Basketball
Previous topic | Next topic Return to Forum
NotSure
Joined: 3/09/23 Posts: 1,147
Numbers, Dude (Part 1)
Posted Sun, Apr 13 6:25 am
On the not at all mysterious "they call him a wing" guy you have all this secret info on until you blabbed all about it on the Internet, why keep it a secret?

It might not be true. The only person affected is you.

It might be true. If it is, it is. Nothing that gets said here can derail it. Seriously.

I'll make my guess public later today.

That way, if I'm wrong, I can be the one who gets embarrassed. Isn't that a better situation for you than the current situation? It certainly won't affect anyone else.

Here is, I think, some interesting tidbits that, since no one who said anything to me has any relationship to me on a professional basis and no one in this business professionally has said boo to me about it, that might be of interest here on this board and might even give Dinos Trigonis the satisfaction of telling me: "I told you so."

As I wrote here, 1-2 weeks ago Dinos called me to prove how much better of a lawyer he is than me, even though he's not a lawyer at all.

He called to tell me that before the start of the season, the portal, NIL and everything else that's been happening is all going to disappear because Congress is going to pass a bill to make that happen because one Democratic Senator and one Republican Senator had jointly sponsored a bill to do that, which would include exempting the NCAA from the anti-trust laws.

I responded as follows:

1. That bill has been around for years, along with competing bills. None of them has gone anywhere.

Due to short length of time to post, we continue in Part 2...
NotSure
Joined: 3/09/23 Posts: 1,147
Numbers, Dude (Part 2)
Posted Sun, Apr 13 6:47 am
In response to Numbers, Dude (Part 1) (NotSure)
2. For many years, I've heard many AA coaches, parents, players, politicians, etc., express their view of the NCAA, in which mostly rich white people made money from mostly poor black people while excluding AAs from coaching and AD positions as well as booting AA student-athletes out of school if they committed the cardinal sin of going to class and doing their own work or had been injured and could no longer make money for the white people (whereas few WSAs ever suffered a similar fate). There has been A LOT OF ANGER ABOUT THIS FOR A LONG, LONG TIME, dating back many decades, 70 years or more.

3. Finally, I told Dinos about the SCOTUS ruling on the O'Bannon lawsuit, in which 7 judges seemed to think this was a Constitutional issue (First Amendment, freedom of assembly, and 14th Amendment, equal protection under the laws), so that an exemption from the antitrust laws would be declared unconstitutional barring the Government showing that it had a compelling state interest in limiting those rights and had figured out a way to accomplish that with a law drawn as narrowly as possible.

Now, more tidbits: A couple of people have been interviewed by people who wear suits and ties and had been told not to discuss this with anyone immediately called me and other people who are friends of theirs (Numbers-like). The topic? Sports gamblers making big NIL donations to some schools to help them "convince" players to unexpectedly break deals with their existing schools, thus dramatically changing the ever-changing odds on who will win the NC, who will make the Final 4, who will win a conference or who will finish 3rd or 6th in a conference, and all of the myriad ways that sports gamblers hope to make money (whereas the real moneymakers make money just from the bets being made and not on the outcome of the bets).

My own view is that more transparency on medical issues, transferring, etc., is a far more effective way of ending this sort of thing, rather than driving them underground by various means including shrouding things in secrecy that just makes secrets more valuable and so more likely to find sellers and buyers.

But this could be the compelling state interest that allows Dinos to laugh at me instead of shouting at me.

I wasn't told which schools were involved. I was told that no one at the schools knows gamblers are giving them money since they deliberately refrain from finding out even if they suspect it. CYA.
Jax
Joined: 1/15/14 Posts: 3,278

Avatars available for donors only
Excellent posts
Posted Sun, Apr 13 7:26 am (Edited Sun, Apr 13 7:35 am)
In response to Numbers, Dude (Part 2) (NotSure)
IMO they will all be employees soon as they should be. NIL will be over. As it should be. Justice Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion is quite interesting and enlightening.

Numbers has no one. He is making it up.

And his argument about Mara is ridiculous. Mara doesn’t like the coach so he bailed. Numbers likes authority figures which is why he defends the indefensible to the end.

This is just talent exercising their rights. As it should be. Be better.

Student Baller
Joined: 7/14/14 Posts: 6,579
Why would nil end
Posted Sun, Apr 13 11:33 am
In response to Excellent posts (Jax)
Just because players become employees?
wanabbruin
Joined: 2/22/12 Posts: 1,033
I think the idea is...
Posted Tue, Apr 15 4:12 am (Edited Tue, Apr 15 4:16 am)
In response to Why would nil end (Student Baller)
...something like, in the House agreement (I think) is a provision to provide a system for administrations to regulate NIL to the extent that payment to athletes for their advertising will not continue to be indifferently disguised pay-for-play. For NIL they have to be paid fair market value, however that's determined. So, no longer can an athlete be paid, say, $1 million to show up once and sign a few autographs, or something, IOW, blatant pay-for-play. Supposedly, hopefully, this will reduce the current extreme prominence of this false NIL. Pay-for-play will be more systematized and formalized as it is in the other professional leagues, although, I imagine, different as well. NIL will not go away completely, in that case, but it's significance will be much reduced. At least that's all from what I gather. Anyone can correct me where I'm wrong.
Rabid Bruin
Joined: 9/26/23 Posts: 2,242
The gambling angle is iffy to me
Posted Sun, Apr 13 9:27 am
In response to Numbers, Dude (Part 2) (NotSure)
There are limits on futures bets and the futures odds come out after rosters are set. In football, all of the major moves have already happened. Same with basketball and the season has barely ended.

To think that a gambling entity is going to give, say UCLA, a boat load of money so that they’ll have better odds on futures bets that aren’t playable yet, makes no sense.
NotSure
Joined: 3/09/23 Posts: 1,147
I Only Know What I've Been Told
Posted Sun, Apr 13 10:04 am
In response to The gambling angle is iffy to me (Rabid Bruin)
Questions are being asked.

I was guessing as to WHY sports gamblers might be getting involved with NIL deals (no one I spoke to told me, since they weren't told, they were asked if they had any knowledge of certain matters and certain persons) and I apologize for not distinguishing that at all, let alone clearly. Since you know what they can and can't do, perhaps you might have some ideas about why that would matter.

I know that the role of sports gamblers in sports is a huge issue with a lot of people. The press has reported that some players are under investigation for point shaving by playing much more poorly than usual and then taking themselves out of games for odd injuries which never seemed to have happened.

That sort of thing would be easy to spot, as would a referee or crew of them making repeated very odd calls in a game.

I know that a long time ago, of course, there was the photo of some of the Fab 5 sharing a hot tub with fellow (Martin?) who was identified as a sports gambler and that led to a ruckus.

5 years ago, if I had known a player since they were 12 and a coach for 20 years and saw that player get hurt in a game, and then was talking to the coach a few days later discussing the game and asked if the player was okay, I would be told yes or no or we're not sure or what. The coach knew why I was asking.

Now, I'm asked if I gamble on sports and why I'm asking the question... from the same coaches.

I don't bet.

Maybe sports gamblers are just fans of the schools they're donating money to. But it would be sexy to prosecute them and maybe coaches, players and the schools, for wrongdoing.

I don't have much experience with the DOJ except for 3 instances:

Twice, I had clients who were contacted by the FBI. They were scared and I shoved them ASAP towards an expensive former Assistant USAG doing defense work.

In both cases, the FBI wanted my clients to help them convict a party guilty of crimes which the media and NCAA claimed my clients had committed or assisted.

But they don't tell you what they want to know before they ask to meet with you. Be prepared.

The 3rd instance, I was contacted by about every acronym in existence because they liked my client. I erased all my data including that in my brain, so apart from knowing something weird happened I have no idea of what happened, why or even who my client was.
Crispy
Joined: 1/13/14 Posts: 6,904
I have a bridge to sell you
Posted Sun, Apr 13 1:27 pm
In response to The gambling angle is iffy to me (Rabid Bruin)
I'll give you an example you can understand.

The position is called quarterback. We haven't had one in a couple year so I see how one can forget.

Imagine for one second if I bet a ton of money on the UCLA over 4.5 wins this year... set that low because who the hell knows whether Joey Aguilar can be the guy in the BIG when he threw a ton of INT's in JD Vance country..... no he didn't play for Bowling Green-land.

Then imagine there's a little thing called the transfer portal. And perhaps a qb who made it to the playoffs the year before ends up leaving a school like, say, Tennessee.

Or perhaps even a guy like Mateer decides he's not feeling Oklahoma.

Perhaps that gambler would do phenomenally well if he came to Westwood.

Now I know what you're going to say... everyone here is too F'in cheap to do that.... but we learned it from CNET.
Rabid Bruin
Joined: 9/26/23 Posts: 2,242
Let me educate you on gambling
Posted Sun, Apr 13 1:56 pm
In response to I have a bridge to sell you (Crispy)
There are limits to how much you can bet on a future. The limits are a lot less than they are for regular money line betting.

No smart gambler would be stupid enough to pay NIL in hopes that the school would land a QB, who would in turn lead to more victories on an over/under that are capped at lower limits.

Way too many variables. This is not reality.

This reminds me of Balls1 saying a team in the National Championship game should poach a player from another team and throw him in the starting lineup with a few weeks of practice.

Laughable.
Crispy
Joined: 1/13/14 Posts: 6,904
You can bet
Posted Mon, Apr 14 7:15 pm
In response to Let me educate you on gambling (Rabid Bruin)
A lot in a lot of places and through a lot of people if you want to.... I know this firsthand... I've known people you've lost a ton of cash. If a smart syndicate wanted to employ tactics I am guessing they could....
Arturo del Mundo
Joined: 3/03/11 Posts: 265

Avatars available for donors only
Always good. Many thanks. NM
Posted Sun, Apr 13 12:28 pm
In response to Numbers, Dude (Part 2) (NotSure)
NM