A Shot At Bagley

[hallcity]

The Oregonian is out with a piece implying a lot more than they can prove about Marvin Bagley.

[drummerdevil]

There is not much of a story there... someone just wants clicks when people say "hey, Marvin Bagley got paid by Nike!" There are many other possible explanations that they don't delve into. This is kind of pathetic.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Weird article. Yes, it is full of insinuations, but seems to be more about "why is this legal" as opposed to "these people are cheating."

If the situation is as described, all the more reason to overhaul the sport and bring things out of the shadows.

[CDu]

There is not much of a story there... someone just wants clicks when people say "hey, Marvin Bagley got paid by Nike!" There are many other possible explanations that they don't delve into. This is kind of pathetic.

I suspect that the simplest explanation is likely the accurate one, but...

Weird article. Yes, it is full of insinuations, but seems to be more about "why is this legal" as opposed to "these people are cheating."

If the situation is as described, all the more reason to overhaul the sport and bring things out of the shadows.

This. I think the gist of the article is the funding club teams run by star recruits’ parents appears to be the legal(?) way shoe companies are funneling money to star recruits, and questioning why that is ok. It is less about Bagley as it is about the system - Bagley is just the example used.

[JasonEvans]

You know what they call a $750k house in So Cal? The servant's quarters.

That said, this article points out a number of problems with the current amateur sports model when it comes to basketball. I doubt Marvin's story is different from scores of top prospects. I know dads/brothers/uncles of top players coach many AAU programs. What's more, the article makes no mention at all of any inducement to go to Duke. I'm seeing a whole lot of nothing here.

[arnie]

You know what they call a $750k house in So Cal? The servant's quarters.

That said, this article points out a number of problems with the current amateur sports model when it comes to basketball. I doubt Marvin's story is different from scores of top prospects. I know dads/brothers/uncles of top players coach many AAU programs. What's more, the article makes no mention at all of any inducement to go to Duke. I'm seeing a whole lot of nothing here.

I’ll disagree. If the Bagley family relocation facts are real (and that’s a big if), this appears much bigger than say the Lance Thomas jewelry heist. Supposedly doesn’t matter if Duke involved and the “everyone does this” excuse shouldn’t fly if NCAA honestly believes what they say. I’m the end, you may be right and nothing comes of it; but if article is true, couldn’t NCAA impose penalties including forfeiting season wins?

[Troublemaker]

I’ll disagree. If the Bagley family relocation facts are real (and that’s a big if), this appears much bigger than say the Lance Thomas jewelry heist. Supposedly doesn’t matter if Duke involved and the “everyone does this” excuse shouldn’t fly if NCAA honestly believes what they say. I’m the end, you may be right and nothing comes of it; but if article is true, couldn’t NCAA impose penalties including forfeiting season wins?

If you're concerned about that, the key paragraph from the article is this:

As private businesses, most club teams don't disclose their finances publicly. Tracing the flow of shoe company money is nearly impossible unless the grassroots teams choose to disclose it.

And the NCAA doesn't have subpoena power. Duke should be fine.

And all that is assuming that the dots the article is trying to connect really DO connect. There is obviously more than one reason why a family could, in 4 years time, move into a nicer neighborhood.

[CDu]

You know what they call a $750k house in So Cal? The servant's quarters.

That said, this article points out a number of problems with the current amateur sports model when it comes to basketball. I doubt Marvin's story is different from scores of top prospects. I know dads/brothers/uncles of top players coach many AAU programs. What's more, the article makes no mention at all of any inducement to go to Duke. I'm seeing a whole lot of nothing here.

He doesn’t have to be induced to go to Duke for him to be ineligible. If the NCAA finds that his amateur status was compromised, he would be ruled ineligible.

That being said, I think the article is more about exposing the “loopholes” that shoe companies are using to essentially pay players. It is less about saying “Bagley cheated” and more about “look, shoe companies are still finding ways to pay players.”

It definitely isn’t a lot of nothing. Whether or not rules were broken, I don’t know. My hope is no. But the story almost certainly isn’t nothing. It is an expose on the shenanigans that go on with shoe companies, and how the rules are very blurry.

[CDu]

If you're concerned about that, the key paragraph from the article is this:

As private businesses, most club teams don't disclose their finances publicly. Tracing the flow of shoe company money is nearly impossible unless the grassroots teams choose to disclose it.

And the NCAA doesn't have subpoena power. Duke should be fine.

And all that is assuming that the dots the article is trying to connect really DO connect. There is obviously more than one reason why a family could, in 4 years time, move into a nicer neighborhood.

I totally agree that this isn’t likely to becone a problem for Duke. But I do suspect that the move to the nicer neighborhood is heavily linked to Nike. It is the simplest, most plausible explanation.

As you said, the fact that Nike Phamily is private and the rules are blurred anyway makes it highly unlikely that Bagley would ever be found ineligible. And it certainly isn’t a Duke issue beyond his eligibility. But I think it brings to light just how insidious the shoe companies are in all of this, and how gray the amateur status can be.

[Ian]

It also point to how pointless the "amateur" status requirement is, there is always is a way to get money to people you want to give money to.

[kAzE]

I'm not clicking on that . . . that's exactly what they want people to do.

[CDu]

It also point to how pointless the "amateur" status requirement is, there is always is a way to get money to people you want to give money to.

Yep. There is basically little way to prove that (assiming he got paid by Nike, which seems a reasonable assumption) Bagley Jr (MB3’s dad) was paid simply because of MB3’s bball ability. He was the director and coach of a private club team sponsored by Nike in Nike’s league. That isn’t terribly different (in fact, arguably less shady) than Michael Jr and Jontay’s dad getting hired as an assistant coach at Missouri. It is most assuredly tied to the abilities of the talented son(s), but good luck proving it legally. At least in Bagley’s case, it had nothing to do with Duke. Still shady, but probably not illegal.

But again, the point of the article isn’t to say that Bagley should be ineligible, but rather to emphasize that there are still plenty of ways the shoe companies can pull shenanigans.

[weezie]

I'm not clicking on that . . . that's exactly what they want people to do.

Exactly.

[proelitedota]

I am all for players and their families finding loop holes in making money on the players abilities without compromising their amateur status. We shouldn't be holding arbitrary NCAA rules and regulations in high standards when they don't have any basis on morale or legal grounds.

[jv001]

I am all for players and their families finding loop holes in making money on the players abilities without compromising their amateur status. We shouldn't be holding arbitrary NCAA rules and regulations in high standards when they don't have any basis on morale or legal grounds.

When the cheats cheated and got away with it, I took the attitude of I don't care if they all cheat. The NCAA lost all respect in my view. I can't wait for a cheat fan to tell me that the Bagley family took money. Ill just say, good for them. GoDuke!

[Hingeknocker]

I'm mystified as to why the shoe companies are the ones who get labeled "insidious" in all of this. We all realize that the NCAA could wipe away every concern by just saying, "we allow this now." Pick any negative adjective you want out of the thesaurus; they all apply to the NCAA.

[rsvman]

Wait, so if one of the reasons the shoe companies give big money to the families is to entice them to go to "Nike schools," how is it, exactly, that Zion, an Adidas kid, decided to come to Duke, which is a "Nike school"?

[mph]

Wait, so if one of the reasons the shoe companies give big money to the families is to entice them to go to "Nike schools," how is it, exactly, that Zion, an Adidas kid, decided to come to Duke, which is a "Nike school"?

D02E49AB-AAA5-4202-BD5C-E23860D097EE.jpg

[BLPOG]

It also point to how pointless the "amateur" status requirement is, there is always is a way to get money to people you want to give money to.

It makes you wonder why Adidas wasn't using cryptocurrency!

[Devils Librarian]

It is crazy that people think shoe companies are the problem. I've heard local sports radio hosts say that the FBI/Adidas investigation is a bigger scandal than UNC's. No, it's not. Shoe companies give talented kids money in hopes that down the road they will rep the company. UNC-CH's coaches promised players and their families a top tier education that they knew the athlete was not prepared to undertake and that the university had no intention of providing. It is soul crushing that the NCAA cries "Foul" at the former while remaining silent about the latter.