Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Basketball
Arrests coming due to college bball kickbacks
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="RamblinRed" data-source="post: 478397" data-attributes="member: 1776"><p>I wouldn't have been surprised with any outcome in this trial but I think the general shock within the basketball community is largely due to the fact that it was largely mocked by those who follow college basketball. Almost every column I saw written was on how ludicrous the trial even taking place was, not whether it was even possible to win.</p><p></p><p>Only 2 reporters spent the majority of the trial in the courtroom - Matt Norlander and Dan Wetzel, just showing how little those in college basketball and those who cover it took it seriously.</p><p></p><p>Norlander, as I mentioned before, talked in one report about how different it was playing in the courtroom vs when he talked to people outside the courtroom. He mentioned that the defense attorneys were doing a poor job, often meandering and not asking focused questions and that you could see the jury rolling their eyes at times at the defense attorneys. Having sat on 2 juries (one criminal, one civil) it was obvious to me by those comments that the jurors were not buying at least some of what the defense attorneys were trying to argue.</p><p></p><p>The judge also made it clear from the beginning he was not going to allow the trial to be about the college basketball system, it would be about these 3 individuals and the charges against them, it took away a big piece of the defense plan to basically play the 'everybody does it' card. I'm sure there will be appeals but I don't expect much to come from them - those have to be based on matters of law, not you think the jury made an incorrect decision.</p><p></p><p>I'm interested to see how this affects future defendants. We have trials coming up in Feb and April - are those defendants now more likely to take plea deals and turn on higher ups in the food chain. Those 2 trials involve the asst coaches. </p><p></p><p>In my mind this also drives an interesting wedge between universities and coaches as employer and employee. The outcome basically says if the coach (an an employee) makes a decision that could defraud the university (employer) of federal funds, then the employee is committing a federal crime. It puts the HC in a much more precarious position if he wants to 'cheat' to get players to his school.</p><p></p><p>I have my own feelings about the current college basketball situation. I think a prospect should be allowed to earn money but not from the school itself. I've seen the comparison to say a concert pianist who earns income and attends a school. But the school is not paying the pianist beyond the scholarship money, that is being paid other organizations for the pianist's services. In the college basketball world that would mean the school can still provide the prospect a scholarship, but additional earnings come from other outside sources (shoe companies, agents, etc). I'd be fine with that. Heck, Darius Bazley took a $1M intern deal with New Balance last week instead of playing in the G'League - good for him. But if it ever got to the point where the universities were paying the prospects directly beyond the scholarship and stipend then that would probably be when I stop watching college sports. it's probably the point at which college sports should be detached from the colleges completely as at that point they are legitimately no longer a student, they are simply an employee.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RamblinRed, post: 478397, member: 1776"] I wouldn't have been surprised with any outcome in this trial but I think the general shock within the basketball community is largely due to the fact that it was largely mocked by those who follow college basketball. Almost every column I saw written was on how ludicrous the trial even taking place was, not whether it was even possible to win. Only 2 reporters spent the majority of the trial in the courtroom - Matt Norlander and Dan Wetzel, just showing how little those in college basketball and those who cover it took it seriously. Norlander, as I mentioned before, talked in one report about how different it was playing in the courtroom vs when he talked to people outside the courtroom. He mentioned that the defense attorneys were doing a poor job, often meandering and not asking focused questions and that you could see the jury rolling their eyes at times at the defense attorneys. Having sat on 2 juries (one criminal, one civil) it was obvious to me by those comments that the jurors were not buying at least some of what the defense attorneys were trying to argue. The judge also made it clear from the beginning he was not going to allow the trial to be about the college basketball system, it would be about these 3 individuals and the charges against them, it took away a big piece of the defense plan to basically play the 'everybody does it' card. I'm sure there will be appeals but I don't expect much to come from them - those have to be based on matters of law, not you think the jury made an incorrect decision. I'm interested to see how this affects future defendants. We have trials coming up in Feb and April - are those defendants now more likely to take plea deals and turn on higher ups in the food chain. Those 2 trials involve the asst coaches. In my mind this also drives an interesting wedge between universities and coaches as employer and employee. The outcome basically says if the coach (an an employee) makes a decision that could defraud the university (employer) of federal funds, then the employee is committing a federal crime. It puts the HC in a much more precarious position if he wants to 'cheat' to get players to his school. I have my own feelings about the current college basketball situation. I think a prospect should be allowed to earn money but not from the school itself. I've seen the comparison to say a concert pianist who earns income and attends a school. But the school is not paying the pianist beyond the scholarship money, that is being paid other organizations for the pianist's services. In the college basketball world that would mean the school can still provide the prospect a scholarship, but additional earnings come from other outside sources (shoe companies, agents, etc). I'd be fine with that. Heck, Darius Bazley took a $1M intern deal with New Balance last week instead of playing in the G'League - good for him. But if it ever got to the point where the universities were paying the prospects directly beyond the scholarship and stipend then that would probably be when I stop watching college sports. it's probably the point at which college sports should be detached from the colleges completely as at that point they are legitimately no longer a student, they are simply an employee. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What jersey number did Joshua Nesbitt wear?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Basketball
Arrests coming due to college bball kickbacks
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top