More info on UNC academic scandal

[sagegrouse]

It's hard to tell what Nocera's point is. That prosecutors should not have indicted people who appear to have broken North Carolina criminal law? Or that this sort of activity should continue to be the exclusive province of the NCAA?

.

Nocera's point, which has been the subject of a number of more libertarian questioners on this Board, is that the supposed illegal activity is a normal economic or social activity between consenting adults that should not be subject to criminal sanctions. Moreover, the law was put in place at the behest of a monopolist (monopsonist, actually) that is restricting income and other benefits flowing to the players who are generating all the revenue. For Nocera, who has been on the NCAA's case for some time, kinda like Bilas, this is just another type of perfidy.

In other words, in his view, the law is asinine.

I am most impressed by noted defense lawyer Joe Cheshire, who has quite a rep in North Carolina. I'd hire him in a trice -- he has already gotten the New York Times on the case in favor of his client, Jennifer Wiley Thompson.

sagegrouse

[Henderson]

Nocera's point, which has been the subject of a number of more libertarian questioners on this Board, is that the supposed illegal activity is a normal economic or social activity between consenting adults that should not be subject to criminal sanctions. Moreover, the law was put in place at the behest of a monopolist (monopsonist, actually) that is restricting income and other benefits flowing to the players who are generating all the revenue. For Nocera, who has been on the NCAA's case for some time, kinda like Bilas, this is just another type of perfidy.

1. I'd like to see where that libertarian thinking goes. Doping? Why not? Point shaving? Sure. Recruits to the highest bidder? No problem. Allowing players to pay others to take the SAT? Go for it. Allowing college players to play without attending classes? That's freedom. Not all slopes are slippery, but this one seems to me to be.

2. It doesn't matter whose idea these criminal sanctions were. They were passed by legislators and signed by governors of 41 states -- the democratically elected representatives of the people. And it's not like the NCAA "bought" that result in 41 states by paying huge campaign contributions to elected officials.

3. Joe Nocera and Jay Bilas are not alone in thinking that college players should get more of a cut of the economic pie. I'm in that camp. But you don't get there with ad hoc arguments against enforcement of democratically-enacted legislation. You also don't get there by going backwards on unsavory agent practices that put schools and players at risk but which leave the agents unreachable. You get there through a well-thought out program of changes that takes into account all the complexities. The issue of player economic requirements remains an issue precisely because it's complicated. And because it's complicated, its solution is not found in simplistic calls for economic liberalism or the disregard of criminal statutes.

[lotusland]

As a self proclaimed libertarian I question why the NCAA and member institutions cannot choose to be an amateur league of student athletes? I'm not in favor of anyone being forced to participate. I think libertarians should maybe look to the pro leagues to reform.

[MChambers]

Joe Nocera of The New York Times is not a fan of the criminal prosecutions

It used to be that the N.C.A.A. could only wreck the lives of athletes. Now, it appears, thanks to the Uniform Athlete Agents Act, nonathletes can also have their lives wrecked by the N.C.A.A. ...

If the Orange County district attorney succeeds in his effort to prosecute the North Carolina five, it will mean that other prosecutors, in other jurisdictions, will follow suit. Going after someone who has tainted dear old State U. will be irresistible.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/26/op...ml?ref=opinion

I'm not a fan of Joe Nocera, so I'll skip the article, but what you've quoted seems very unpersuasive.

[sagegrouse]

1. I'd like to see where that libertarian thinking goes. Doping? Why not? Point shaving? Sure. Recruits to the highest bidder? No problem. Allowing players to pay others to take the SAT? Go for it. Allowing college players to play without attending classes? That's freedom. Not all slopes are slippery, but this one seems to me to be.

2. It doesn't matter whose idea these criminal sanctions were. They were passed by legislators and signed by governors of 41 states -- the democratically elected representatives of the people. And it's not like the NCAA "bought" that result in 41 states by paying huge campaign contributions to elected officials.

3. Joe Nocera and Jay Bilas are not alone in thinking that college players should get more of a cut of the economic pie. I'm in that camp. But you don't get there with ad hoc arguments against enforcement of democratically-enacted legislation. You also don't get there by going backwards on unsavory agent practices that put schools and players at risk but which leave the agents unreachable. You get there through a well-thought out program of changes that takes into account all the complexities. The issue of player economic requirements remains an issue precisely because it's complicated. And because it's complicated, its solution is not found in simplistic calls for economic liberalism or the disregard of criminal statutes.

As a self proclaimed libertarian I question why the NCAA and member institutions cannot choose to be an amateur league of student athletes? I'm not in favor of anyone being forced to participate. I think libertarians should maybe look to the pro leagues to reform.

First of all, Henderson, I was explaining some of the sentiment on the Board re punishing agents, not athletes. I tend to agree with you that, notwithstanding the argument about transaction between consenting adults, a state has the right to regulate commerce, including imposition of penalties for those it deems to be wrong.

I must admit, however, that I have a problem with incarceration of folks where the only harm was to the eligibility of college athletes and their teams.

sagegrouse

[Newton_14]

First of all, Henderson, I was explaining some of the sentiment on the Board re punishing agents, not athletes. I tend to agree with you that, notwithstanding the argument about transaction between consenting adults, a state has the right to regulate commerce, including imposition of penalties for those it deems to be wrong.

I must admit, however, that I have a problem with incarceration of folks where the only harm was to the eligibility of college athletes and their teams.

sagegrouse

First, I greatly respect your opinion, and your posting Sage, and find myself agreeing with you on most topics. So this is simply an amicable discussion on differing opinions. The reason I am so passionate about the agent runner/scumbag situation, is because there is zero doubt in my mind that none of them have the kids best interest at heart. They could give a rats patootie about the kid. They want a portion of the kids potential longterm earnings. So they throw cash, gifts, plane tickets, hookers, whatever, at the athlete's under the ruse that they are "Helping a poor kid with no means to money" out. BS. They are using the kids and in many cases costing them their college careers. It is certainly debatable as to what a fair and just punishment is, but until the courts start throwing these clowns in jail, for a period of time long enough to make them feel the pain, this is never going to stop. Look at all the things Jennifer Wiley did. It's despicable. They ruined the careers of numerous athletes. These folks are leeches, and they need to be eradicated.

Without the laws that the 41 states have in place, we are powerless to stop them. Since the laws are in place, the violators should be punished to the full extent of the law to insure there won't be a "next time".

My two cents...

[sagegrouse]

First of all, Henderson, I was explaining some of the sentiment on the Board re punishing agents, not athletes. I tend to agree with you that, notwithstanding the argument about transaction between consenting adults, a state has the right to regulate commerce, including imposition of penalties for those it deems to be wrong.

I must admit, however, that I have a problem with incarceration of folks where the only harm was to the eligibility of college athletes and their teams.

sagegrouse

First, I greatly respect your opinion, and your posting Sage, and find myself agreeing with you on most topics. So this is simply an amicable discussion on differing opinions. The reason I am so passionate about the agent runner/scumbag situation, is because there is zero doubt in my mind that none of them have the kids best interest at heart. They could give a rats patootie about the kid. They want a portion of the kids potential longterm earnings. So they throw cash, gifts, plane tickets, hookers, whatever, at the athlete's under the ruse that they are "Helping a poor kid with no means to money" out. BS. They are using the kids and in many cases costing them their college careers. It is certainly debatable as to what a fair and just punishment is, but until the courts start throwing these clowns in jail, for a period of time long enough to make them feel the pain, this is never going to stop. Look at all the things Jennifer Wiley did. It's despicable. They ruined the careers of numerous athletes. These folks are leeches, and they need to be eradicated.

Without the laws that the 41 states have in place, we are powerless to stop them. Since the laws are in place, the violators should be punished to the full extent of the law to insure there won't be a "next time".

My two cents...

Yeah, you're right. The agents and professional runners need big punishment. I was thinking of Jennifer Wiley Thompson, who deserves punishment for lots of things. (And, no, being formally disassociated from UNC Athletics is not punsihment -- it's a merit badge.) If her only crime was forwarding some travel money, I'd expect probation would be an adequate deterrent. But maybe there's more on ol' JWT... it seems the story never ends.

sagegrouse

[Atlanta Duke]

I'm not a fan of Joe Nocera, so I'll skip the article, but what you've quoted seems very unpersuasive.

I was just quoting Nocera without necessarily agreeing with his conclusions, but as far as unscrupulous prosecutors playing a matter for short term political gain rather than for a proper allocation of limited prosecutorial resources I certainly agree with that part of his column

Joe Cheshire also was involved in a case establishing that possibility of which every poster on this board presumably is aware

[Wander]

I'm not a fan of Joe Nocera, so I'll skip the article, but what you've quoted seems very unpersuasive.

I'm not a fan of the paying athletes stuff, but I do at least recognize that Jay Bilas and people on this board make intelligent points about it, and Bilas comes from a knowledgeable place about how the system works.

But Joe Nocera is a naive fool. He thinks that athletes don't do well financially because they don't have ENOUGH contact with agents? That these agents are just "giving advice" to college students? That these people are really just helping the UNC kids make their homework better? Give me a break.