PDA

View Full Version : Dean Smith left each of his players $200 for a nice dinner



rthomas
03-26-2015, 02:52 PM
That is about a cool as it gets.

http://www.foxsports.com/buzzer/story/north-carolina-dean-smith-leaves-former-players-200-dollars-032615


As you are aware Coach Dean Smith passed away on February 7, 2015. As Trustee of the Dean E. Smith Revocable Trust, I am responsible for carrying out the direction of Coach Smith with respect to a small bequest to each varsity basketball letterman he coached.

Each player was important and special to Coach Smith and when he prepared his estate plan, Coach wanted to reach out to each of his letterman (lettermen). Accordingly, Coach directed that following his passing, each letterman be sent a two hundred dollar ($200.00) check with the message "enjoy a dinner out, compliments of Coach Dean Smith." Enclosed in a check in the amount of two hundred dollars ($200.00) with the notation "Dinner about."

Please enjoy your dinner out.

FerryFor50
03-26-2015, 02:57 PM
Now watch the NCAA hit them with impermissible benefits...

MarkD83
03-26-2015, 03:04 PM
That is about a cool as it gets.

http://www.foxsports.com/buzzer/story/north-carolina-dean-smith-leaves-former-players-200-dollars-032615

I absolutely agree. At the end of the day it is about the relationships between the coaches and the players. What a great thing to do.

Even though I am a Duke fan first and foremost, I would love to see all of the UNC players pool all of their money and get together for one big dinner and exchange Dean Smith stories.

OldPhiKap
03-26-2015, 03:08 PM
I gotta say, that's pretty cool.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
03-26-2015, 03:27 PM
That is about a cool as it gets.

http://www.foxsports.com/buzzer/story/north-carolina-dean-smith-leaves-former-players-200-dollars-032615

That's a chunk of change... $200 per? For how many years?

Classy.

FerryFor50
03-26-2015, 03:28 PM
That's a chunk of change... $200 per? For how many years?

Classy.

Good question. We should ask one of the UNC Math majors.

Tripping William
03-26-2015, 03:29 PM
That's a chunk of change... $200 per? For how many years?

Classy.

The law firm's letter says "each letterman he coached." A not-insubstantial sum.

Mike Corey
03-26-2015, 03:38 PM
I'm sure this is just a coincidence, but the total bequest would be worth about $36,000; he coached UNC for 36 years.

InSpades
03-26-2015, 03:39 PM
One article I saw mentioned "about 180" so that would be about $36,000.

superdave
03-26-2015, 03:48 PM
Unsubstantiated reports are that he left Ed Geth and Geoff Crompton $400 each.

Tommac
03-26-2015, 03:54 PM
Unsubstantiated reports are that he left Ed Geth and Geoff Crompton $400 each.

Sorry, Geoff Crumpton has been dead for several years.

elvis14
03-26-2015, 03:55 PM
Any word on how much he left Debbie Crowder?

NSDukeFan
03-26-2015, 03:58 PM
The law firm's letter says "each letterman he coached." A not-insubstantial sum.

Do you have to have graduated from an accredited school to be a letterman? This could become complicated?

CrazyNotCrazie
03-26-2015, 04:09 PM
First and foremost, this is a very generous act by Coach Smith. Not to nit-pick it to death, but doesn't the estate have to be close to being fully closed out before it can make disbursements like this? I know he has been sick for a while so there was no surprise in his death, but it usually takes a while to do all of the filing, etc. to administer an estate. Odd that they could send the checks out so quickly.

BD80
03-26-2015, 04:12 PM
I understand that the typical reaction from the "lettermans" is: "we used to get much more per meal when we played"

NancyCarol
03-26-2015, 04:19 PM
I'm touched by that gesture and refuse to snark about it.

Edouble
03-26-2015, 04:25 PM
I understand that the typical reaction from the "lettermans" is: "we used to get much more per meal when we played"

Meh, they've been accused of long standing academic fraud. No one has said anything about paying players.

JasonEvans
03-26-2015, 04:26 PM
1. This is absolutely, unequivocally a NCAA violation. Just because a player has left the school and the coach has retired, it does not clear the way for the coach to give money to former players.
2. I hope the NCAA doesn't even dream of doing anything about this. If there is even a tiny, mild punishment associated with this, I will be horrified.

That said, there is a slippery slope here that makes this a bit of a problem for the NCAA. I think the NCAA needs to come out with some kind of statement saying that ordinarily any kind of compensation to former players would not be allowed, but they have granted a waiver in this case. Because, if the NCAA does nothing it opens the door to all kinds of improper benefits.

I can just see Kentucky now: "The Wildcat booster club is funding a gift through the estate of Adolph Rupp. We just want to give all those kind boys who played basketball for Kentucky over the past few years a nice dinner out for them and their spouse ($200)... and their extended family ($400 more)... and some close friends ($700 more)... where they drink some nice wine ($800 more)... at a nice restaurant in Paris ($10,000 more)... for the entire month of June ($125,000 more)."

-Jason "Dean's gift is a very kind thing... the world will miss that man" Evans

Bay Area Duke Fan
03-26-2015, 04:28 PM
First and foremost, this is a very generous act by Coach Smith. Not to nit-pick it to death, but doesn't the estate have to be close to being fully closed out before it can make disbursements like this? I know he has been sick for a while so there was no surprise in his death, but it usually takes a while to do all of the filing, etc. to administer an estate. Odd that they could send the checks out so quickly.

The payments are from the Dean E. Smith Revocable Trust, and checks were sent last week. No probate needed. Enjoy your dinner, Michael J.

http://www.foxsports.com/buzzer/story/north-carolina-dean-smith-leaves-former-players-200-dollars-032615 (see photo).

cspan37421
03-26-2015, 04:35 PM
1. This is absolutely, unequivocally a NCAA violation. Just because a player has left the school and the coach has retired, it does not clear the way for the coach to give money to former players.


Are you serious? I just checked: it is March 26, not April 1.

Even if the man was alive, can't a retired college basketball coach give anything she/he wants to a former player, so long as it falls under the IRS annual gift exclusion amount? Under what rule? I fail to see how it benefits the school at which they formerly played or coached. If you indeed are serious, is the notion that current players have an expectation of a free dinner out some decades in the future? Seems far-fetched.

Given that he's dead, I especially can't see how the NCAA could prohibit it. Some of these guys may be life long friends. To say you can't leave something to a friend ... just because they played basketball for you years ago ... seems crazy.

But hey, what do I know. Sometimes the world is crazy.

hudlow
03-26-2015, 04:45 PM
Maybe the former Letterman will donate it back to the U*NC legal defense fund.

That would be the right thing to do...:cool:

bedeviled
03-26-2015, 04:45 PM
I hope the NCAA doesn't even dream of doing anything about this. If there is even a tiny, mild punishment associated with this, I will be horrifiedHuh? Why wouldn't they do something about it? Like you said, it is a clear violation. Just because the providing booster is the estate of a deceased hall of famer shouldn't excuse violating rules. One could argue the contrary, that the coach, of all people, should have known better. Is this any more heartwarming than the elderly Kansas boosters who provided $50 to the former basketball players who brought them joy?

Moreover, UNC should be in a high alert probation type of situation with the NCAA. These violations are surely not major, but they come at a very bad time (and there's 180 of them, lol). I don't see how a waiver could be given post facto when UNC is already in the midst of questions about institutional control. Indeed, UNC knows this act violates NCAA rules (see this link (http://alumni.unc.edu/article.aspx?SID=2840)for instance). It would be of interest to know if the compliance office had any communication with the estate.

cspan37421
03-26-2015, 04:45 PM
First and foremost, this is a very generous act by Coach Smith. Not to nit-pick it to death, but doesn't the estate have to be close to being fully closed out before it can make disbursements like this? I know he has been sick for a while so there was no surprise in his death, but it usually takes a while to do all of the filing, etc. to administer an estate. Odd that they could send the checks out so quickly.

I'm not sure, but I think as long as there's virtually no chance that the disbursement would affect the payment of estate taxes, I'm pretty sure distributions can be made. The final estate tax number(s) at federal and state levels are inherently uncertain until closer to the end, due to things such as asset valuation (real estate can take a bit of time) and elections that the estate makes in the tax filings. I don't know Dean Smith's financial situation but it's hard for me to imagine that $35,000 in cash would make-or-break the estate's ability to pay what it owes the feds (and NC, if applicable - don't know if they have joined the state inheritance tax elimination trend).

Of course, the $35,000 must still be considered to have been part of the estate value on which the inheritance tax is based, but again, as long as sufficient assets remain in trust to pay the taxes, I think it's probably OK (with the IRS) to distribute. As for Jason's claim about NCAA rules that follow you beyond the grave, well, I don't know.

superdave
03-26-2015, 04:46 PM
Sorry, Geoff Crumpton has been dead for several years.

My bad. I feel like I should have known that. Maybe Dean is watching Geoff eat in heaven!

El_Diablo
03-26-2015, 04:46 PM
Are you serious? I just checked: it is March 26, not April 1.

Even if the man was alive, can't a retired college basketball coach give anything she/he wants to a former player, so long as it falls under the IRS annual gift exclusion amount? Under what rule? I fail to see how it benefits the school at which they formerly played or coached. If you indeed are serious, is the notion that current players have an expectation of a free dinner out some decades in the future? Seems far-fetched.

Given that he's dead, I especially can't see how the NCAA could prohibit it. Some of these guys may be life long friends. To say you can't leave something to a friend ... just because they played basketball for you years ago ... seems crazy.

But hey, what do I know. Sometimes the world is crazy.

I am guessing it would be the same rule that Roy Williams violated while at Kansas for allowing booster payments and gifts to players after they had graduated.

Bob Green
03-26-2015, 04:53 PM
I am guessing it would be the same rule that Roy Williams violated while at Kansas for allowing booster payments and gifts to players after they had graduated.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/2005-07-15-kansas-violations_x.htm

There is a difference between the two scenarios. Dean Smith is a retired coach, while Roy Williams was an active coach when he approved the booster gifts to former players.

cspan37421
03-26-2015, 04:54 PM
I am guessing it would be the same rule that Roy Williams violated while at Kansas for allowing booster payments and gifts to players after they had graduated.

Fascinating. I have a vague recollection of that. Those players had just finished their eligibility. I can see how it looks a bit shady because it is similar to paying someone after they finish a job. Of course the amounts were tiny compared to the hours the "workers" put in. IMO it ought to be OK once they're graduated.

In Dean's case, most of these 175 guys or so are very far removed from their playing days and student days. And Dean was very far removed from his coaching days. I really think that if this is a violation of NCAA rules, something is wrong with the rule.

In (some levels of) gov't, isn't there some rule about how quickly you can turn around and lobby? Perhaps the NCAA needs a rule about how quickly you can turn around and give a gift to a former player. And whether you can be an active coach and do so. I could see that as a reasonable compromise.

But I remained stunned that this is questionable. In Roy's case, a $50-$400 handshake out the door, OK, it's questionable, because it's right out the door, and Roy is still coaching. This situation bears little resemblance to that, from my POV.

Would you be surprised if Coach K had no thoughtful gifts in his estate plan for his former players? I would be. Well, I would have been, before hearing that there's an NCAA rule against it. And he's still active (quite!). But if he does have something in there, I wonder if he now needs to revisit the plan.

A story like this, if it generates much public outrage that Dean's integrity would be questioned after this last thoughtful gesture, or UNC would be punished for this*, might lead the NCAA to modify the rule.

* not saying they don't deserve punishment for other stuff!

dukebluesincebirth
03-26-2015, 04:59 PM
I wonder if Chris Webber got the 200 for winning the championship

devildeac
03-26-2015, 05:00 PM
Money wouldn't go very far if he had coached Sean May or Kennedy Meeks:rolleyes:. Might not cover many of PJ's munchies either had he played for Dean :rolleyes:.

Snark aside, it's a great gesture but the possible (obvious?) NCAA violations of cash payments to former players just begs for additional investigation/sanctions. This is gonna cost Cal a lotta Franklins if he follows JE's suggestions/scenario above:rolleyes:.

bedeviled
03-26-2015, 05:01 PM
Perhaps the NCAA needs a rule about how quickly you can turn around and give a gift to a former player. And whether you can be an active coach and do so. I could see that as a reasonable compromiseTwo things: 1. In this case, the rule already exists as it currently exists. 2. While allowing delayed gifts does feel right, as JasonEvans alluded, it opens up the door to nefarious activity. What if Kentucky fans develop a booster fund that provides retirement packages to their players? Like, once you turn 40 (basketball retirement age :) ), you get to cash in your annuities and live a life of leisure. I'd go there!

Tripping William
03-26-2015, 05:02 PM
I wonder if Chris Webber got the 200 for winning the championship

If so, then Fred Brown deserves $400.

El_Diablo
03-26-2015, 05:08 PM
Bob and cspan, I didn't say the situations were exactly the same in every respect, because I agree that they clearly are not. I am just saying the same rule probably applies to both. I do not know what the rule is, but I assume it is drafted broadly enough to cover both scenarios (e.g., it applies to "players and former players" and does not provide exceptions for deceased donors or a specific passage of time to elapse). But maybe there are two separate rules with different standards (or maybe there is even an exception that permits Smith's bequest). I do not know...just trying to point out the fact that there is precedent prohibiting gift giving to former players.

Edouble
03-26-2015, 05:09 PM
It would have been much funnier if Tark had done this.

Sort of saying a last goodbye to his players and giving the NCAA the finger one last time from the grave.

Bob Green
03-26-2015, 05:11 PM
Bob and cspan, I didn't say the situations were exactly the same in every respect, because I agree that they clearly are not. I am just saying the same rule probably applies to both.

Yep, I understand and agree with you.

cspan37421
03-26-2015, 05:19 PM
It would have been much funnier if Tark had done this.

Sort of saying a last goodbye to his players and giving the NCAA the finger one last time from the grave.

Maybe his estate isn't yet in a position to make distributions! Ha. That would be funny.

To bedeviled: yeah, I agree. If the rule exists, I'm not saying don't enforce it because Dean was such a good guy. I am suggesting that maybe it's not a good rule if it applies to this situation. Maybe. As for boosters developing retirement funds, well, that would create a definite expectation of future pay-for-play. But even that situation isn't the same as when a former coach dies and it is discovered ONLY THEN that he left some $$ to former players. They don't know for sure when they sign an LOI, they don't know when they're playing, they don't know if they'll get anything after they're done. It's different.

On a personal level, I just don't have an issue if some UK booster wants to give $13,000 to Timberlake today because he liked what he saw on the "Hating Christian Laettner" documentary. It's just not an issue with me. But I see the slippery slope argument. What if said booster started regularly giving $10,000 annually to former players 20 years after graduation? How about 10 years? 5 years? 2? It gets slippery, I admit. That's why safe harbor rules are created.

bedeviled
03-26-2015, 05:36 PM
As for boosters developing retirement funds, well, that would create a definite expectation of future pay-for-play. But even that situation isn't the same as when a former coach dies and it is discovered ONLY THEN that he left some $$ to former players. They don't know for sure when they sign an LOI, they don't know when they're playing, they don't know if they'll get anything after they're done. It's different.I agree with all sentiments in your post, not just the lines I quoted. I provide the quote only to preface the idea that UNC has illustrated that willful ignorance can go a long way when deviousness is afoot. Those darn slippery slopes ruin it for everybody.

bedeviled
03-26-2015, 05:42 PM
Featherston's book Tobacco Road (https://books.google.com/books?id=C2P_m1RHc5IC&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44&dq=Everett+Case+%22former+players%22+will&source=bl&ots=l9bhwOl8uR&sig=iETUf5MMsjfCS3qFMWkgHwPG-0c&hl=en&sa=X&ei=g3cUVZr2EYrasASPsIHwAg&ved=0CFsQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Everett%20Case%20%22former%20players%22%20will&f=false) reports that Everett Case divided $69,525 amongst former players via his will.

jv001
03-26-2015, 05:46 PM
No one dislikes uncheat more than I do, but in this case, I'm not going to knock Coach Smith or the Cheats. Dean did many things while he coached that I didn't care for, but I see nothing wrong with what he did. He really loved his players. First as basketball players and second, he loved them as human beings. I'll sit on the sideline on this one. GoDuke!

CrazyNotCrazie
03-26-2015, 06:00 PM
Maybe his estate isn't yet in a position to make distributions! Ha. That would be funny.

To bedeviled: yeah, I agree. If the rule exists, I'm not saying don't enforce it because Dean was such a good guy. I am suggesting that maybe it's not a good rule if it applies to this situation. Maybe. As for boosters developing retirement funds, well, that would create a definite expectation of future pay-for-play. But even that situation isn't the same as when a former coach dies and it is discovered ONLY THEN that he left some $$ to former players. They don't know for sure when they sign an LOI, they don't know when they're playing, they don't know if they'll get anything after they're done. It's different.

On a personal level, I just don't have an issue if some UK booster wants to give $13,000 to Timberlake today because he liked what he saw on the "Hating Christian Laettner" documentary. It's just not an issue with me. But I see the slippery slope argument. What if said booster started regularly giving $10,000 annually to former players 20 years after graduation? How about 10 years? 5 years? 2? It gets slippery, I admit. That's why safe harbor rules are created.

We are on a big slippery slope of splitting hairs here, but I guess that is what the internet and the NCAA are all about...

To your comment, how could you prove that it was only discovered after he died? What is to prevent a coach from putting something like this (but with bigger numbers) in his will when recruiting a player. I think it is a bit extreme, but crazier things have happened. Or a booster doing the same thing. Is the NCAA expected to start reviewing the wills of everyone affiliated with every program? And what is the statute of limitations on penalizing a school for something like this?

To further go down the line, is Coach K (or many other coaches) providing non-permissible benefits by providing employment to his former players (Scheyer, Capel, Nate, etc.)?

hurleyfor3
03-26-2015, 06:01 PM
1. This is absolutely, unequivocally a NCAA violation. Just because a player has left the school and the coach has retired, it does not clear the way for the coach to give money to former players.

Anyone can bequeath anything he owns to anyone else. About all the ncaa could do is contest it, if it thought it had a rightful claim to the money instead.

Exactly whom do you propose be punished, how, and under what authority?

NYBri
03-26-2015, 06:02 PM
Nice move, Coach Smith. I'll raise a glass of Captain Lawrence IPA to you tonight...right before the Heels get beat.

InSpades
03-26-2015, 06:06 PM
Anyone can bequeath anything he owns to anyone else. About all the ncaa could do is contest it, if it thought it had a rightful claim to the money instead.

Legally? Yes, no one is questioning whether this is legal or not. It doesn't have to be illegal to be an NCAA violation.

cspan37421
03-26-2015, 06:10 PM
We are on a big slippery slope of splitting hairs here, but I guess that is what the internet and the NCAA are all about...

To your comment, how could you prove that it was only discovered after he died? What is to prevent a coach from putting something like this (but with bigger numbers) in his will when recruiting a player. I think it is a bit extreme, but crazier things have happened. Or a booster doing the same thing. Is the NCAA expected to start reviewing the wills of everyone affiliated with every program? And what is the statute of limitations on penalizing a school for something like this?

To further go down the line, is Coach K (or many other coaches) providing non-permissible benefits by providing employment to his former players (Scheyer, Capel, Nate, etc.)?

w/r/t to your first point, you seem to be tacitly assuming that the burden of proof would be on the estate or receiving former players. I'm not so sure. If the NCAA doesn't like it, perhaps the burden of proof is on them to show that it was a known promise at a much earlier time. Usually the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

to your second point, it's my understanding that those Duke assistants are working for their money ... it's not a handout, it's a job.

hurleyfor3
03-26-2015, 06:30 PM
Legally? Yes, no one is questioning whether this is legal or not. It doesn't have to be illegal to be an NCAA violation.

So how do you propose the ncaa handle this? Slap a dead guy with a show-cause penalty?

flyingdutchdevil
03-26-2015, 06:41 PM
So how do you propose the ncaa handle this? Slap a dead guy with a show-cause penalty?

Vacate all Dean Smith wins. And then dock Syracuse another 2 scholarships.

turnandburn55
03-26-2015, 06:57 PM
We are, once again, in danger of confusing "the world as it should be" with "the world as it actually is".

In the world as it should be, these sort of gestures could be taken as what they almost certainly are - a man who geniunely cares for his players and is simply trying to make a gesture to the men who comprised his life's work. In this world, we can trust everyone to... you know... do the right thing and show good judgement.

In the world as it actually is, schools find ways to abuse the system and couch them in well-meaning terms. Cheating usually doesn't start through malice or intentionally flaunting the rules -- it usually starts with "I know the rules, but this one case is really, REALLY different!"

Story as old as civilization. Hence the need for... you know, rules.

Do I think UNC needs to be punished for this? No, I think there's a reasonable middle ground. But in a society that worships precedent, it should be addressed in some way, shape, or form.

bedeviled
03-26-2015, 07:00 PM
So how do you propose the ncaa handle this? Slap a dead guy with a show-cause penalty?Well, I think that, in the Kansas situation, the NCAA took action against the school, not the fans/boosters or Roy Williams (former coach).

Buuuuuuuut, if the NCAA wants to go after the former coach, I would be willing to accept it if UNC had to dissociate from Dean like Michigan had to do with Webber (http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/mich/sports/m-baskbl/auto_pdf/2002-3/misc_non_event/bkm-infractions-case-050803.pdf) et al (I'm not saying they're similar situations, just options for intervention). Hahahaha. Including parts
d. eliminate involvement of the individual in institutional athletics (eg no "I'm a Tarheel" montages in the Dean Dome....er, um, Dome)
e. individual's personal records and references shall be deleted/removed from university records.

Webber's dissociation was 10 years. In good faith for a good act, I'll be content with just 1 year for Dean :) [/joking post]

camion
03-26-2015, 07:16 PM
We are, once again, in danger of confusing "the world as it should be" with "the world as it actually is".

In the world as it should be, these sort of gestures could be taken as what they almost certainly are - a man who geniunely cares for his players and is simply trying to make a gesture to the men who comprised his life's work. In this world, we can trust everyone to... you know... do the right thing and show good judgement.

In the world as it actually is, schools find ways to abuse the system and couch them in well-meaning terms. Cheating usually doesn't start through malice or intentionally flaunting the rules -- it usually starts with "I know the rules, but this one case is really, REALLY different!"

Story as old as civilization. Hence the need for... you know, rules.

Do I think UNC needs to be punished for this? No, I think there's a reasonable middle ground. But in a society that worships precedent, it should be addressed in some way, shape, or form.

In this particular case I'll go with "the world as it should be."

Nice gesture. I have a similar clause in my will for my fraternity brothers who are still friends after 40 years. None of them were on a fraternity athletic scholarship so you needn't investigate further.

dpslaw
03-26-2015, 07:23 PM
I suspect that Dean (or those acting on his behalf) cleared this with the NCAA when the revocable trust was established. And I doubt that it is even a technical violation of NCAA rules. Couldn't UNC organize a gathering of Smith's lettermen and pick up the tab for the event? Is there any substantive difference?

turnandburn55
03-26-2015, 08:20 PM
In this particular case I'll go with "the world as it should be."

Did you get everyone else on board with you also?

JasonEvans
03-27-2015, 08:43 AM
Just to be clear, as I stated, the notion that there should be any punishment for UNC over this is just plain wrong. All I was saying was that the NCAA should say, "this is an unusual case and we have granted a waiver here," as a way of indicating to others that they should not see this as a way of getting around some of the rules.

Again, I think this was a wonderful act on Smith's behalf and a fine way to reach out and give a moment of happiness to his players one last time.

-Jason "Cheers to Dean... a model coach in many ways" Evans

wavedukefan70s
03-27-2015, 09:06 AM
I think that was one of the classiest gestures by any coach.ncaa violation or not.hopefully nothing will be done.comon sense has to take over at some point.it should be overlooked.
Even in death he thought of all the relationships with his players.that to me says volumes about the man his self.i would hope that someone somewhere sees this gesture and it changes thier perspective on life in general.
Its good for humanity.

captmojo
03-27-2015, 10:05 AM
While I see the point of Coach Smith's attempt at being generous, those pupils made him a quite wealthy man. I don't want to overlook the fact that he didn't have to do anything. I also think that this gesture should, in any fashion be looked at, as Smith setting a precedent for all others.

The big question, as I distrust a lot of unc supporters...
Who is responsible for the release of this information? Do they have reasons beyond the obvious?
Will this be influential in recruiting in any way? Will it have any impact on NCAA investigations?

I understand as well, it's nice to share with others that they have received this gift and tell the world of a man that players cared deeply for.
Sorry, but the institution's own actions over many years, have led to a level of mistrust.

Henderson
03-27-2015, 12:25 PM
I'm touched by that gesture and refuse to snark about it.

I'm subscribing to this magazine.

Olympic Fan
03-27-2015, 01:37 PM
I saw a poster on a Wolfpack board post that he understands that Roy is planning to leave his former players all the timeouts he's saved over hi career.

That one made me laugh.

I appreciate and admire what Dean did and I hope there are no stupid NCAA repercussions.

But I do wish that all those people praising Dean for this would acknowledge that NC State's Everett Case set the precedent and actually left a lot more money (almost $70,000 n 1965 dollars) to his payer in his will.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
03-27-2015, 01:54 PM
Independent of all the carping, how on earth would it be a violation to give money to athletes fifteen years and more removed from the program? There isn't an eligibility issue here - everyone's long gone from UNC.

If it's all jokes, I find them in poor taste but I get it. If someone really sees it as a violation, please explain.

rasputin
03-27-2015, 02:16 PM
Independent of all the carping, how on earth would it be a violation to give money to athletes fifteen years and more removed from the program? There isn't an eligibility issue here - everyone's long gone from UNC.

If it's all jokes, I find them in poor taste but I get it. If someone really sees it as a violation, please explain.

Well, it's easy to imagine the Caliparis of the world promising recruits benefits like this down the road, which would surely be a violation.

bedeviled
03-27-2015, 02:17 PM
I am not an ABC person. I attend UNC games (not just Duke-UNC games) and sometimes even cheer for them (depends on my company moreso than UNC's opponent). I previously expressed my opinion that Duke fans should do something to honor the legacy of Dean Smith. I think it was a kind act, and I do not suspect ulterior motives. Yet, I honestly don't understand why people think it would be inappropriate for the NCAA to act in this situation. Aside from stating that the NCAA should sit on their hands, please verbalize your reasoning as to why an exception should be made, especially post-facto. (Notes: I do expect the NCAA to overlook it. It's possible that the NCAA and UNC Compliance cleared the act beforehand)

Acts do not have to offer overt competitive or recruiting advantage to be violations. They are secondary violations.
Violations of a magnanimous nature are not immune to the rules.
Violations of a minimal cash value are not immune to the rules.

There are reasons the above things are true, and it is easy to provide examples of how exceptions could be manipulated. It is also easy to think of examples of the NCAA acting on past transgressions that were minimal, magnanimous, or did not appear to offer advantage.

If your opinion is based on the idea that the NCAA is wrong for being too restrictive of players' earnings/lives and that all small gifts, gifts of generosity, or full player value should be allowed, that is a different topic than granting an isolated exemption for Dean's generosity.

oldnavy
03-27-2015, 02:18 PM
Independent of all the carping, how on earth would it be a violation to give money to athletes fifteen years and more removed from the program? There isn't an eligibility issue here - everyone's long gone from UNC.

If it's all jokes, I find them in poor taste but I get it. If someone really sees it as a violation, please explain.

I think that the explanation is that it is the NCAA, and the rules don't have to make sense.

On the other hand, unless a rule that prohibits players from being paid (even long after eligibility is used) isn't in place, well you can imagine how some would abuse the loop hole.

itshoopsbabee
03-27-2015, 02:23 PM
I'm subscribing to this magazine.

I will wager that many/most/all of these notes/checks don't end up being cashed and will end up framed up with a pic of Coach Smith. RIP.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
03-27-2015, 02:57 PM
Well, it's easy to imagine the Caliparis of the world promising recruits benefits like this down the road, which would surely be a violation.

You mean to suggest that a coach could tell a potential recruit "in fifty years, when I die, I will mail you a check for dinner" and it could be a deciding factor?

Do you think that when the Duke coaching staff goes out to dinner, K can't pick up the check because Scheyer's there? I would assume that once you've completed your college eligibility, you can reap all the benefits you want. I mean, if a Duke fan sees Shane Battier on their car lot, are you suggesting they can't offer him a sweet deal?

I'm not trying to be difficult, I just can't imagine that this would be a real thing - much less that there would be any way to enforce it. Once a player is no longer in college, there's no advantage to boosters or anyone else offering them deals. I would suppose it would be like offering a discount to an old frat brother or something.

OldPhiKap
03-27-2015, 03:07 PM
You mean to suggest that a coach could tell a potential recruit "in fifty years, when I die, I will mail you a check for dinner" and it could be a deciding factor?

Do you think that when the Duke coaching staff goes out to dinner, K can't pick up the check because Scheyer's there? I would assume that once you've completed your college eligibility, you can reap all the benefits you want. I mean, if a Duke fan sees Shane Battier on their car lot, are you suggesting they can't offer him a sweet deal?

I'm not trying to be difficult, I just can't imagine that this would be a real thing - much less that there would be any way to enforce it. Once a player is no longer in college, there's no advantage to boosters or anyone else offering them deals. I would suppose it would be like offering a discount to an old frat brother or something.

Have not read back through the thread, but I thought Kansas (perhaps even related to Roy) got in trouble for buying clothes or something like that for players after they graduated.

My views on Dean are pretty well known, but I think this was a great thing for him to do. More power.

DukieInKansas
03-27-2015, 03:29 PM
I am not an ABC person. I attend UNC games (not just Duke-UNC games) and sometimes even cheer for them (depends on my company moreso than UNC's opponent). I previously expressed my opinion that Duke fans should do something to honor the legacy of Dean Smith. I think it was a kind act, and I do not suspect ulterior motives. Yet, I honestly don't understand why people think it would be inappropriate for the NCAA to act in this situation. Aside from stating that the NCAA should sit on their hands, please verbalize your reasoning as to why an exception should be made, especially post-facto. (Notes: I do expect the NCAA to overlook it. It's possible that the NCAA and UNC Compliance cleared the act beforehand)

Acts do not have to offer overt competitive or recruiting advantage to be violations. They are secondary violations.
Violations of a magnanimous nature are not immune to the rules.
Violations of a minimal cash value are not immune to the rules.

There are reasons the above things are true, and it is easy to provide examples of how exceptions could be manipulated. It is also easy to think of examples of the NCAA acting on past transgressions that were minimal, magnanimous, or did not appear to offer advantage.

If your opinion is based on the idea that the NCAA is wrong for being too restrictive of players' earnings/lives and that all small gifts, gifts of generosity, or full player value should be allowed, that is a different topic than granting an isolated exemption for Dean's generosity.

I think an exception should be made on this because the $200 does not have any perceived benefit to the school, the coach, a current student athlete, or potential student athlete. Even if the student athlete had know that there was a possibility of receiving a gift of $200 when the coach dies, the value of that gift in 1997, the last year Dean Smith coached, it would have been around $83 (assuming 5% return on investment). If you were trying to decide if you would play for him in 1961, his first year of being a head coach at unc, the value was around $15. Neither amount is apt to entice a player to sign with you. Coach Smith retired in 1997 and I'm guessing the players found out about the bequest now for the first time.

Of course, I think Cleveland State should run for cover and expect Daniel Ewing to get T'ed up for this. :D

Reilly
03-27-2015, 03:35 PM
I hope all the Carolina lettermen take their $200 and spend it at The Cheesecake Factory to honor both Coach Smith and Marvin Austin.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
03-27-2015, 03:36 PM
I think an exception should be made on this because the $200 does not have any perceived benefit to the school, the coach, a current student athlete, or potential student athlete. Even if the student athlete had know that there was a possibility of receiving a gift of $200 when the coach dies, the value of that gift in 1997, the last year Dean Smith coached, it would have been around $83 (assuming 5% return on investment). If you were trying to decide if you would play for him in 1961, his first year of being a head coach at unc, the value was around $15. Neither amount is apt to entice a player to sign with you. Coach Smith retired in 1997 and I'm guessing the players found out about the bequest now for the first time.

Of course, I think Cleveland State should run for cover and expect Daniel Ewing to get T'ed up for this. :D

Admitting that the "value" of the benefit is nearly non-existent, I really do have questions as to how on earth it could be considered impermissible. I'd wager that prestigious alumnus of schools get all sorts of freebies. Can a fellow alumni buy them dinner? Can an old professor pick up the tab for a drink? Can the school send a free t-shirt to a graduate who donates money?

These are non-athletic examples, but geez. If you want to say that the moment a coach picks up the tab for a former player's dinner, that player is no longer eligible to play any more games, that makes good sense. But I don't think Serge Zwikker is coming back onto the floor for the Heels.

Does anyone have any real information about this? I think we can all agree that it certainly SHOULDN'T constitute a violation, that it would be nearly IMPOSSIBLE to police, and that there's almost zero monetary value. But, does it actually break the rules?

captmojo
03-27-2015, 03:36 PM
Please understand that I'm NOT accusing Smith or the university of any wrongdoing.
I'm just putting out a question for thought.
There have been good ones shared since my original questions.

bedeviled
03-27-2015, 03:37 PM
how on earth would it be a violation to give money to athletes fifteen years and more removed from the program? There isn't an eligibility issue here - everyone's long gone(Sorry this is long, but you seem genuinely interested, so here are some ponderings)

The obvious reply has been mentioned - choosing a school to reap promised future gain, such as the promise of a future kickback or retirement fund.

But, manipulation doesn't have to be in the form of a certain promise. Just like a company that sometimes gives Christmas bonuses, players would be drawn to a program that simply has the potential of future gain. For example, perhaps Kentucky boosters (or just Drake by himself) who were close to the players give gifts of appreciation in 2015 to the players from the 2012 National Champions. Recruits of 2016 aren't promised anything, but there is that air of extra incentive floating out there. The recruits would likely envision themselves as National Champions and getting that love from celebrites, much like the common man banks on that Christmas bonus coming through.

It seems silly to talk about "incentive" when it's just $200. But, if extra incentive is allowed, it's not farfetched to think it could become commonplace, in which case there would likely be pressure to outdo other programs. Phil Knight could bequeath a sizeable amount to each Oregon player. If he did so, would recruits for the coming year wonder if his will provides for future players as well? Or, would recruits wonder if Kevin Plank is planning on outdoing Knight at Maryland? Could a trend develop where people flex their stature by treating their favorite college players directly? Would recruits be more influenced by the alumni or celebrity fans of schools because of the 'love' shown to players?

Aside from alumni, the trend could happen amongst university personnel. As has been mentioned, Dean followed the example of Everett Case. What are the odds that Roy Williams follows in Dean Smith's footsteps (rhetorical question ;) )? I wouldn't be surprised if K did. What if all programs/coaches start to follow suit, would they eventually feel the pressure to one-up each other? Would big money schools have an advantage because kids see high-paid coaches as showing more 'love' to their former players? Again, it seems silly to ask such questions when dollar amounts are small, but incentive is a complex psychological topic and we're talking about kids who might not yet have a concept of work/money. Moreover, little amounts can become big amounts in multiple ways.

Even if the incentive is minimal like in this case, they can affect recruiting strategies. For instance, the feeling of "We take care of our players" has been a selling point of programs for years with underhanded booster gifts. In the Kentucky example above, the recruitment marketing takes the form of "Kentucky has the greatest fans." For Carolina, the marketing strategy is the 'family' ideal. The reason Dean's gifts are news are the same reasons why it affects recruiting (ie the feel-good story of love and caring. That's the kind of atmosphere he developed at UNC).

Those recruitment strategies aren't just about the active players. Part of the "We take care of our players" strategy is the concept of "You'll always have job and love in Columbus, OH." It's selling an image (real or imagined) of being an OSU athlete. If a recruit feels like he's going to get deals and adoration for the rest of his life, it can influence his decisions. You are right, the NCAA cannot possibly police all fans and former players throughout time and space. But, in this case, it was a university representative providing the benefit (and he apparently didn't single out players based on friendship nor did he give the gifts to all players, managers, and staff. Rather, he provided benefit to all recruits). It's a bit egregious.

Anyway, yes the players are all gone and their eligibility is used up. And, this was an act of generosity and love. But, manipulation of such acts does have the potential to influence current and future players.

OldPhiKap
03-27-2015, 03:38 PM
I hope all the Carolina lettermen take their $200 and spend it at The Cheesecake Factory to honor both Coach Smith and Marvin Austin.

Serious question -- if Roy does this same thing down the road, will PJ Hairston be abie to choose where he goes to dinner?

Reilly
03-27-2015, 03:48 PM
I think Roy would make everybody buy $200 worth of Coca-Cola.

If I did my math right -- and granted, it's Wal-Mart's knock-off "Great Value" brand -- but I think $200 will buy 68 jars of creamy peanut butter ($2.18 for 18 oz) and 17 cans of pepper ($2.88 for 4 oz -- why's the pepper so much more for so much less?) if one is using a 3:1 ratio (of money allocation) for peanut butter and pepper balls.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
03-27-2015, 03:57 PM
(Sorry this is long, but you seem genuinely interested, so here are some ponderings)

The obvious reply has been mentioned - choosing a school to reap promised future gain, such as the promise of a future kickback or retirement fund.

But, manipulation doesn't have to be in the form of a certain promise. Just like a company that sometimes gives Christmas bonuses, players would be drawn to a program that simply has the potential of future gain. For example, perhaps Kentucky boosters (or just Drake by himself) who were close to the players give gifts of appreciation in 2015 to the players from the 2012 National Champions. Recruits of 2016 aren't promised anything, but there is that air of extra incentive floating out there. The recruits would likely envision themselves as National Champions and getting that love from celebrites, much like the common man banks on that Christmas bonus coming through.

It seems silly to talk about "incentive" when it's just $200. But, if extra incentive is allowed, it's not farfetched to think it could become commonplace, in which case there would likely be pressure to outdo other programs. Phil Knight could bequeath a sizeable amount to each Oregon player. If he did so, would recruits for the coming year wonder if his will provides for future players as well? Or, would recruits wonder if Kevin Plank is planning on outdoing Knight at Maryland? Could a trend develop where people flex their stature by treating their favorite college players directly? Would recruits be more influenced by the alumni or celebrity fans of schools because of the 'love' shown to players?

Aside from alumni, the trend could happen amongst university personnel. As has been mentioned, Dean followed the example of Everett Case. What are the odds that Roy Williams follows in Dean Smith's footsteps (rhetorical question ;) )? I wouldn't be surprised if K did. What if all programs/coaches start to follow suit, would they eventually feel the pressure to one-up each other? Would big money schools have an advantage because kids see high-paid coaches as showing more 'love' to their former players? Again, it seems silly to ask such questions when dollar amounts are small, but incentive is a complex psychological topic and we're talking about kids who might not yet have a concept of work/money. Moreover, little amounts can become big amounts in multiple ways.

Even if the incentive is minimal like in this case, they can affect recruiting strategies. For instance, the feeling of "We take care of our players" has been a selling point of programs for years with underhanded booster gifts. In the Kentucky example above, the recruitment marketing takes the form of "Kentucky has the greatest fans." For Carolina, the marketing strategy is the 'family' ideal. The reason Dean's gifts are news are the same reasons why it affects recruiting (ie the feel-good story of love and caring. That's the kind of atmosphere he developed at UNC).

Those recruitment strategies aren't just about the active players. Part of the "We take care of our players" strategy is the concept of "You'll always have job and love in Columbus, OH." It's selling an image (real or imagined) of being an OSU athlete. If a recruit feels like he's going to get deals and adoration for the rest of his life, it can influence his decisions. You are right, the NCAA cannot possibly police all fans and former players throughout time and space. But, in this case, it was a university representative providing the benefit (and he apparently didn't single out players based on friendship nor did he give the gifts to all players, managers, and staff. Rather, he provided benefit to all recruits). It's a bit egregious.

Anyway, yes the players are all gone and their eligibility is used up. And, this was an act of generosity and love. But, manipulation of such acts does have the potential to influence current and future players.


I agree with all of this, I just wonder if it is illegal.

bedeviled
03-27-2015, 04:22 PM
I agree with all of this, I just wonder if it is illegal.Hahaha, I might have to recant everything I've written! My thought that it is a violation stems from the Roy Williams / Kansas case in 2005. The NCAA ruling for that case, however, seems to have gone missing from the interwebs. And, I can't find a "once you are a student-athlete, you're a student-athlete for life" clause when skimming NCAA bylaws.

But, here's a quote from a Purdue website (http://www.purduesports.com/sports/jpc/spec-rel/jpc-ncaa-compliance.html):

May a booster provide benefits to a student-athlete after he or she has exhausted eligibility or departed Purdue University?

As a general rule, once an individual becomes a student-athlete, the individual retains that status indefinitely. It is not permissible for a booster to provide material benefits to a former student-athlete just because he or she has exhausted eligibility or departed Purdue University. The same rules regarding extra benefits still apply. Again, however, it is permissible for a booster to provide legitimate employment to a former student-athlete.

This same verbiage is used in other schools' compliance FAQs, so I'm guessing that it's lifted directly from the NCAA.

cspan37421
03-27-2015, 04:25 PM
I will wager that many/most/all of these notes/checks don't end up being cashed and will end up framed up with a pic of Coach Smith. RIP.

That could cause problems closing out the estate. The checks probably need to be cashed. If a player wants to donate it rather than spend it on dinner, so be it (but if I were his former player I would definitely honor his request and go out to dinner).

As for framing it, they can always frame the letter instead of the check. They can make a copy of the check to put in there too.

I'm sure most of them have other things from their coach that mean more to them than this letter from the estate. Recruiting letters, personal letters, etc. Those are more personal. This is addressed to former players en masse; it's not personal except for the address to which it was sent.

DukeandMdFan
03-27-2015, 04:40 PM
[QUOTE=JasonEvans;793754]1. This is absolutely, unequivocally a NCAA violation. Just because a player has left the school and the coach has retired, it does not clear the way for the coach to give money to former players.]

1. Would it be a violation if Michael Jordan left money or gave jobs to his college teammates?

2. Would it be a violation for Michael Jordan to draft a player from UNC?

3. Would it be a violation for a college coach to call a coach of a foreign team and explain why a former player would help that team?

4. Would it be a violation to give money to a former UNC football player who was homeless?

5. Would it be a violation for a Duke fan to invest in a company owned by Christian Laettner and Brian Davis?

6. Would it be a violation for preferential treatment be given to former Duke players when the next Duke head coach is hired?

I understand why any of them could be as the former athlete is getting a benefit, but it all seems outdated. Almost all students (student-athletes as well as student-partiers) select a college partly based on their future earning potential which includes what they learn as well as the network of friends and acquaintances they develop. It is not a level playing field. Attending some colleges will provide more future opportunities than other colleges. Preventing former players from receiving gifts does not make it a level playing field.

I don't think the promise of $100,000 from a wealthy alum in five years is going to persuade many five-star recruits on where they play ball in college. Those five-star recruits are planning for NBA/NFL money in five years.

InSpades
03-27-2015, 04:51 PM
As for framing it, they can always frame the letter instead of the check. They can make a copy of the check to put in there too.


You can always just deposit the check by picture (how fancy banks have become noawadays!) and you still get to frame the original unaltered check while still reaping your illegal NCAA violation causing benefits! Win-win.

grad_devil
03-27-2015, 05:06 PM
I agree with all of this, I just wonder if it is illegal.


Hahaha, I might have to recant everything I've written! My thought that it is a violation stems from the Roy Williams / Kansas case in 2005. The NCAA ruling for that case, however, seems to have gone missing from the interwebs. And, I can't find a "once you are a student-athlete, you're a student-athlete for life" clause when skimming NCAA bylaws.

But, here's a quote from a Purdue website (http://www.purduesports.com/sports/jpc/spec-rel/jpc-ncaa-compliance.html):


This same verbiage is used in other schools' compliance FAQs, so I'm guessing that it's lifted directly from the NCAA.

Attached is the full NCAA Infractions report from the Kansas affair (https://www.dropbox.com/s/u1f4fp7g0j7kx2t/kansas.pdf?dl=0) - You'll have to wade through to point 5 (page 13) to see the cash/gifts for graduates. It references bylaw 16.11.2.1, but it seems...well...not very helpful in regards to graduated players:



16.11.2.1 General Rule. The student-athlete shall not receive any extra benefit. The term “extra benefit”
refers to any special arrangement by an institutional employee or representative of the institution’s athletics interests
to provide the student-athlete or his or her family members or friends with a benefit not expressly authorized
by NCAA legislation.

I searched for a second to try to find the definition of a student-athlete or the duration status, but I've run out of time.

dbcooper
03-27-2015, 05:28 PM
I hope all the Carolina lettermen take their $200 and spend it at The Cheesecake Factory to honor both Coach Smith and Marvin Austin.

The only difference is that Dean used Morse Code and Pigeons with notes tied to them to communicate and Marvin used Twitter ..... HeHe!:D:D

DB ---E

bedeviled
03-27-2015, 05:48 PM
Attached is the full NCAA Infractions report from the Kansas affair (https://www.dropbox.com/s/u1f4fp7g0j7kx2t/kansas.pdf?dl=0)Thanks! I was looking for it to confirm that the NCAA did consider the gifts to be violations. As you said, they are listed in Finding B-5 (pg 13) - one booster sending $50-100 to graduating players and one booster sending $300-400 to players who had either graduated or exhausted their eligibility (Kansas staff knew about both situations).

What's surprising to me is that these findings were apparently considered major violations. They do not appear in a separate section on secondary infractions. And, this is confirmed in C. Penalties, section 6 (pg 21) when they are included in discussion about "substantial major violations." I'm shocked they don't fall under the definition of Level III (Secondary) violations: A violation that is isolated or limited in nature; provides no more than a minimal recruiting, competitive or other advantage; and does not include more than a minimal impermissible benefit. I suppose it's because the gifts were given repeatedly. I still think Dean's would be secondary if the NCAA acted on them.

Another example, from New Hampshire (http://www.bgsfirm.com/college-sports-law-blog/the-ncaa-committee-on-infractions-has-spoken-university-of-new-hampshire):

Violations of NCAA Bylaw 16.11.2.1.

Beginning in May 2009 and continuing through December 2012, the representative provided impermissible benefits in the form of cash, meals and gifts to three former student-athletes who graduated from UNH and had no remaining eligibility. The approximate total value of the impermissible benefits provided was $427.

BD80
03-27-2015, 09:42 PM
I will wager that many/most/all of these notes/checks don't end up being cashed and will end up framed up with a pic of Coach Smith. RIP.

Sean May ate the note


...

1. Would it be a violation if Michael Jordan ... gave jobs to his college teammates?

2. Would it be a violation for Michael Jordan to draft a player from UNC?

...

5. Would it be a violation for a Duke fan to invest in a company owned by Christian Laettner and Brian Davis?

...

Violations of Common Sense

captmojo
03-28-2015, 10:55 AM
I'm now, after reading some of these replies, left with the impression that if what Smith's wishes were to be, that his former lettermen all enjoy a fine meal, he would have been better served to have given the money to a specific restaurant and instructions that those lettermen get together at that restaurant at an agreed upon date and time.

gurufrisbee
03-28-2015, 11:39 AM
This was a cool move from a coach who certainly loved his players. I hope the NCAA doesn't make a stink about this. Goodness knows there are LOTS of other worse things they should be focused on - especially at NC.

Edouble
03-28-2015, 05:55 PM
I'm now, after reading some of these replies, left with the impression that if what Smith's wishes were to be, that his former lettermen all enjoy a fine meal, he would have been better served to have given the money to a specific restaurant and instructions that those lettermen get together at that restaurant at an agreed upon date and time.

How is that better?

It sounds like a real pain. Everyone has to fly in on a specific date to eat at a specific restaurant? Taste is subjective. My favorite dish at my favorite restaurant is grilled octopus and mortadella. I recognize that is not a fine meal for some. Likewise, just as the idea of going to Cheesecake Factory is abhorrent to me, many people just love the place.

grad_devil
03-28-2015, 08:53 PM
Well, I guess it's not against NCAA rules.

Wish they would've provided a link with an explanation, but it is what it is.

4926

bedeviled
03-28-2015, 09:21 PM
Well, I guess it's not against NCAA rules. Wish they would've provided a link with an explanation, but it is what it isPerfect find. Well, almost perfect; I thought I was done with the topic, and now they've left me curious again. Any explanation might have relevance to the NCAA's current legal issues.

cspan37421
03-28-2015, 11:36 PM
Well, I guess it's not against NCAA rules.

Wish they would've provided a link with an explanation, but it is what it is.

4926

Citation needed? Or does the NCAA announce findings by twitter now?

Henderson
03-28-2015, 11:41 PM
Well, I guess it's not against NCAA rules.

Wish they would've provided a link with an explanation, but it is what it is.

4926

In invisible ink, the NCAA's tweet continues: "On the other hand...."

alteran
03-29-2015, 08:05 AM
First and foremost, this is a very generous act by Coach Smith. Not to nit-pick it to death, but doesn't the estate have to be close to being fully closed out before it can make disbursements like this? I know he has been sick for a while so there was no surprise in his death, but it usually takes a while to do all of the filing, etc. to administer an estate. Odd that they could send the checks out so quickly.

A surviving spouse from a good marriage and an uncontroversial will makes for a quick settlement of an estate.

alteran
03-29-2015, 08:17 AM
Are you serious? I just checked: it is March 26, not April 1.

Even if the man was alive, can't a retired college basketball coach give anything she/he wants to a former player, so long as it falls under the IRS annual gift exclusion amount? Under what rule? I fail to see how it benefits the school at which they formerly played or coached. If you indeed are serious, is the notion that current players have an expectation of a free dinner out some decades in the future? Seems far-fetched.

Given that he's dead, I especially can't see how the NCAA could prohibit it. Some of these guys may be life long friends. To say you can't leave something to a friend ... just because they played basketball for you years ago ... seems crazy.

But hey, what do I know. Sometimes the world is crazy.
I think Jason's post after yours explains the problem here. As soon as one school gets a sanctioned way to hand cash to ex-players, the Kentucky's of the world will be on that lickity split.

Can't the NCAA just declare thia a secondary violation? My understanding is that declaring it a secondary violation is basically the NCAA saying, "this is a violation, but probably no harm is done, so we're acknowledging it happened but not doing anything."

sagegrouse
03-29-2015, 08:19 AM
A surviving spouse from a good marriage and an uncontroversial will makes for a quick settlement of an estate.

Lessee.... He's dead. Moreover, his players last played at UNC 15 years ago. Does anyone really think the NCAA can or should tell the about-to-pass Dean Smith (or his executors) what he can do with his estate?

JStuart
03-29-2015, 08:31 AM
I think Jason's post after yours explains the problem here. As soon as one school gets a sanctioned way to hand cash to ex-players, the Kentucky's of the world will be on that lickity split.

Can't the NCAA just declare thia a secondary violation? My understanding is that declaring it a secondary violation is basically the NCAA saying, "this is a violation, but probably no harm is done, so we're acknowledging it happened but not doing anything."

And then there is the bequest of 100k from Burgess McSwain's estate to Debbie Crowder, to 'take care of her dogs'...maybe I don't have the details exactly right, but all the folks in Orange County have everyone's best interests in mind, and are absolutely on the up-and-up. Or somethings like that.
(personally, I think that was a neat gesture from Dean, but I also think he wasn't planning on it being headline news, either.)

DrChainsaw
03-29-2015, 02:33 PM
If this thread were a horse, I'd shoot it.

weezie
03-29-2015, 11:23 PM
If this thread were a horse, I'd shoot it.


Hahaha, definitely the post of the month.

captmojo
03-30-2015, 10:10 AM
Some might be willing to say if this horse were a thread, they'd ride it.

I'm choosin' to be shootin'.