New Schools Named in FBI Investigation

[Wooglin]

redundant post---deleted

[Dan]

I would argue Tortious Interference. Adidas has a contract with a school to supply products and they are actively interfering with the school’s ability to play and promote their amateur athleties/athletics by jeopardizing their students eligibility.

[Kung Wu]

I would argue Tortious Interference. Adidas has a contract with a school to supply products and they are actively interfering with the school’s ability to play and promote their amateur athleties/athletics by jeopardizing their students eligibility.

Boom!

Not only that, there are hundreds of universities that have a contract with the NCAA, and these shoe sharks are interfering with each and every one of those contracts. The damage isn't just to the recipient school. The other schools have lost airfare, lost hotel expense, lost food expenses, wasted coaching salaries, and lost potential revenue by other coaches recruiting the same kids within the framework of their contract with the NCAA. The shoe companies are interfering with ALL of those contracts and causing systemic damage, when they provide 3rd party funds to a prospect.

They really should have considered that angle.

[Dan]

It would be cool to see the non P5 schools start a class action lawsuit against the shoe companies.

[AZ Shocker]

Yes it would be cool. Think about the old Missouri Valley and similar conferences. What if 5- Star talent was consistently signing up to play at Drake, Southern Illinois, etc. What kind of TV contract would the league have???? Probably a pretty big one. One that would be waaaaay more in line with the P-5 competition making a level playing field across the whole NCAA. Cheating only makes it unfair for the whole of the NCAA. Other conferences should be pissed with the unfairness. But...perhaps that's how the NCAA likes it.

[another shocker]

it seems that the ncaa allows this sort of thing to happen at a select few schools: unc, ku, duke, ucla, msu (now), uk, etc.

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

I'm not sure how they can claim the schools are being victimized. These 5 star players bring massive amounts of attention and winning, which excites a fanbase, creates opportunities for TV contracts, and brings future 5 star players that create a self-perpetuating success spiral. And the only way the NCAA can "punish" a school for ineligible players is to vacate wins (which is always long after the fact and has absolutely no impact on the school's present and future success or its past media hype) or to impose a postseason ban--which rarely happens, and then has only a slight impact on the program.

It seems to me the schools know there's really no downside for them or their program no matter what the NCAA does. The coaches may lose their jobs, but for the school there's little risk, weak consequences, and therefore, no real victimization.

What if the NCAA was able to punish a school for infractions by pulling a school's regular season media rights in addition to a post season ban, so none of its games would appear on TV or online for a season or two? In this day and age, that might as well be the death penalty.

[rrshock]

Didn't the NCAA used to put a ban on televised games? But that was argued to be hurting the other school playing?

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

Decent argument. But in my opinion it's only one game for out of conference opponents and one/two games (depending on conference schedule) for conference opponents, which isn't significant collateral damage.

[abdullah_sharif]

yes rrahock, i believe smu had a tv ban in their football death penalty case

[Kung Wu]

But that was argued to be hurting the other school playing?

To which I say, be very thoughtful of what schools you add to your conference. :)

[WstateU]

[im4wsu]

I'm not sure how they can claim the schools are being victimized. These 5 star players bring massive amounts of attention and winning, which excites a fanbase, creates opportunities for TV contracts, and brings future 5 star players that create a self-perpetuating success spiral. And the only way the NCAA can "punish" a school for ineligible players is to vacate wins (which is always long after the fact and has absolutely no impact on the school's present and future success or its past media hype) or to impose a postseason ban--which rarely happens, and then has only a slight impact on the program.

It seems to me the schools know there's really no downside for them or their program no matter what the NCAA does. The coaches may lose their jobs, but for the school there's little risk, weak consequences, and therefore, no real victimization.

What if the NCAA was able to punish a school for infractions by pulling a school's regular season media rights in addition to a post season ban, so none of its games would appear on TV or online for a season or two? In this day and age, that might as well be the death penalty.

I continue to believe that the harshest penalty would be to make the offending school write substantial checks to the other schools in their conference. Would that piss off donors if they saw their donations going to their rivals?

[Dan]

they can ban coaches for a start. You cheat, you get suspended. You again, you get banned from coaching.

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

I could get behind a coaching ban for the severest of infractions.

[bleed yellow]

There it is.. https://www.aseaofblue.com/2018/10/1...urtis-townsend

[ShockdaWorld]

Best college basketball news I’ve seen in a while that didn’t include WSU.

[WstateU]

There it is.. https://www.aseaofblue.com/2018/10/1...urtis-townsend

Yikes! Self (aka The Silverback to KU fans) can't be too happy...

[ABC]

Just a note of caution: closing arguments isn't evidence. BUT this ain't good for Uncle Bill.

[ShockdaWorld]

I agree it’s not evidence in the case, but it is something that can be passed on to the NCAA when the feds are done.

[WstateU]

Oh $hit! 351 RPI Delaware State's in deep doo-doo!!

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

Look out UMKC!!!