Back to Post
| Username | Post: College Basketball Coaches Indicted | |
|---|---|---|
|
Penn90 Masters Student Posts 574 
|
09-26-17 12:53 PM - Post#233250
This seems like a big deal.
|
|
|
Silver Maple Postdoc Posts 3777 |
09-27-17 04:42 PM - Post#233261
Well, it certainly is for the guys who got indicted. |
|
|
penn nation Professor Posts 21205 |
09-27-17 05:28 PM - Post#233267
Wonder how Hicks feels about all of this. |
|
|
TheLine Professor Posts 5597 |
09-27-17 05:57 PM - Post#233268
Feels like this may be the tip of the iceberg. There's lots of money sloshing around in big time college athletics. |
|
|
SRP Postdoc Posts 4911 |
09-27-17 07:27 PM - Post#233277
IL players paid off with donations to their charity foundations? |
|
|
dperry Postdoc Posts 2214
|
09-28-17 10:13 AM - Post#233302
The effect of this on the Ivies could be either very good or bad. If we're at least reasonably clean, and the rest of the college hoops universe gets reined in as a result of this, then we're probably going to get a lot better relative to everyone else. On the other hand, if we're not clean, or if this accelerates the already coming day when the big schools go off and form their own sports organization, then we're going to take a big hit. Also, I'm a bit confused about the theory behind these charges. Obviously, all of this stuff rips the NCAA rulebook in half, throws it down, and stomps on it. I can also see how coaches at state schools can be charged with bribery, since they are government employees. However, apparently Southern Cal is also involved in this, and I wasn't aware that bribery as legally defined could occur between private parties. This article says that the feds will try to claim that their provision of funds to these schools justifies the charges. Would any of the esquires on here care to opine as to whether this will hold up in court?
|
|
|
Stuart Suss PhD Student Posts 1439 |
09-28-17 10:56 AM - Post#233303
Here is the Sports Illustrated article referenced by David. There is a somewhat technical analysis of the applicable federal laws. The next shoes will drop when one or more of the arrested assistant coaches makes a deal for himself in return for testimony against his head coach. The head coach's defense will be. "I did not know what was going on." A jury may have a reasonable doubt as to the truthfulness of the testimony of the assistant coach and acquit the head coach. But even an acquittal will be career ending for the head coach who will have admitted that either (1) he chose not to care how his employees behaved or (2) he was incompetent in his supervision of his employee. And, even if a head coach is acquitted at trial on a defense of "I know nothing," the facts that are revealed will damage the head coach, the university and the sport itself. There may already be wiretaps of conversations involving head coaches. The arrest and prosecution of the head coach will not go forward until there is a plea deal which provides for the testimony of the assistant coach or the shoe company employee. |
|
|
palestra38 Professor Posts 32834 |
09-28-17 01:14 PM - Post#233311
I'm not going to opine on legality, although it would appear to be a very tough case against anyone who didn't have the hand in the cookie jar, but really... How can we indict the guys who took advantage of the money pouring in to big time college sports but not the guys who committed the worst academic fraud ever uncovered....yes, I'm talking about North Carolina, which still has its coach and championships. |
|
|
SRP Postdoc Posts 4911 |
09-28-17 02:58 PM - Post#233324
After reading the SI article I find myself quite antagonistic to the federal prosecutors. Their theory of what is illegal here as an underlying federal crime is strained and IMO pretextual--the alleged "victims" (schools deprived of "honest services" , students who received payments, etc)--are more like beneficiaries or co-conspirators. Then they pile the usual federal BS process crimes (wire fraud, etc.) on top to create a scarier worst-case scenario for defendants. As Harvard Law grad Harvey Silverglate has written about the general phenomenon, this looks like more "three felonies a day" abuse by the Justice Department. |
|
|
Streamers Professor Posts 8257 
|
09-29-17 08:46 AM - Post#233354
Sounds like Federal Prosecutor 101: Go high profile, twist the statutes if you must, and cherry pick likely winners, or a least deal makers. I'm fine with it in this case. If this causes a bunch of dominoes to fall, there is a chance that it could produce some kind of structural change in college sports. I can dream can't I? |
|
|
SRP Postdoc Posts 4911 |
09-29-17 02:46 PM - Post#233363
That's the problem: Too many constituencies happy to watch others' civil liberties consumed by the federal leviathan because "in this one case" they deserve it. No. There is nothing here that looks like a crime. |
|
|
Local Observer Junior Posts 231 
|
09-29-17 03:00 PM - Post#233365
Is bribery a "crime"? |
|
|
SRP Postdoc Posts 4911 |
09-29-17 03:07 PM - Post#233366
The lawyers can parse out the exact elements of " criminal bribery" but in common parlance it involves paying someone to violate his duty and harm the public. Are NCAA rules now to be treated as equivalent to law? And why criminal rather than civil remedies? |
|
|
Silver Maple Postdoc Posts 3777 |
09-29-17 04:01 PM - Post#233367
Perhaps the real problem here is that, because the organization that should be policing this situation-- the NCAA-- is unwilling or unable to do so, the job falls to the prosecutors. They're just doing what they can in a situation in which their tools really aren't suited to the task at hand. . |
|
|
SRP Postdoc Posts 4911 |
09-29-17 05:54 PM - Post#233371
No, the job does not "fall to the prosecutors." Prosecutors, especially federal prosecutors, are not supposed to be all-purpose scourges of everything shady or unfair. There are supposed to be well-defined criminal laws that people know when they are disobeying, not a general hunting license for the feds to chase down every impropriety. Does anyone think that the parents who received money for their kid to go to Louisville thought that they were part of a conspiracy to commit wire fraud? Is there one Kentucky taxpayer who is not a UK fan who thinks that he or she was deprived of the "honest services" of the coaches who worked with Adidas and used Adidas money to win a recruiting battle? Nor do such prosecutions necessarily make the world less shady and unfair. In this case, don't be surprised if the initial impetus for the probe was a tip-off from an Adidas competitor [cough, Nike, cough] upset about losing market share. (Although I saw that a Nike-funded youth league or team might have been subpoenaed as well) |
|
|
SRP Postdoc Posts 4911 |
09-29-17 05:59 PM - Post#233372
A supportive commentary here: https://www.si.com/college-basketball/20 17/09/29/c... |
|
|
 |
|
| Copyright © 2004-2012 Basketball U. Terms of Use for our Site and Privacy Policy are applicable to you. All rights reserved. Basketball U. and its subsidiaries are not affiliated in any way with any NCAA athletic conference or member institution. |
|