Bengal visitor said:PlayerRep said:Bengal visitor said:Had dinner with my friend, a federal judge, Saturday night. As soon as I mentioned that agents were bribing coaches to get kids to sign up with their agencies, he said, "Wire fraud." This is a judge who has been hearing federal criminal cases for 25 plus years, and he recognized right away the issue.PlayerRep said:That is exactly my point. What is the FBI/DOJ doing wasting time and resources on college basketball? There are many bigger things to focus on. Let the ncaa do its own (shoddy) work.
And what is the ncaa doing, going after UM for hot dogs and tiny stuff--and giving the big boys a pass?
And what is the ncaa doing going after Penn St, when no ncaa athletes were involved (only a former ncaa coach)--and not looking into Mich. St/Nasser, in which there were many ncaa athletes being abused?
Of course, the other issue that will likely arise if these alleged payments are verified is tax evasion. Anybody think these assistant coaches or the players' families are reporting this extra "income?"
It isn't wire fraud unless money was "wired". And it isn't wire fraud to wire money in general. Only if there is an underlying crime.
What's your basis for saying these were "bribes"? Shoe companies pay schools and coaches to wear their products. That's not a bribe. Please cite us to where/why this is a "bribe".
Yup, agree with the tax evasion.
From the USA Today coverage of the case:
According to the complaint issued by federal prosecutors in late September, the four coaches committed fraud and corruption as it pertains to the recruitment of potential student-athletes, including counts of conspiracy to commit bribery and solicitation of bribes and gratuities.
Yes, the article says what the charge said. Just because the government alleges something was bribery doesn't mean it's bribery. I'm asking you to how this payment constituted "bribery". It generally isn't bribery to pay money to someone for something. There has to be a statute. Like you can't pay an elected official to get something from the government.
And do you think it should be against the law for a shoe company to provide money to someone to give to a recruit's parent or recruit so that the kid comes to the school where the shoe company has a contract? I understand that that would violate current ncaa rules. But schools get to "bribe" recruits to come to their school, with a scholarship. Coaches get to get "bribed" by sportswear companies to support their products. Schools get to get "bribed" by shoe companies to use their products. Is Nike "bribing" UM with its contract.
And companies and law firms get to "bribe" potential employees to join their firms by paying them "signing bonuses".
I just don't understand why what was done in some of these cases should be illegal or deemed to be a bribe, when it looks like only an ncaa violation to me.