Dakich on Eric Anderson, "Eric didn't require $100,000 to attend iu like a current player did."
- Thread starter hunkgolden
- Start date
- Status
Lol what are you talking about? As an IU grad, I would much rather have IU basketball elite than to improve academics. Your college diploma is literally only useful in getting your first job. After that, it's just an office decoration.
I had no issue getting a job out of college that lead to a very good job two years later. The 2nd job didnt care at all where I went to college, they only cared about my job performance at my first job.
No one is denying that Arizona isn't under a microscope or that they have an assistant coach under indictment. But you painted a broad brush and explicitly said there is evidence that Sean Miller is on tape assisting with facilitating payments to prospective recruits. That in of itself is conspiracy to commit numerous federal crimes including fraud and money laundering. There's a reason why the Arizona assistant has been indicted and a reason why Sean Miller hasn't and it's because the FBI has the assistant on wire tap and not Sean Miller which means there isn't evidence that proves Sean Miller is directly complicit. Yeah you'd be naive to think Sean Miller at least didn't have an idea of what was going on, but to try and correlate that to his brother being involved because he once coached with him way back when is nonsense. It's pure conjecture with no proof or evidence.
If you're going to draw the conclusion that Archie Miller is guilty by association then you have to reasonably conclude that our own Lutz is complicit as he was the recruiting coordinator at Creighton during the height of the FBI's investigation, a school that offered $100k to a recruit. To not draw that conclusion based off your logic would be a double standard. Lutz helped recruit multiple players that ended up at Creighton from La Lumiere and what isn't a coincidence is that Creighton hired former La Lumiere coach Alan Huss (who just happens to be a Creighton alum) on staff and Brian Bowen was offered $150k to attend Creighton while Lutz and Huss were on staff together. So don't throw stones at a glass house unless you're willing to apply a double standard. If Archie Miller is dirty because his brother is Sean Miller and he's guilty by association then you have to reasonably conclude that Steve Lutz is also dirty via guilty by association as there is direct evidence that Lutz was on staff while Creighton negotiated a payment to try and lure Brian Bowen. I would love to see how some spin this.
Okay, can we end this thread, or should we start looking into Painter's ethical/moral background?
Last edited:
You are quite correct. And I believe that my post implied that clearly through the use of the term 'loophole."
To the best of my knowledge to date, the only claim against Creighton is that made by Bowen Sr. I also note that the FBI did nothing with the claim, at least so far. Since Bowen Sr. has his own credibility problems, how do you value the charge?
Like you po8nted out, one would have to be naive to believe that Sean Miller didn't know what was up. He can try out for the Capt. Lois Renaud part when they remake "Casablanca."
Why shouldn't IU or any other school for that matter not be able to work with that loophole? He's not an ineligible player. Are you suggesting that someone like Romeo Langford should be off limits to anyone because Adidas funded his father's AAU program and because a couple butt hurt Purdue fans think that's an unethical practice any team who recruits Langford is subsequently is now unethical? How ridiculous does that sound?
How about this? The NCAA, up until a new rule change that is about to go into effect, prohibits amateur athletes and family of amateur athletes from having contact with agents. Caleb Swanigan's legal guardian is a licensed sports agent, but because Rosie Barnes is Biggie's guardian he was allowed to receive free professional advice while still an amateur athlete. Talk about taking advantage of a loophole, where is the sanctimonious cries from the masses?
So Bowen Sr can be discredited by suggesting he was lying under oath when saying Creighton offered him $150k in exchange for a commitment from his son, but Archie Miller doesn't get the benefit of the doubt because he coached with his brother 8 years ago? Pretty much the response I expected.
As far as how I feel? Why would Bowen Sr lie under oath? He wasn't indicted or facing charges. He was a key witness for the defense to try to push the narrative that the defendants weren't defrauding the schools and that the schools (including Creighton when Lutz was on staff) were willing participants. That was the entire defense, they tried to claim that while they committed NCAA violations, they weren't committing actual crimes. So no, I don't think Bowen Sr lied under oath about Creighton.
Last edited:
So since the NCAA doesn’t seem to give a crap about these. Why is Purdue failing to do it? At some point either get on board or get run over.
@Bay Area Boiler @arcb102000 I hope you two are collaborating on some form of academic dissertation on this topic, otherwise the amount of time you've spent typing and griping would be a total and complete waste.
Dude, that's not a positive reflection on you.
Stop and think about what you wrote....
Thought about it. I still dont see what's wrong with it. They can take shots at IU and its fans, but I can't take shots at Purdue and the people melting down on this board?
It’s not that clear cut. No, I do not advocate Purdue engaging in what schools like Arizona, Kansas, Auburn, Louisville are doing and that’s using a middle man who has given cash to either a recruit or a recruits family (thus making him an ineligible player because they are in violation of impermissible benefits) to steer them to one school. That’s not only unethical, it’s illegal as the funds are more than likely being laundered and it’s blatantly breaking NCAA rules.
But I have no issue with Purdue targeting a kid like Romeo Langford simply because a shoe company funds his dad’s AAU program. It’s not illegal nor does it violate NCAA rules. If you take a step back, I would bet the majority of kids Purdue recruits play for major AAU programs who are heavily funded by their respective shoe companies. Malik Hall played at MoKan Elite which is a big time AAU program out of KC who is heavily funded by Nike. Zeke Nnaji played a for a big time program out of Minneapolis, Minnesota D1 I believe and they are heavily funded by Adidas. IT played for Spiece Indy Heat who is heavily funded by Nike, and Newman played for MeanStreets out of Chicago who is heavily funded by Nike and run by former Michigan WR Tai Streets. MeanStreets has been mentioned with the FBI probe (because Bowen played there too). It’s just naive.
The whole reason it smells is that the shoe cash goes to the family of the recruited player. In the cases that you cited, none had a parent receiving cash as a coach. That is a key difference.
Also, it is not just Purdue fans who think that this is dirty. HoosierfanJM posts here and he has commented similarly. If you think that this is going to stand up to long-term dcrutiny, you are mistaken. And if it is just us, wyy is the Wash Post writing about it? It looks bad and smells bad.
Also, it is not just Purdue fans who think that this is dirty. HoosierfanJM posts here and he has commented similarly. If you think that this is going to stand up to long-term dcrutiny, you are mistaken. And if it is just us, wyy is the Wash Post writing about it? It looks bad and smells bad.
Again, do we want to end this thread, or do we want to dive into Painter's ethical/moral background? I'm perfectly fine with just ending the thread.
Nobody is forcing you to read it. If you do not like it, simply don't read it. There is no reason for you to censor others.
Do you have an issue with any AAU coach or director getting paid for their services? Why is this egregious? It's not like Tim Langford sat on his couch and pocketed $100k and called it a day. It's a HUGE sacrifice to as a parent committing to an AAU program like that. It ain't cheap. You miss work. You travel. You do all of that. Why should Tim Langford not be allowed to take money for himself? Because his son is a top prospect? Again Adidas funded 22 Vision and Langford took some of that money for himself for the effort he put into running the team. It's no different than how any other AAU program operates.
Again, Adidas wasn't shoving barrels of money under the table for Langford to pocket and do whatever. He was given money for to fund the program he started. We've been over this. I don't understand why a parent can't be allowed to be paid for coaching/running an AAU program of that magnitude.
Remind me to never hire you to do my taxes.
I expect my tax preparer to keep me legal, of course. I also expect them to prepare my tax returns in such a way that I pay as little as legally possible.
Anybody who doesn’t approach their taxes this way is a sucker.
Okay, I'll clarify, because clearly you're clueless to my point.
You wrote, "Lol we could get into this again, but I dont want to take away from the melt down that's going on here right now.
I'll just continue to eat my popcorn and watch. Have a great day."
You need a life.
Now do you get it?
Haha that's all you have? You post here too. Do you need a life? Great insult lol.
Nothing to see here, folks. Mr. Langford admits he received no pay. Everything is aboveboard and all the Adidas money went to team expenses, apparently. From the WaPo article:
“In a brief phone interview May 3, Tim Langford professed ignorance of the financial details of Adidas’s sponsorship of his team but adamantly denied taking any pay as team director and also denied the sponsorship had any influence on his son’s college decision.”
You need not worry. I am not going to seek your employment. Plus, this is not my area of professional work. (Thank God!)
You may/may not be aware that in many professions, ethics requires not just doing things that are legal but also conduct in a manner that would preclude the raising of questions of potential impropriety. The "...as long as its legal..." excuse does not fly there. Your bar is way too low in many circumstances.
That is an assertion. It is not necessarily a fact. It may be a fact, but as of today it remains an assertion. FYI, there are many people in prison who claim they did not commit the crime for which they are serving a sentence. Do you really expect him to tell the WaPo: "Oh yeah, I made a lot of money running that team." ? That citation is rather weak.
Do you find Painter unethical as you do Archie?
That was TIC. Is it even the tiny bit plausible that he didn’t know the financial details of the Adidas sponsorship when he was runnning the team and also a director of the non-profit foundation set up for one year purely to form Team22Vision? Not to mention not accepting any pay? Not a believable or good look, sadly.
Again, his assertion is not ILLEGAL. It is not illegal for Adidas to fund an AAU program. It is not illegal for Mr. Langford to receive compensation for directing an AAU program, it's a job, source of income. Adidas wasn't funneling or laundering money to 22 Vision, it's a business expense. Adidas funding 22 Vision is no different than Adidas funding Indiana Elite. The fact that the director of the AAU program had a son who played on the team is completely irrelevant in a court of law.
Tim Langford could have told WaPo he pocketed $50k for his role in running the team and as long as he claimed it as a source of income it's perfectly legal. But why should Tim Langford discuss his income and financial with a national news media? Do you go around telling people how much money you make? Whose business is that other than yours?
BAB—you missed the point. According to the WaPo article, Mr. Langford said he did not receive any pay nor did he know the financial details of the Adidas sponsorship for his AAU team. If that plausible to you? You are right in that he’s not required to discuss the details with the media—in which case, you say “no comment”, not something preposterous.
“In a brief phone interview May 3, Tim Langford professed ignorance of the financial details of Adidas’s sponsorship of his team but adamantly denied taking any pay as team director and also denied the sponsorship had any influence on his son’s college decision.”
I do not and here is why: when I view Painter's career, it seems that he has the respect of his peers. That tells me something. The peers hear the gossip and know who is cheating or cutting corners, etc. way better than the outside world. That is true in every profession. It seems that he has been held in high regard by them. So I infer that he is OK.
Now, you could point out that people have been appointed to positions of responsibility that should not have occurred. I recall Sampson being put on the Ethics Committee of the coaches. While there are exceptions, they tend to be the albino zebras. So I am relying upon probabilities in my judgment.
In the other case, it is simply too big a stretch for me to believe that AM did not know what was going on at AZ. And I do not believe that it suddenly started after he left. Cultures of an organization do not change that quickly. Also, given his status as chief recruiter and brother not knowing anything strikes me as very naive.
The wheels of the Justice mill grind slowly but they grind fine. Prosecutors like to get ahead by putting a head on the wall and the bigger the head the better. What I see in the USA and elsewhere is a populist revolt based upon the fact that there are elites and regular folk and that the elites get treated better. The regulars are getting fed up and that translates into a change in business. That has effect upon the Catholic Church (I am a member), the Congress and the Presidency where scandal is brought open and punishment demanded.
Look at NFL ratings, they are way down and were once considered invincible. People don't watch because they are unhappy with the way the league was run. What do you think is going to happen when there are payola trials in CBB? CBS and ESPN have a lot invested in long-term contracts that are viewership dependent.
So again, is Matt Painter unethical for hiring and then as of today still retaining Steve Lutz who was the chief recruiter for Creighton during the time frame in which they offered to pay the Bowen family $150k to commit to Creighton?
This should be called "obsession with being right". Get over it or yourselves. This is a Purdue board who many are going to call out or bash other programs. Some people tend to defend the rival and fake they're a Purdue fan but many know different. I would say if you defend your rival more than you talk about your own team. Maybe you should make that switch and jump on that board. It would be a lot healthier for you and us.
If it is the case that Lutz was involved and Painter knew about it, then I have a problem.
So far, only Bowen Sr. has made the charge against Creighton. The FBI looked at it and has apparently moved on. That suggests there is no there there. Bowen Sr. is apparently being sued by Bowen Jr. on the basis of dishonesty. So what do you make of Sr. at this point and anything that he claims?
That is a wee bit different than having a tape recording. I have been on a criminal trial jury. You would value those testimonies very differently. You make inferences based upon the behavior of people more in the know.
I hope that answers your question.
So far, only Bowen Sr. has made the charge against Creighton. The FBI looked at it and has apparently moved on. That suggests there is no there there. Bowen Sr. is apparently being sued by Bowen Jr. on the basis of dishonesty. So what do you make of Sr. at this point and anything that he claims?
That is a wee bit different than having a tape recording. I have been on a criminal trial jury. You would value those testimonies very differently. You make inferences based upon the behavior of people more in the know.
I hope that answers your question.
Sorry - where did you see Bowen Jr was suing his dad? I thought he was suing Adidas...
This is a legitimate question. I have not seen that he was suing his dad.
This where you lose credibility because you can't grasp any kind of elementary understanding of the actual FBI investigation. The FBI couldn't literally give two rats ass about NCAA violations. They are out to catch those who committed federal crimes. Creighton offering to pay Bowen Sr $150k is an NCAA violation, not a federal crime. The FBI doesn't care that payment terms were discussed because it isn't a federal crime to commit an NCAA violation. The FBI would have only implicated Creighton and people associated with Creighton if a payment had actually taken place because that money would have likely been laundered. So just because the FBI didn't implicate Creighton or Bowen Sr doesn't mean an NCAA violation didn't take place.
Again there is no reason for Bowen Sr to lie under oath while not under indictment. The defense team wouldn't have sent Bowen up there to lie. They sent Bowen up there to testify that all these schools were complicit with the defendants (Dawkins, Gatto) aka they weren't defrauding the universities, they were simply breaking NCAA violations which aren't federal crimes. I believe every word Bowen Sr said up on the stand because again why would he lie and risk perjury when he was never charged with a crime to begin with and why would the defense team take that approach when arguing the case?
As far as tape recordings go, I'm sure there's hours of footage that hasn't been released because a lot of it isn't pertinent to a federal case. What is it to the FBI if Creighton and Bowen were on the phone discussing something that only violates NCAA rule? It's irrelevant to the case.
I am not sure I get your point. Do you really expect anyone to publicly assert: "Yeah, I did something illegal." I think that is an unreasonable expectation.
The simple fact is that it looks bad as it is fraught with potential for improper payoffs. In Bagley's case and in Langford's the family had a history of financial difficulties. The son becomes a BB star. The dad runs an AAU team and large amounts of cash flow into it from shoe companies. The the family, in Bagley's case, improves its lifestyle dramatically. We'll see about RL's if that is the case. But how you can say this does not look funny surprises me. Remember the UK guard who all of a sudden got a really good grade in math despite a very questionable academic record a few years ago? That smelled just like this does. I remember well IU fans complaining about it. They were likely right.
- Status
Similar threads
