2016-2017 College Basketball Thread

[Vince, Pt. II]

Originally Posted by Logan

If you remove the whole accountability aspect, what you are saying is that a coach could quite literally tell an assistant "Go meet Booster Jones in the parking lot of the Walmart, where he will hand you a bag of money to hand deliver to Recruit Smith so that he signs with us". And short of any recordings of that conversation, or an admission of guilt from either party, he would never be able to face any kind of punishment.

Does there need to be accountability for this? I mean, I don't want to condone these actions but at the same time the burden of proof should lie on the accuser, right? Innocent until proven guilty, and all.

Edit: Ksyrup has a pretty good point above, I apparently was replying to a very cached page in my browser. Disregard.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

The better analogy would be the restaurant worker taking kickbacks from a supplier to purchase tainted meat to serve at the restaurant. In that case, you don't think it's fair to hold the manager responsible for the acts of one his/her delegates that is directly related to job responsibilities? The manager's primary job is to oversee operations and delegate tasks to assistants. If one of them does something wrong/illegal related to the tasks they are handling for the business, the manager's job is rightly in jeopardy.

The difference here is that there's (presumably) an obvious result, eventually customer get sick.

What's the result in the hoops case, you get a player from a guy whose job it was to deliver players (most of the accused ass't are/were recruiting coordinators I believe). So you see exactly what you're supposed to see ... so the HC naturally has to assume that he did something improper I guess.

That's the part that just makes no sense to me in this sidebar: "the coach should have known".
And since analogies seem to be so fucking challenging for the FOFC on this subject, here, let me try to make it as direct as possible: If I walk outside and bribe a player tomorrow, using money that you never touched & did not know was in my possession, how the fuck did you know I was doing it?

Is there supposed to be a camera on me 24/7? Maybe make all the assistant wear body cams? But then, how do we know the footage isn't being tampered with? Ooh, maybe every assistant has a person attached to them full-time who has to record every movement. Oh wait, that person is probably in on it too.

For the HC to be responsible without specific knowledge of a violation OR of a plan to commit violations OR even without creating a culture where "do what you gotta, just don't tell me" .. basically it requires a presumption of guilt at all times. And that just doesn't seem quite right (and seems unlikely to hold up in court at the level it seems to be proposed here ... court being relevant since wrongfully terminated coaches will be suing to get their jobs/money).

[Ksyrup]

I think what we're talking about is accountability, not that he did know or even should have known. It's simply a matter of applying the sliding scale of "how good are you at your job" versus "seriousness of allegation and PR hit" in determining whether the HC's accountability gets him fired. We've seen it with Pitino. Lesser HCs lose their job easily in the prostitution scandal, under the same facts.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And since analogies seem to be so fucking challenging for the FOFC on this subject, here, let me try to make it as direct as possible: If I walk outside and bribe a player tomorrow, using money that you never touched & did not know was in my possession, how the fuck did you know I was doing it?

I wouldn't.

For the HC to be responsible without specific knowledge of a violation OR of a plan to commit violations OR even without creating a culture where "do what you gotta, just don't tell me" .. basically it requires a presumption of guilt at all times. And that just doesn't seem quite right (and seems unlikely to hold up in court at the level it seems to be proposed here ... court being relevant since wrongfully terminated coaches will be suing to get their jobs/money).

I guess some of us just aren't this naive and understand that this is exactly how every P5 coach who engages in these activities operates, for this very reason. It could never be proven otherwise short of those body cams you want.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Couple thoughts:

You have to hand it to Pitino. In a world as dirty as college sports recruiting, to end up going down in history as "the skeezy one" is pretty impressive.

If Louisville does get the death penalty, doesn't that end up putting the whole town of Louisville into economic turmoil? I've never been, but I assume that Louisville is like most college towns in that the sports ends up driving the entertainment economy. I know that if UNC basketball ended up going away for 2 years, most of downtown Chapel Hill would go away with it. The bars and restaurants wouldn't make enough to stay open.

I have no opinion on whether they should or should not get the death penalty. Just noting that the decision will have repercussions far beyond the team or even the school.

I've been once and I didn't even notice the university there. It was 2006 when I was there, so it may be different now, but I don't remember them being a major factor like a Penn State or Oregon would be. Louisville is a top 50 MSA at 1.2 million people.

A quick read says it's a top 10 inland port in the US and is big in the air freight industry. Much like Birmingham, the actual influence of the university on the city economically is health care/medical research.

[Butter]

It's actually amazing to me that someone who can craft such subtle and elegant analogies, while still holding a "kill 'em all" attitude towards criminals of all sorts, immigrants, and homosexuals can then also believe that heads of dozens of college basketball programs could remain totally ignorant of intricate and high level cheating that goes on under their very noses... benefiting greatly from it, while at the same time asking zero questions about it.

[Ksyrup]

I live near Lexington but work across the river from Louisville in Indiana. Yes, this would be a huge hit. The Yum! Center financial issues are huge, although admittedly I don't know much about the specifics since I don't live around here. Bottom line, if you took away Louisville bball, it would be devastating.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Butter

It's actually amazing to me that someone who can craft such subtle and elegant analogies, while still holding a "kill 'em all" attitude towards criminals of all sorts, immigrants, and homosexuals can then also believe that heads of dozens of college basketball programs could remain totally ignorant of intricate and high level cheating that goes on under their very noses... benefiting greatly from it, while at the same time asking zero questions about it.

Not a paradox at all.

In every example you cited -- whether you cited them accurately or not -- there's evidence of misconduct associated directly with the recipient of any punishment I propose. I'll even add that where I propose expanding the definition of misconduct, there's still a need for misconduct to occur before punishment is dealt. The caveat there being that I don't apply the rules retroactively (not even with my position on drug offenses do I do that).

At no point I can think of have I suggested doing anything different with Coach X or Coach Y at any university.

You haven't seen me question, just for a somewhat recent example, sanctions levied against Bruce Pearl even when they bit a team I favor in the butt. He screwed up, he pays the price for it.

I've supported the efforts of the NCAA to enforce their rules, I'm in favor of them expanding their efforts to do so, I'm a staunch supporter of most of the rules that frequently arise.

In this current case, maybe you require staff members to provide monthly banking records to head coaches. I mean, you want them to know whether somebody is taking payoffs, then give them a means to check that. (I even noted previously that if a guy suddenly shows up in a Lambo & a different Rolex every day then you probably ought to ask some questions).

I just figure that there ought to be something more higher than an "oh, well, he's supposed to read minds" standard before you end someone's career.

[MrBug708]

Ironically enough, the Ball family is probably clean, or clean enough

[corbes]

Pitino and Jurich are both reportedly out.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Not a paradox at all.

In every example you cited -- whether you cited them accurately or not -- there's evidence of misconduct associated directly with the recipient of any punishment I propose. I'll even add that where I propose expanding the definition of misconduct, there's still a need for misconduct to occur before punishment is dealt. The caveat there being that I don't apply the rules retroactively (not even with my position on drug offenses do I do that).

At no point I can think of have I suggested doing anything different with Coach X or Coach Y at any university.

You haven't seen me question, just for a somewhat recent example, sanctions levied against Bruce Pearl even when they bit a team I favor in the butt. He screwed up, he pays the price for it.

I've supported the efforts of the NCAA to enforce their rules, I'm in favor of them expanding their efforts to do so, I'm a staunch supporter of most of the rules that frequently arise.

In this current case, maybe you require staff members to provide monthly banking records to head coaches. I mean, you want them to know whether somebody is taking payoffs, then give them a means to check that. (I even noted previously that if a guy suddenly shows up in a Lambo & a different Rolex every day then you probably ought to ask some questions).

I just figure that there ought to be something more higher than an "oh, well, he's supposed to read minds" standard before you end someone's career.

What do you think about athletes who test positive for banned substance? Should the league/governing body have to prove that the athlete knew what the substance was and knew that he was taking it? Wouldn't an easy loophole around that be to just stay willfully ignorant and put your staff in charge of what supplements you take? That's basically what Pitino and others do with assistant coaches. The bribed players are the banned substances, and the job of the staff is to get them, to keep them eligible, by any means necessary without implicating the coach. That's why Pitino hires these people. It's some crazy coincidence that all these assistant coaches do this. They didn't all "flake out". That's why they're there.

The concept of strict liability and not having to prove personal knowledge or intent for a violation of some kind isn't novel or crazy. In pops up even in the criminal and civil legal systems. And when it does, it's in situations just like this, where the rules would be pointless unless you imposed some responsibility for conduct of others or for an end result.

Edit: And the NCAA already does hold coaches accountable for the actions of their staff to some extent, I just think it should be more. They had no evidence Pitino knew about the prostitution stuff but he still got suspended. Boheim, Larry Brown, and Calhoun have all been penalized without proof of personal involvement in violations. The NCAA always spells out the reasons for this in its sanction reports. It's the coach's job to run the ship, and Pitino hired his staff and delegated responsibilities in such a way that made issues inevitable, and he did that exactly so he could have an edge and benefit from violations without personally breaking rules himself.

[CrescentMoonie]

Pitino is the dirtiest coach in a state that employs John Calipari.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

Pitino hired his staff and delegated responsibilities in such a way that made issues inevitable.

I keep feeling like something is getting lost here somewhere.

I'm not talking about Pitino here ... because it didn't appear that the original suggestion that sent us down this rabbit hole was about any particular coach.
I'm talking about HC's in general, as that appeared to be the scope of the suggestion.

And I'm arguing -- I guess -- that every single HC in the country shouldn't be held to a presumption of guilt based on prior bad acts of another coach(es).

Or, hey, maybe that IS where we are: that we just assume all coaches/programs are dirty (which might not be a big stretch IMO) and each one gets the same punishment regardless of their documented history.

If that's the case though, ya know, maybe we ought to just shut the whole thing down.

[molson]

But Pitino fits the version of the NCAA you're advocating for - where nobody gets punished unless they have personal knowledge of violations or personally committed violations themselves. If that's the standard there's no reason to fire Pitino, he's still in the clear, and his suspension in the prostitution scandal was unjust (as were the penalties imposed on Larry Brown, Boeheim, and Calhoun in similar situations). He's the very best example for the point you're making.

[Arles]

I'm not sure what's going to happen with Arizona, but it doesn't look good. Most of the people I talk to that have ties to the basketball program feel this could be very bad. I like Sean Miller as a coach and feel like he has done a very good job with Arizona basketball. But, even if he's shown to have never participated or even known what Book was doing, it is on his watch. I can't see the team not losing scholarships and getting atleast a 1-year ban on postseason play. It's sad too, because Tucson is completely wrapped up in Arizona basketball (much like Louisville).

I wonder if any kind of NCAA reforms will happen because it's pretty clear that paying top 50-100 players to attend your school is common practice. Does the NCAA just keep hammering the handful of programs stupid enough to get caught with their hand in the cookie jar and show a blind eye to everyone else? Or, do they come up with some manner of regulating/monitoring this process? I'm thinking it will continue to be the first option...

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I keep feeling like something is getting lost here somewhere.

I'm not talking about Pitino here ... because it didn't appear that the original suggestion that sent us down this rabbit hole was about any particular coach.
I'm talking about HC's in general, as that appeared to be the scope of the suggestion.

And I'm arguing -- I guess -- that every single HC in the country shouldn't be held to a presumption of guilt based on prior bad acts of another coach(es).

Or, hey, maybe that IS where we are: that we just assume all coaches/programs are dirty (which might not be a big stretch IMO) and each one gets the same punishment regardless of their documented history.

If that's the case though, ya know, maybe we ought to just shut the whole thing down.

I think where I fall is this.

The HC hires his assistant coaches. He is responsible for their moral fiber and conduct. Therefor he becomes accountable for their actions. If you have been a HC for 5 years with an exemplary track record and you have an assistant go rogue. No big deal. You fire him, condemn him publicly and privately and we move forward. If you have a different assistant get tainted every year, or every damn member of your staff is tainted then maybe, just maybe its systemic if not complicit. In which case the coach loses his job for not being good at evaluating and hiring assistant coaches.

Since we are stuck on analogies...if you find yourself in an unfamiliar part of town and assume its a 45 mph zone but in reality its a 35 zone...you are still guilty of a crime. It doesnt make you a bad person, but you do deserve a ticket. Same here, the coach HAS to know.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

But Pitino fits the version of the NCAA you're advocating for - where nobody gets punished unless they have personal knowledge of violations or personally committed violations themselves. If that's the standard there's no reason to fire Pitino, he's still in the clear, and his suspension in the prostitution scandal was unjust (as were the penalties imposed on Larry Brown, Boeheim, and Calhoun in similar situations). He's the very best example for the point you're making.

I felt like, yes, the suspension for the prostitution incident was more about an attempt to be p.c. than anything else.

If you look back, I believe you'll find where I noted at the time that I believed sex-for-recruits was possibly the single most consistent tactic in use for decades and that all that really differed in the Louisville case was that facepalm sloppiness an assistant displayed while organizing it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

even farther sidebar here, but it struck me interesting (not sure whether this thread or the CFB thread honestly):

I won't link the article I read since it's from one of the sites that seems to break shit on the forum (SBNation) but in short, the firing of Jurich at L'ville apparently cuts Petrino's buyout clause in half. Instead of $8+ million now it becomes $4m or so.

Here's a story from 2014 that notes the linkage between Petrino's buyout & Jurich's presence
CRAWFORD | Petrino's buyout cut in half if Jurich leaves as AD - WDRB 41 Louisville News

[Ksyrup]

Not guilt but accountability. You keep ignoring or not appreciating the difference. A coach doesn't have to be guilty or have knowledge of what has occurred to be held accountable for the actions of his reports.

[molson]

Originally Posted by corbes

Pitino and Jurich are both reportedly out.

Pitino's lawyer is already threatening legal action

And I love the little tidbits that are a little under the radar just because there's so much stuff. Like Louisville signing a huge deal with Adidas and then Jurich's daughter immediately thereafter getting a job at Adidas.

[CrescentMoonie]

I coached a few sports at the HS level for nearly a decade. One time I had one assistant coach who parents complained about for a variety of issues that I had nothing to do with and didn't even observe. Once one of the bigger ones was confirmed, I fired him on the spot and sat down with the concerned parents to hash out the issues and move forward. I was absolutely responsible for what he was doing.

Pitino has had assistant after assistant linked to a variety of illegal activities. The idea that he, or other coaches, are not culpable for the actions of their staff is laughable.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Not guilt but accountability. You keep ignoring or not appreciating the difference. A coach doesn't have to be guilty or have knowledge of what has occurred to be held accountable for the actions of his reports.

So you're holding them accountable ... without them being guilty of something. Interesting concept.

The reasonable standard for that seems to be "should have known". Or at least "should have done something to prevent". Those are roughly the basis for which, for example, military commanders are held responsible for the actions of their subordinates despite a lack of direct knowledge.

We've already covered the difficulty in 24/7 monitoring, so let's look at the prevention aspect: How to you train/teach someone to not be a lying, cheating, bribe-taking p.o.s.?

I'll apply the same notion here that I apply to coaches & responsibility for the players they bring in: is there some reason to have doubts about the ethics of
a recruit? (or to extend to this situation, a staff member)

You bring in a known druggie/thief/violent actor and they repeat their actions, then sure, you fail the "could/should have anticipated" test. But some player (staffer) that has no history of an offense who suddenly commits one? Gets into mind-reading territory.

I don't know any of the indicted assistants off-hand aside from Chuck Person ... and I know him only as a player really. I have no idea whether this is violation #432 for one or all of them, or a first-offense for each. But in a case of a hypothetical first-offender, how was anyone supposed to predict their act? Simply by virtue of their employment I guess.

*God knows I hesitate to attempt any analogies here at this point but that's the first situation I can think of where a superior is held responsible for a subordinate despite the absence of direct knowledge or involvement.

[Ksyrup]

This isn't a new concept. In fact, it just happened in the military with the Navy's response to several incidents. The commander in charge was let go, and it doesn't appear he was directly involved in anything that caused the issues or that he would have known about. What I read was each incident was unique but couldn't be viewed in isolation. Translation - too many bad things happened on his watch, so he's out. Accountability.

[CrescentMoonie]

It really is a stunningly simple concept. You're in charge so you're responsible. Shit happens, you don't fix it, more shit happens and now you're fired.

[Ksyrup]

Also, we're not talking about "guilt" in a legal sense. A coach doesn't have to be fired for a criminal act that he knew or should have known about.

[CU Tiger]

Heavy the head that wears the crown

[Ksyrup]

I haven't watched any of the news on this so I don't know if this is also being discussed on ESPN and the like, but people in the office are watching the local news and saying that Tom Crean's name has surfaced as a possible interim coach and they want one named in the next 48 hours.

[CrescentMoonie]

Crean's wiki page already has him listed as the Louisville coach.

[Butter]

Feel like this needs to be its own thread, eh? There's no way this isn't going to be dragging on for years.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Butter

Feel like this needs to be its own thread, eh? There's no way this isn't going to be dragging on for years.

Yep.

Saw rumors of Crean to UL on my Hoosiers board. Does he really want another dumpster fire?

[Kodos]

.

[MrBug708]

Darren Heitner ✔@DarrenHeitner
Sources: Employees of Nike's EYBL grassroots division, along with documents, have been subpoenaed by FBI in furtherance of investigation

This is a much bigger issue than what just went down

[Butter]

Which is why Indiana basketball was... sub-optimal for a few years there?

I've also heard that Thad Matta and John Beilein are held as "squeaky clean" examples. Matta would surprise me considering the teams he had in the late 00's and early 10's.

[dacman]

Lots of smoke about how Thomas Bryant and Noah Vonleah wound up at IU -- squeaky clean my ass.

[Arles]

I talked to someone I've known for a while who's pretty dialed in with college hoops. He said by the time everything comes out, we could have 50-100 college basketball programs implicated in some capacity. Essentially any program who has landed a player in the top 100 has done something shady to funnel money to them or their family. This could get nuts.

[albionmoonlight]

You know, college football has a symbiotic relationship with the NFL. It's a free minor league system. Seems to work well for both parties.

With overseas leagues, a growing D-league, and expanded interest in the NBA generally, the NBA does not really need College BB to develop/expose talent.

If some major scandal rocked NCAA football, I could see the NFL jumping in to help provide some support.

I could see the NBA figuring that the end of college hoops as we know it is no big deal. Which makes the next few years a must riskier time for big time college hoops.

[Arles]

I think you would see the TV networks get involved. They make a ton from March Madness and there isn't going to be a massive rush to go watch the D-League or overseas basketball if college hoops goes belly up.

[albionmoonlight]

Fair point. And doesn't CBS's contract run through, like, 2050 or something?

[Arles]

Looks like the flipping has begun for AAU coaches. One under investigation has already provided information on recruiting practices by South Carolina and Miami. The next few weeks should be pretty interesting.

[tarcone]

No honor among thieves.

Can there be AAU reform? WIll Adidas, Nike, Under Armour, etc. step up and help clean up the system? Or is the money more important?

[Ksyrup]

Watching a bit of the local (Lexington) news and the Yum Center has been losing millions of dollars a year even with UL bball doing well as its primary tenant and still owes $300M in bond payments. If UL goes down, downtown Louisville takes a huge hit.

[Arles]

There's just too much money. The NCAA has known for years that if a kid plays for an Adidas AAU team, he will go to a school that gets money from Adidas. This is pretty much par for the course outside of the big hitters like Kentucky, Kansas, Duke, UNC (they can get any kid by their brand/tactics). Here's a good article on this from 2014:

Of the twelve players asked their opinion on the subject, all replied that they knew at least one person in their time on the AAU circuit who openly admitted that part of his decision to commit revolved around the type of shoe that particular school was affiliated with.

Ole Miss (a Nike school) senior guard Jarvis Summers was the most forthcoming in his answer. He called it a “big recruiting advantage” for schools that share the same brand affiliation as a prospect’s AAU team.

“I played for the Jackson (Miss.) Tigers in AAU and we were sponsored by Nike and a lot of players on my team, they didn’t want to go to an adidas school,” Summers said.

Shoe company affiliations the heart and sole of recruiting affairs | NCAA Basketball | Sporting News

Here's some other data:

Since the 2010 class, 75 percent of recruits signed by the Nike-sponsored University of Kentucky came from Nike-backed travel programs. During the same period, 43 percent of the signees at adidas-sponsored U of L came from Nike clubs.

Indiana University, another adidas-sponsored school, signed five players from Nike programs — or 25 percent of its high school signees — and 11 players from adidas programs during that period.

So, it's OK for shoe companies to funnel millions of dollars to AAU coaches to impact a recruit's decision - but it's not OK for a money management firm or apparel company to funnel money to coaches to help land them once they declare for the draft? The reality is AAU coaches/parents get cash from schools to allow access to their player/kid. It's been going on for decades and the NCAA knows about it.

If you want to see it in action, watch the "At all Costs" documentary on Netflix that follows some top prospects through the AAU circuit and their participation/selection in shoe company tournaments.

[Kodos]

https://www.azdesertswarm.com/basket...ook-richardson

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Arles

There's just too much money. The NCAA has known for years that if a kid plays for an Adidas AAU team, he will go to a school that gets money from Adidas. This is pretty much par for the course outside of the big hitters like Kentucky, Kansas, Duke, UNC (they can get any kid by their brand/tactics). Here's a good article on this from 2014:


Shoe company affiliations the heart and sole of recruiting affairs | NCAA Basketball | Sporting News

Here's some other data:


So, it's OK for shoe companies to funnel millions of dollars to AAU coaches to impact a recruit's decision - but it's not OK for a money management firm or apparel company to funnel money to coaches to help land them once they declare for the draft? The reality is AAU coaches/parents get cash from schools to allow access to their player/kid. It's been going on for decades and the NCAA knows about it.

If you want to see it in action, watch the "At all Costs" documentary on Netflix that follows some top prospects through the AAU circuit and their participation/selection in shoe company tournaments.

Kids cross shoe lines all of the time. Sure the chances are pretty good that they do sign with the same company because it's usually Nike, but it's not a guarantee that they do. Kevin Love played for a Nike team, then an Adidas team, thennsigned with an Adidas school, then signed a shoe contract with Nike.

[Kodos]

Pretty funny.

[Atocep]

I think it's safe to say Rick Pitino coached his last NCAA game.

[CrescentMoonie]

Does this stick to his son, at all, even without evidence that the younger Pitino is participating in the same kinds of behaviors?

[Easy Mac]

I have to ask, I've read a few articles from respected basketball journalists who say not only was this a known secret, but basically these kinds of deals would be discussed more or less openly at tourneys and what not.

My question is, why did none of these journalists report it then? Isn't that their job? It just feels like how they all reacted to steroids in baseball.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I think it's safe to say Rick Pitino coached his last NCAA game.

If he is indeed "Coach-2" then he's done.

[Ksyrup]

With the Feds moving on to Nike, it's only a matter of time until everyone can brush up their resumes to apply for soon-to-be-open college jobs. It has that feel of an impending armageddon in the coaching ranks.