Adidas executive James Gatto handed more criminal counts in college basketball probe

[glassmanJ]

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-ba...adidas-executive-fbi-college-basketball-probe

kansas, miami, and nc state named as having paid players. but basically says no schools knew about and thus no punishment would be my guess

 

[KozmasAgain]

Let's see if any of these schools fire their coach or AD's. I think we will be the only ones with idiots in charge that will do this. I am anxious to see if this happens and to all the people and the crap Journal who accused CRP of paying players I guess you were wrong.

 

[Knucklehank1]

Any schools on probation will probably fire their coach if they are also involved in the FBI probe.

 

[KozmasAgain]

Well Knucklehank1 we will see, I guess you didn’t read the article because the article said that the schools or coaches didn’t pay anybody it was adidas who paid. So if none of our coaches paid anybody and we will find out through the FBI findings then why did we fire people. There will be plenty of investigations that will tell us the truth.
One will be by the FBI, one will be by the lawsuits filed by CRP and Tom Jurich, one by the NCAA and one from all of the other schools named. Let’s all remember that Knucklehank1 expects the coaches and AD’s from all the schools named by the FBI will fire their coaches and AD’s.

 

[zipp]

Any schools on probation will probably fire their coach if they are also involved in the FBI probe.

U of L wasn't on probation when Bowen accepted money from adidas and committed to attend here. But you've never worried about facts before...

 

[Knucklehank1]

Well Knucklehank1 we will see, I guess you didn’t read the article because the article said that the schools or coaches didn’t pay anybody it was adidas who paid. So if none of our coaches paid anybody and we will find out through the FBI findings then why did we fire people. There will be plenty of investigations that will tell us the truth.
One will be by the FBI, one will be by the lawsuits filed by CRP and Tom Jurich, one by the NCAA and one from all of the other schools named. Let’s all remember that Knucklehank1 expects the coaches and AD’s from all the schools named by the FBI will fire their coaches and AD’s.

And that’s not what I said.

 

[Knucklehank1]

U of L wasn't on probation when Bowen accepted money from adidas and committed to attend here. But you've never worried about facts before...

And yet we were on probation when we fired Pitino and were named in the FBI probe. Of course, Zipp likes to create “new” narratives

 

[KozmasAgain]

You missed the point of the article Knucklehank1, the article bought out that more schools were involved. The article bought out that the players were paid by adidas not by the schools. How do you punish schools for something someone else did that is not connected to the school?

 

[teamcanada]

It will be interesting when the Nike shoe drops.

 

[Knucklehank1]

You missed the point of the article Knucklehank1, the article bought out that more schools were involved. The article bought out that the players were paid by adidas not by the schools. How do you punish schools for something someone else did that is not connected to the school?

You missed the point of my post. Yes, I’m aware the schools were the “victims” of this fraud. However we also allegedly have an assistant that was aware of the payments and we were already in the crosshairs of the NCAA. To suggest there weren’t other mitigating circumstances for UofL in firing Pitino is silly.

 

[zipp]

And yet we were on probation when we fired Pitino and were named in the FBI probe. Of course, Zipp likes to create “new” narratives

No, you're trying to create an ISSUE to bolster the position(s) of the clown show. Being on probation is irrelevant to the FBI stuff as far U of L is concerned because we were not. But that scenario would have amplified the stakes for Pitino, so naturally, you go in that direction. As long as you can keep these clowns looking as good as possible.

And it's good to see you're as obvious to others as you are to me.

 

[REDFISTFURY3]

It will be interesting when the Nike shoe drops.

Don't bet on Nike getting hammered for anything their the ones with the original blueprint for all this crap. And put the wolves onto Addias

 

[Morgantown Card]

U of L wasn't on probation when Bowen accepted money from adidas and committed to attend here. But you've never worried about facts before...

While technically correct, I fear that the NCAA, who has shown they can use their own discretion/general mood of the day in handing out punishment, will look at Louisville as if they were on probation....so effectively, they will have been on probation.

While I take no joy in the misery of others, Kansas getting caught is potentially a huge help to Louisville. No one is going to care about NC State vacating their 10th place finish in the ACC or whatever. Same with The U. Bill Self is such a nice man...how could he have done anything wrong? Kansas vacating a Final Four will result in outcries about the system being broken, and how we need to change the rules going forward to stop this instead of punishing the programs.

 

[Rockfly78]

I look for Kansas to take the stance of “we didn’t know” in attempt to become the victim of the show company’s villainy. It’s the smart play and as long as they covered their tracks well (or if it happens to be true) then I think it will work. I’ve said from the beginning that there will be two groups involved.

Group A -Schools who have no clear ties to pay for play either through the individual or the show company.

Group B -Schools who are caught red handed with a mediary between the individuals and the shoe company.

Both groups will have essentially played players who are technically ineligible. But only group B will be punished to any affect. How severe the punishment, who knows? In the end, the shoe companies and AAU organizations will be branded as corrupt and new rules put in place. The punishment structure will be overhauled and college ball will “restart”. This will go down almost identical to the steroid scandal in MLB.

Afterall, there IS prior precedent for players who have taken illegal benefits yet still were allowed to play with full eligibility and no punishment. But I expect the NCAA will look for full cooperation of everyone they wish to talk to

 

[CardX]

NC State, eh?

https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2017/10/5/16434406/louisville-nc-state-fbi-chant

 

[Knucklehank1]

No, you're trying to create an ISSUE to bolster the position(s) of the clown show. Being on probation is irrelevant to the FBI stuff as far U of L is concerned because we were not. But that scenario would have amplified the stakes for Pitino, so naturally, you go in that direction. As long as you can keep these clowns looking as good as possible.

And it's good to see you're as obvious to others as you are to me.

I’m creating the issue! Ha! Being on probation is relevant when deciding on retaining or firing someone, regardless if the second issue technically took place in the probation period. And it’s painfully obvious to everyone where you stand - I think Vince would call you a WEED.

 

[zipp]

While technically correct, I fear that the NCAA, who has shown they can use their own discretion/general mood of the day in handing out punishment, will look at Louisville as if they were on probation....so effectively, they will have been on probation...

I feel the opposite... Unless there's a lot more on U of L that we don't know about, I think additional penalties for us will be minimal. For two reasons...

One, is answering the question "how do you punish one school more than the other at the same time for the same infraction?" You know U of L is going to be involved in SOME group of schools, not on its own. And any inequity in doling out penalties is going to be immediately obvious to anyone. My guess is U of L is guilty of a lot less in this regard than schools like Kansas, Duke, and LPT.

Secondly, I think the type of punishment that will be doled out U of L has already incurred. The NCAA is not going to severely penalize offending schools going forward; the penalties will be on historical records and probably directed at coaches employed at the college level. We've already vacated the seasons that are likely involved in pay-for-play. You can't remove a banner that's no longer hanging.

I'm generally skeptical about anything that's NCAA related. But they have too much skin in the game on this one. To survive--which is their ultimate goal--they can't be seen as inept and impotent, nor can they kill the golden goose. The NCAA needs to survive with some degree of credibility, and of course they need their money...

 

[zipp]

I’m creating the issue! Ha! Being on probation is relevant when deciding on retaining or firing someone, regardless if the second issue technically took place in the probation period. And it’s painfully obvious to everyone where you stand - I think Vince would call you a WEED.

Smearing facts is a loser's argument--which is par for the course for the clown show. And fanboy calls me "small but loud" which sounds kinda annoying for him. I'm down for that...

 

[Knucklehank1]

Smearing facts is a loser's argument--which is par for the course for the clown show. And fanboy calls me "small but loud" which sounds kinda annoying for him. I'm down for that...

Coach Pitino must’ve loved you - you lead this board in deflections and imaginary narratives.

 

[zipp]

Coach Pitino must’ve loved you - you lead this board in deflections and imaginary narratives.

Check the record... Usually I just RESPOND to flawed narratives like yours.

 

[Rockfly78]

I feel the opposite... Unless there's a lot more on U of L that we don't know about, I think additional penalties for us will be minimal. For two reasons...

One, is answering the question "how do you punish one school more than the other at the same time for the same infraction?" You know U of L is going to be involved in SOME group of schools, not on its own. And any inequity in doling out penalties is going to be immediately obvious to anyone. My guess is U of L is guilty of a lot less in this regard than schools like Kansas, Duke, and LPT.

Secondly, I think the type of punishment that will be doled out U of L has already incurred. The NCAA is not going to severely penalize offending schools going forward; the penalties will be on historical records and probably directed at coaches employed at the college level. We've already vacated the seasons that are likely involved in pay-for-play. You can't remove a banner that's no longer hanging.

I'm generally skeptical about anything that's NCAA related. But they have too much skin in the game on this one. To survive--which is their ultimate goal--they can't be seen as inept and impotent, nor can they kill the golden goose. The NCAA needs to survive with some degree of credibility, and of course they need their money...

I realize I have to tread lightly on this to avoid banishment. But the key for UL will be the repeat offender tag and the probation. You may say that the dates don’t line up and the probabtiin came a couple weeks after the Vegas thing but that will not matter to the NCAA. They won’t look at those two weeks as a grace period for further offenses.

Based on what we know, UL is unique to the other offenders because of the two staffers in Vegas. That will be a linchpin. To your point about the punishment UL already received, that’s irrelevant. That was for Powell. This would be new. However, I do think any future punishment will be lighter than many are expecting but it will be at the discretion of the NCAA. The spot light won’t shine as bright on you the second time around. Again, this is a national hot topic in the sport that we all follow. Not trying to troll or flame. Next week it could become a Kentucky topic, who knows? But I’ll worry about the boogeyman when he shows up

 

[zipp]

I realize I have to tread lightly on this to avoid banishment. But the key for UL will be the repeat offender tag and the probation. You may say that the dates don’t line up and the probabtiin came a couple weeks after the Vegas thing but that will not matter to the NCAA. They won’t look at those two weeks as a grace period for further offenses...

That's just slapd!ck speculation. The dates don't line up. And in all likelihood, the NCAA would have to justify harsher penalties for lighter crimes. My guess is they'll have enough of their a$$es exposed to not pick new battles.

...Based on what we know, UL is unique to the other offenders because of the two staffers in Vegas. That will be a linchpin. To your point about the punishment UL already received, that’s irrelevant. That was for Powell. This would be new. However, I do think any future punishment will be lighter than many are expecting but it will be at the discretion of the NCAA. The spot light won’t shine as bright on you the second time around. Again, this is a national hot topic in the sport that we all follow. Not trying to troll or flame. Next week it could become a Kentucky topic, who knows? But I’ll worry about the boogeyman when he shows up

And among your many problems, you obviously can't read... "Based on what we know" is irrelevant because we don't know anything. Why doesn't the NCAA mete out penalties today?...Because they don't know anything. You wait to find out what the FBI releases on all of these other schools and players and coaches.

I'm not predicting lighter punishment for U of L. We'll have to vacate seasons that ineligible players participated in. Can't vacate 2013 again! We could lose an Elite Eight a decade ago, maybe. But you can't execute the criminal more than once...only one life to take. The CONSEQUENCES for U of L will be less...

 

[HedleyLamarr]

We don’t really know what the evidence will actually show in this case. Supposedly, a Louisville assistant coach was taped in a meeting with conspirators. Curiously, he was not indicted along with the others. Louisville fired the coach, ad, and didn’t play the player. Kansas, on the other hand, played the player and went to a final four. Can’t imagine that the NCAA is going to be able to let that go.

 

[Rockfly78]

That's just slapd!ck speculation. The dates don't line up. And in all likelihood, the NCAA would have to justify harsher penalties for lighter crimes. My guess is they'll have enough of their a$$es exposed to not pick new battles.

And among your many problems, you obviously can't read... "Based on what we know" is irrelevant because we don't know anything. Why doesn't the NCAA mete out penalties today?...Because they don't know anything. You wait to find out what the FBI releases on all of these other schools and players and coaches.

I'm not predicting lighter punishment for U of L. We'll have to vacate seasons that ineligible players participated in. Can't vacate 2013 again! We could lose an Elite Eight a decade ago, maybe. But you can't execute the criminal more than once...only one life to take. The CONSEQUENCES for U of L will be less...

The NCAA has said they won’t launch any official investigations until he fbi is finished and who knows how long that will be. So that’s why nothing will happen today. But we do know what’s been reported on so far. I don’t presume to speculate beyond that on what’s went on. But I make my opinions based on what has been reported.

 

[zipp]

The NCAA has said they won’t launch any official investigations until he fbi is finished and who knows how long that will be. So that’s why nothing will happen today. But we do know what’s been reported on so far. I don’t presume to speculate beyond that on what’s went on. But I make my opinions based on what has been reported.

Slappies have an incentive to say "so far so good" while trying to remain as oblivious as possible.

But signing forty 5-star kids in less than a decade and nothing more to satisfy yourselves than your own coach's non-denial denial would leave me a little empty feeling too. That sort of delusion might work on an LPT message board, but we live in more of a real world here. That's a world where blue chip kids are getting paid something and don't care whether it breaks NCAA rules or not. Deferred gratification is not in play...

 

[Rockfly78]

Slappies have an incentive to say "so far so good" while trying to remain as oblivious as possible.

But signing forty 5-star kids in less than a decade and nothing more to satisfy yourselves than your own coach's non-denial denial would leave me a little empty feeling too. That sort of delusion might work on an LPT message board, but we live in more of a real world here. That's a world where blue chip kids are getting paid something and don't care whether it breaks NCAA rules or not. Deferred gratification is not in play...

Not oblivious. But paranoid is no way to live

 

[nccardfan]

I realize I have to tread lightly on this to avoid banishment. But the key for UL will be the repeat offender tag and the probation. You may say that the dates don’t line up and the probabtiin came a couple weeks after the Vegas thing but that will not matter to the NCAA. They won’t look at those two weeks as a grace period for further offenses.

Based on what we know, UL is unique to the other offenders because of the two staffers in Vegas. That will be a linchpin. To your point about the punishment UL already received, that’s irrelevant. That was for Powell. This would be new. However, I do think any future punishment will be lighter than many are expecting but it will be at the discretion of the NCAA. The spot light won’t shine as bright on you the second time around. Again, this is a national hot topic in the sport that we all follow. Not trying to troll or flame. Next week it could become a Kentucky topic, who knows? But I’ll worry about the boogeyman when he shows up

Wasn’t Powell, it was McGee who was an employee or at least was a representative of the university.

 

[Rockfly78]

Wasn’t Powell, it was McGee who was an employee or at least was a representative of the university.

Right. I meant to say the powell case. Thanks

 

[zipp]

Not oblivious. But paranoid is no way to live

There's an entire continuum in between. No extreme is a good place to be...

 

[ColonelCat]

You missed the point of the article Knucklehank1, the article bought out that more schools were involved. The article bought out that the players were paid by adidas not by the schools. How do you punish schools for something someone else did that is not connected to the school?

I would believe that 'extra' s/a benefits would make a player ineligible irregardless of who supplied the cash..Makes sense to me, maybe I'm wrong though..