Zion improper benefits allegations are back from the dead, again

[SupaDave]

I hate to inform y'all but there's WAY more than one LEGAL way for a school to pay a kid/family.

There was this guy named Ed Manning who got a coaching job in 1983 at the Univ. of Kansas. Low and behold, the next year his son committed to Kansas. Won a National Championship in the process.

Some of you may or may not remember Dajuan Wagner, but he committed to Memphis shortly after they hired his dad, Milt, as an assistant coach.

Too far back? Ok, let's use Michael Porter Jr who followed his dad to Missouri - AFTER committing to Washington.

Also it's been said that LiAngelo Ball got to play for UCLA mostly off the merits of his brother's future commitment.

Work arounds are the name of the game.

Here's a few articles to help open some eyes...

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-ba...ege-basketball

https://www.sbnation.com/college-foo...n-jim-harbaugh

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-ba...ssistant-coach

[fuse]

I would love for there to be another avenue to pay the players, but NCAA rules don't really allow it. So, the shoe companies found this workaround. They did it with Marvin Bagley. They do it with big time players every year. Everyone sorta tries to keep it quiet because of how it looks, but it is a pretty common practice.

And as long as we are talking about what is right and wrong, the real wrong has been the NCAA forcing everyone into this underground economy. If the NCAA allowed players to actually get compensated some fraction of what they are worth then this would be more out in the open and no one would be complaining. As I have repeatedly said, once we get NIL we will be able to do away with this. I am eager for that day.

--Jason "Florida's NIL legislation comes into effect next summer... the NCAA has less than a year left of cheating these players our of what they are actually worth" Evans

Disappointed by this take. I don’t agree that “playing by the rules, even if they are bad rules” is the same thing as integrity.

I’m not saying I agree with the NCAA, or that the system isn’t anything other than rife with flaws.

I am saying I hope Duke and K hold themselves to a higher standard. Yes, I am naive. No, I am not blind. I’d rather set myself up for disappointment instead of settling for it’s ok because everyone does it.

[SupaDave]

Disappointed by this take. I don’t agree that “playing by the rules, even if they are bad rules” is the same thing as integrity.

I’m not saying I agree with the NCAA, or that the system isn’t anything other than rife with flaws.

I am saying I hope Duke and K hold themselves to a higher standard. Yes, I am naive. No, I am not blind. I’d rather set myself up for disappointment instead of settling for it’s ok because everyone does it.

Who is Coach K to tell someone not to take a legal check? He knows it's real out here, I've personally been approached at a game by an agent b/c of my proximity to certain Duke players. I'm absolutely sure he and the Duke staff consults with the families on these things. Zion's mom has legit coaching chops and she has knowledge that only a few truly can acquire.

Things like summer team travel and funding, venues for games, best security for players based upon experience, evaluations of players she's encountered, how fast Zion goes through shoes, speaking engagements, media likes/dislikes, her Duke experience and what Nike can better do to further their athletes' development based on needs are all things that Nike likely jumped at the chance to pay for.

Most of us know that contractors and consultants are so engrained in corporate culture that some corporations have whole departments that deal with them.

And the whole scale has changed so the information is needed at even faster rate. I've NEVER EVER seen anyone wearing Michael Jordan's High School jersey - let that sink in. Zion is still a rookie and has already been on the cover of magazines since he was in the 10th grade.

[JetpackJesus]

Better than Hansbrough's mom getting hired by UNC...(and that one is obviously more direct with the institution doing the hiring.)

But, yes, I understand the "everybody does it" defense is hallow. Just making a joke - and distinction - and anytime I can throw UNC under the bus, I like to do it!

I had no idea Roy posted on DBR.

[Duke76]

Who is Coach K to tell someone not to take a legal check? He knows it's real out here, I've personally been approached at a game by an agent b/c of my proximity to certain Duke players. I'm absolutely sure he and the Duke staff consults with the families on these things. Zion's mom has legit coaching chops and she has knowledge that only a few truly can acquire.

Things like summer team travel and funding, venues for games, best security for players based upon experience, evaluations of players she's encountered, how fast Zion goes through shoes, speaking engagements, media likes/dislikes, her Duke experience and what Nike can better do to further their athletes' development based on needs are all things that Nike likely jumped at the chance to pay for.

Most of us know that contractors and consultants are so engrained in corporate culture that some corporations have whole departments that deal with them.

And the whole scale has changed so the information is needed at even faster rate. I've NEVER EVER seen anyone wearing Michael Jordan's High School jersey - let that sink in. Zion is still a rookie and has already been on the cover of magazines since he was in the 10th grade.

I am entering this discussion way too late so forgive me if this has been discussed but isn't it rather presumptuous to assume that Zion's parents who both worked over the years I presume, couldn't have save enough money to pay for the # of months they rented the house in Durham?

[sagegrouse]

I am entering this discussion way too late so forgive me if this has been discussed but isn't it rather presumptuous to assume that Zion's parents who both worked over the years I presume, couldn't have save enough money to pay for the # of months they rented the house in Durham?

Sorry. I probably don't belong in this thread, but let me say it again in different words: This has nothing to do with cash income, cash savings or cash flow -- Zion is worth a $100 million dollars in net present discounted expected income since before he entered Duke in 2018. Moreover, according to credible reports, there is an $8 million insurance policy against his decline in the NBA draft below the #16 pick. This insurance policy was paid for by Duke and is in accordance with NCAA rules. That's basically a minimum value of $8 million -- and we (not you, Duke76) are spazzing over how they could possibly afford to pay $5,000 per month in rent? You gotta be kidding me??!!! Or how they could afford three nice cars. Stop it!!!!!

It doesn't matter how much his parent make -- or have saved! The Williamson family was worth a bundle in net present discounted value in the summer of 2018 -- before he entered Duke -- and there was a floor of $8 million. Someone would need to provide cash for current expenses -- but this is a trifle.

As I said, I probably don't belong on this thread. And I have certainly demonstrated why many people dislike economists.

[UrinalCake]

I thought that the insurance policy only covered him dropping in the draft due to injury. If he had come in and just not played well and fallen out of the lottery (which sounds preposterous now, but wasn’t beyond the realm of possibility when he entered the season) then it wouldn’t have paid out.

[Nugget]

It's the Archimedes Principle -- "Money, er ... water, seeks its own level." But I disagree with the inevitability of this regarding payments by Nike and the like to the Williamson family.

Here are basics as I see them: Two years ago, when he committed to Duke, Zion was a shoo-in for $100 million or more over the next five-to-seven years. Moreover, he had an insurance policy for $8 million that he wouldn't drop below the #8 position in the NBA draft. For an economist, which I have been for decades and decades, this is friggin' "money in the bank" -- as in millions and millions of dollars of present value of future earnings or income.

Surely there was some banker or financial institution or corporate entity or wealthy family friend that believed in economic principles of present value and was willing to advance $200 thou or so to the Williamson family to fund a somewhat better life style 'til the money started flowing to Zion.

What I'm saying is that they didn't need no Nike money.

Sorry, but I think you're way off the deep end here.

The NCAA does not allow athletes to borrow against future earnings for any purpose other than to buy "loss-of-value" insurance. https://fansided.com/2014/10/15/ncaa...ngs-insurance/

The attached eligibility guide Georgia Tech publishes for agents (https://ramblinwreck.com/wp-content/...l.pdfexplains:

“Pursuant to Bylaw 12.1.2.4.2, student-athletes are permitted to borrow against future earnings potential from an established, accredited commercial lending institution exclusively for the purpose of purchasing insurance (with no cash surrender value) against a disabling injury or illness that would prevent them from pursuing a chosen career, provided NO third party (including institutional staff members, professional sports counseling panel or booster) is involved with any arrangements for securing the loan.”

The insurance pays off only in the event of a disabling injury or illness, so it can't be used as a source of cash while the player is in school.

Other loans against future earnings are prohibited. https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...family-friend/

Specifically, NCAA Bylaw 12.1.2.1.6 defines as a prohibited form of "pay" this: "Preferential treatment, benefits or services because of the individual's athletic reputation or skill or pay-back potential as a professional athlete, unless such treatment, benefits or services are specifically permitted under NCAA legislation."

So, no, despite its economic logic, for either a bank or a family friend to loan an athlete money to be paid back when they go pro is plainly an NCAA eligibility violation.

[JetpackJesus]

Sorry, but I think you're way off the deep end here.

The NCAA does not allow athletes to borrow against future earnings for any purpose other than to buy "loss-of-value" insurance. https://fansided.com/2014/10/15/ncaa...ngs-insurance/

The attached eligibility guide Georgia Tech publishes for agents (https://ramblinwreck.com/wp-content/...l.pdfexplains:

“Pursuant to Bylaw 12.1.2.4.2, student-athletes are permitted to borrow against future earnings potential from an established, accredited commercial lending institution exclusively for the purpose of purchasing insurance (with no cash surrender value) against a disabling injury or illness that would prevent them from pursuing a chosen career, provided NO third party (including institutional staff members, professional sports counseling panel or booster) is involved with any arrangements for securing the loan.”

The insurance pays off only in the event of a disabling injury or illness, so it can't be used as a source of cash while the player is in school.

Other loans against future earnings are prohibited. https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...family-friend/

Specifically, NCAA Bylaw 12.1.2.1.6 defines as a prohibited form of "pay" this: "Preferential treatment, benefits or services because of the individual's athletic reputation or skill or pay-back potential as a professional athlete, unless such treatment, benefits or services are specifically permitted under NCAA legislation."

So, no, despite its economic logic, for either a bank or a family friend to loan an athlete money to be paid back when they go pro is plainly an NCAA eligibility violation.

Do any of the rules prohibit Zion's parent's from getting a loan?

[Nugget]

Do any of the rules prohibit Zion's parent's from getting a loan?

The definition of "pay" the loan provision incorporates includes payments made "directly or indirectly." I don't know of a rule that explicitly says "this includes your parents," but I'd strongly suspect that the NCAA interprets it that way.

[BD80]

Maybe they were caretakers for the absentee owners of the house, their payment for living in and caring for the house: a few extra cars the owners had lying around.

[roywhite]

The definition of "pay" the loan provision incorporates includes payments made "directly or indirectly." I don't know of a rule that explicitly says "this includes your parents," but I'd strongly suspect that the NCAA interprets it that way.

Can't recall any instances of sanctions that involved this sort of thing, either as a primary issue or a secondary citation. Anyone recall the NCAA addressing this?

[sagegrouse]

Sorry, but I think you're way off the deep end here.

The NCAA does not allow athletes to borrow against future earnings for any purpose other than to buy "loss-of-value" insurance. https://fansided.com/2014/10/15/ncaa...ngs-insurance/

The attached eligibility guide Georgia Tech publishes for agents (https://ramblinwreck.com/wp-content/...l.pdfexplains:

“Pursuant to Bylaw 12.1.2.4.2, student-athletes are permitted to borrow against future earnings potential from an established, accredited commercial lending institution exclusively for the purpose of purchasing insurance (with no cash surrender value) against a disabling injury or illness that would prevent them from pursuing a chosen career, provided NO third party (including institutional staff members, professional sports counseling panel or booster) is involved with any arrangements for securing the loan.”

The insurance pays off only in the event of a disabling injury or illness, so it can't be used as a source of cash while the player is in school.

Other loans against future earnings are prohibited. https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...family-friend/

Specifically, NCAA Bylaw 12.1.2.1.6 defines as a prohibited form of "pay" this: "Preferential treatment, benefits or services because of the individual's athletic reputation or skill or pay-back potential as a professional athlete, unless such treatment, benefits or services are specifically permitted under NCAA legislation."

So, no, despite its economic logic, for either a bank or a family friend to loan an athlete money to be paid back when they go pro is plainly an NCAA eligibility violation.

Learned to swim at a young age.

Although there was an error in the first of my two posts. Apparently the student-athlete is allowed to borrow to pay the premium on a "loss of value" insurance policy. I did not find a provision where the school can pay the premium, which is what one article stated.

But, I am afraid, you are down in the details. Zion, at a minimum, is worth $8 million as of the summer of 2018 -- the payoff on his loss-of-value insurance -- and probably ten times more in terms of expected earnings, properly discounted. The uber-talented Zion was already one of the best known athletes in the sport -- and this is before Duke. In this vast country there was surely a bank, another financial institution, a friend or some other entity that would be willing to lend the family $100 to 200 thousand for a year. No, Zion would not and could not sign the note. So, the risk I suppose, is that Zion and his parents become alienated, or something. Piffle.

And, by the way, unless Duke or agents are involved, the parents finances are none of the NCAA's friggin' business -- and the NCAA knows it and accepts it.

[JasonEvans]

Can't recall any instances of sanctions that involved this sort of thing, either as a primary issue or a secondary citation. Anyone recall the NCAA addressing this?

I believe the Adidas payments to Brian Bowen to attend Louisville were made to Bowen's father, not to him.

[JasonEvans]

Disappointed by this take. I don’t agree that “playing by the rules, even if they are bad rules” is the same thing as integrity.

I’m not saying I agree with the NCAA, or that the system isn’t anything other than rife with flaws.

I am saying I hope Duke and K hold themselves to a higher standard. Yes, I am naive. No, I am not blind. I’d rather set myself up for disappointment instead of settling for it’s ok because everyone does it.

Sorry, it appears you are questioning Duke's integrity here and I don't understand that. I have not seen anyone in this thread allege that Duke played any role at all in any of this. The discussions here revolves around the relationship between shoe companies and high school players (and those players' families).

And, if you feel Duke should not involve themselves with any high school player who has developed a cozy relationship with a shoe company then have fun recruiting a bunch of 2-star kids.

[BD80]

Learned to swim at a young age.

...

The swimming weren't so hard. Getting out of the bag was the tricky part.

[Nugget]

But, I am afraid, you are down in the details. Zion, at a minimum, is worth $8 million as of the summer of 2018 -- the payoff on his loss-of-value insurance -- and probably ten times more in terms of expected earnings, properly discounted. The uber-talented Zion was already one of the best known athletes in the sport -- and this is before Duke. In this vast country there was surely a bank, another financial institution, a friend or some other entity that would be willing to lend the family $100 to 200 thousand for a year. No, Zion would not and could not sign the note. So, the risk I suppose, is that Zion and his parents become alienated, or something. Piffle.

And, by the way, unless Duke or agents are involved, the parents finances are none of the NCAA's friggin' business -- and the NCAA knows it and accepts it.

The issue isn't whether Zion was "worth" loaning money to (or loaning money to his parents) - of course he was as an economic matter. But, the idea the NCAA "knows and accepts" that, while it would be prohibited to lend him the money directly, it's a-ok to loan it to his parents, is, I think, preposterous.

Here's Notre Dame's guide for parents of student-athletes. https://www3.nd.edu/~ncaacomp/docume...deBrochure.pdf

"Extra Benefits. Neither a student-athlete nor his or her family or friends may accept an “extra benefit” from an employee of Notre Dame, a booster or any other person or entity. As a general rule, if something is not available to the Notre Dame student body or the general public, it is an extra benefit. The receipt of an extra benefit by a student-athlete or his or her parents/guardians, relatives or friends will immediately jeopardize the student-athlete’s eligibility.

Georgia Tech's guide for parents of student-athletes has substantially the same warning. https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearm.sit...NCAA_Guide.pdf

So, does Michigan Tech's (a school I didn't even know existed), https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/f...oster-club.pdf.

"The receipt of a benefit not authorized by NCAA regulations by a student-athlete or his parents, relatives or friends will immediately place the student-athlete’s eligibility for intercollegiate athletics competition in jeopardy. A parent may not sell memorabilia from their student-athlete’s athletic accomplishments at Michigan Tech. ... Extra benefit rules apply to both student-athletes and parents. Examples of extra benefits include, but are not limited to, the following: A loan of money, regardless of temporary nature of loan, intent to pay back the value, or whom the loan is from (i.e. parents of teammates are not appropriate persons to offer loans to student-athletes.)"

James Wiseman was ruled ineligible because Penny Hardaway paid moving expenses to his parents. Silvio De Sousa was ruled ineligible because of Addidas payments to his legal guardian. As Jason notes, in the Bryan Bowen case, the payments were to his father, not him.

The NCAA goes to the trouble of prohibiting even reimbursement of travel expenses for family members to attend competition, other than with the specific exception of bowl games (Bylaw 12.1.2.1.4.4.1) and it is specifically nit-picky that it prohibits Zion's parents from selling his game-worn jersey.

There's no way they would be fine with his parents taking a loan against Zion's future earnings as a way around rules that plainly prohibit him from receiving such a loan "directly or indirectly."

[budwom]

I feel it's worth noting that as far back as 1970, I can recall various future high draft picks driving around campuses in luxury vehicles...lending money to kids based on the expectation of robust future income is nothing new in the least.
Charlie Scott, at unc, for example, had a very nice Cadillac; didn't Elton have a nice ride at Duke as well?

[fuse]

Sorry, it appears you are questioning Duke's integrity here and I don't understand that. I have not seen anyone in this thread allege that Duke played any role at all in any of this. The discussions here revolves around the relationship between shoe companies and high school players (and those players' families).

And, if you feel Duke should not involve themselves with any high school player who has developed a cozy relationship with a shoe company then have fun recruiting a bunch of 2-star kids.

I realize any response is just digging a deeper hole for me.

I’ll just resume my naive lurking on this topic recognizing I am out of touch.

[MarkD83]

I feel it's worth noting that as far back as 1970, I can recall various future high draft picks driving around campuses in luxury vehicles...lending money to kids based on the expectation of robust future income is nothing new in the least.
Charlie Scott, at unc, for example, had a very nice Cadillac; didn't Elton have a nice ride at Duke as well?

This does bring up the caveat of benefit available to other students. When I graduated I had a job offer before I graduated. I also needed a new car so I went to the bank. Based on my job offer I was given a loan. The difference with an athlete might be the amount of the loan but that would also be true for other students with job offers with different starting salaries.