville, but only after Nike-sponsored Oregon offered the recruit an "astronomical amount of money" to sign with the Ducks.

Donnelly said Gatto and defendants Merl Code and Christian Dawkins also schemed to pay Nassir Little's family $150,000 to steer him toward the Miami Hurricanes, but only after Arizona, a Nike school, offered the five-star prospect from Florida the same amount to play for the Wildcats. Little committed to North Carolina shortly after the investigation broke last September.

And Donnelly said Gatto assisted Kansas by approving a $20,000 payment to Silvio De Sousa's guardian, Fenny Falmagne, to reimburse Under Armour, which had paid him to ensure that he signed with Maryland.

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/24872282/former-adidas-executive-james-gatto-break-law-orchestrating-payments-recruits-attorneys-say
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
38,264
deep inside Guido territory
Explosive testimony today by Brian Bowen Sr. as transcribed by Dan Wetzel. He detailed offers told to him by Christian Dawkins for his son to go to various schools, AAU programs, and even high schools. Bowen Sr. was also paid for his son to attend different HS and AAU programs.

--Arizona offered him $50,000 via assistant coach Joe Pasternak.
--Oklahoma State offered $150,000, $8,000 for a car, and undisclosed money for a house via assistant coach Lamont Evans.
--Texas "would help him with housing via assistant coach Mike Morrell.
--Creighton "would pay $100,000 plus a lucrative no-show job."
--Bowen Sr. was paid $25,000 to play with the AAU program Michigan Mustangs for a summer. Money came from Adidas.
--Bowen Sr. was also paid anywhere from 5-8k to play for a Nike based AAU program outside of Chicago.
--Bowen Sr. was paid $2,000 a month to attend La Lumiere in Indiana by coach Shane Heirman
--Bowen Sr. also said that the original offer of $60,000-$80,000 from Adidas to go to Louisville was upped to $100,000 because that is how much money it took to get Billy Preston to go to Kansas.
 

Dernells Casket n Flagon

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 24, 2008
3,527
From what I can tell, he was ranked between 19-21 in his prospect class nationally. Wonder what type of offers the top 5 prospects were looking at.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
16,368
Explosive testimony today by Brian Bowen Sr. as transcribed by Dan Wetzel. He detailed offers told to him by Christian Dawkins for his son to go to various schools, AAU programs, and even high schools. Bowen Sr. was also paid for his son to attend different HS and AAU programs.

--Arizona offered him $50,000 via assistant coach Joe Pasternak.
--Oklahoma State offered $150,000, $8,000 for a car, and undisclosed money for a house via assistant coach Lamont Evans.
--Texas "would help him with housing via assistant coach Mike Morrell.
--Creighton "would pay $100,000 plus a lucrative no-show job."
--Bowen Sr. was paid $25,000 to play with the AAU program Michigan Mustangs for a summer. Money came from Adidas.
--Bowen Sr. was also paid anywhere from 5-8k to play for a Nike based AAU program outside of Chicago.
--Bowen Sr. was paid $2,000 a month to attend La Lumiere in Indiana by coach Shane Heirman
--Bowen Sr. also said that the original offer of $60,000-$80,000 from Adidas to go to Louisville was upped to $100,000 because that is how much money it took to get Billy Preston to go to Kansas.
Interesting to note that this testimony was solicited by the government, as apparently the defense is going to argue that if they defendants were just matching offers, they weren't depriving the universities of "honest services," they were helping the university to obtain services.

With respect to Vitale's note, most people think the defense is going to reveal as many additional NCAA violations as possible. As noted in the article linked below, "a violation of NCAA rules is not a criminal violation."

Should be an interesting day of testimony.

More here: https://sports.yahoo.com/tuesday-impactful-day-yet-college-hoops-corruption-trial-043905489.htmle is going to ask Bowen Sr. about everything that he was offere
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
16,368

Brian Bowen Sr. tells jury that ex-Louisville asst coach Kenny Johnson handed him $1,300 cash in summer 2017 to help Bowen family make rent after they relocated to city to watch son. "He made it pretty clear that this was like a one-time deal for him," Bowen Sr. says
 

DukeSox

Rick Derris
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2005
10,863
When does duke finally get nailed?
if anything, players should be paying for the honor of attending Duke University and playing for the best coach in history and then going near the top of the draft every year
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
16,368

"TJ Gassnola just testified in federal court that he made payments to the families of 5 players on behalf of Adidas: Deandre Ayton Brian Bowen Silvio De Sousa Dennis Smith Jr. Billy Preston"

Note that Gassnola plead guilty to charges already and he was an Adidas rep. I believe Ayton has previously denied getting paid.
 

DukeSox

Rick Derris
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2005
10,863
Teams that made national championship runs with players that got paid keep popping up that Duke lost to in Elite 8s, Sweet 16s, etc those years. K probably could have 10+ titles if everyone played clean like Duke. Ah well, it is what it is.
 

Clears Cleaver

Lil' Bill
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
11,140
Teams that made national championship runs with players that got paid keep popping up that Duke lost to in Elite 8s, Sweet 16s, etc those years. K probably could have 10+ titles if everyone played clean like Duke. Ah well, it is what it is.
And at least two more if he didn't get outcoached by Jim Calhoun. Its amazing K doesn't have 20+ titles
 

Clears Cleaver

Lil' Bill
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
11,140
And then there was Zion....


He asked Kansas for a job, money and a house for his family. They worked to put it together but he ended up at Duke

I’m sure because of the ugly co-Ed population...