Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2019 10:10:12 GMT -5
Sure, but my point was that I assume almost no school pays players, meaning, Iowa should be recruiting better if they are. Money vs. no money is a big advantage...at least it should be. Well, obviously, every school pays players. The question at issue is the value that is placed on the money that is paid, presumably legally at first (in other words, a full-ride scholarship to Iowa wasn't enough?) I think the money paid to a player was in lieu of a scholarship - essentially they had 13 paid players on the floor which is a no-no. It's okay to pay your volunteer coaches an entire year's salary for working a summer camp; but you can't give a walkon athlete the same type of deal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2019 10:13:08 GMT -5
Why would someone being recruited there, and getting paid money under the table to do so on top of it, rat the coach out? Granted, the posts in the thread saying that the former SA told on the coach are just speculation as well, I'm sure. Another point, maybe I misunderstood ... this was caught internally somehow, and is being self-reported by Iowa to the NCAA? The AD in the press release/conference acknowledged that they learned of the violations from a former student-athlete, so that’s not speculation. They hired a firm to investigate pretty much right away and then self-reported to NCAA. I see, thanks. I was coming from the viewpoint that the former SA was actually the person who got the payment, but that probably wouldn't make any sense in any case. Makes more sense that a former SA who wasn't apart of the payment, but was aware of it, was the whistle-blower.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on May 29, 2019 10:13:51 GMT -5
Well, obviously, every school pays players. The question at issue is the value that is placed on the money that is paid, presumably legally at first (in other words, a full-ride scholarship to Iowa wasn't enough?) I think the money paid to a player was in lieu of a scholarship - essentially they had 13 paid players on the floor which is a no-no. It's okay to pay your volunteer coaches an entire year's salary for working a summer camp; but you can't give a walkon athlete the same type of deal. I'm familiar with the NCAA rules. My post had to do with the idea that money isn't necessarily the recruitment equalizer that the post I was responding to suggested.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2019 10:16:39 GMT -5
Well, obviously, every school pays players. The question at issue is the value that is placed on the money that is paid, presumably legally at first (in other words, a full-ride scholarship to Iowa wasn't enough?) I think the money paid to a player was in lieu of a scholarship - essentially they had 13 paid players on the floor which is a no-no. It's okay to pay your volunteer coaches an entire year's salary for working a summer camp; but you can't give a walkon athlete the same type of deal. No of course not. This is the NCAA, after all. The entire structure of what American college athletics are built on is the putrid concept of "amateurism", which itself was conjured up in England so that rich kids who didn't have to work (ie, "amateurs") didn't have to play and lose to poor factory workers (ie, "professionals") in rowing, etc. Heaven forbid that people realize and acknowledge that DI student-athletes work essentially a full-time job, year round, just in their sport and everything that is mandatory that goes along with it. And that they're already paid a pretty significant amount of money, it's just not called a salary.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2019 10:18:39 GMT -5
I think the money paid to a player was in lieu of a scholarship - essentially they had 13 paid players on the floor which is a no-no. It's okay to pay your volunteer coaches an entire year's salary for working a summer camp; but you can't give a walkon athlete the same type of deal. I'm familiar with the NCAA rules. My post had to do with the idea that money isn't necessarily the recruitment equalizer that the post I was responding to suggested. I didn't suggest you weren't familiar with the rules. I think I interpreted "a full-ride to Iowa wasn't enough?" to mean you thought a scholarship player was the one given the extra money.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2019 10:21:53 GMT -5
I'm familiar with the NCAA rules. My post had to do with the idea that money isn't necessarily the recruitment equalizer that the post I was responding to suggested. I didn't suggest you weren't familiar with the rules. I think I interpreted "a full-ride to Iowa wasn't enough?" to mean you thought a scholarship player was the one given the extra money. This is still an open question. I think most people are assuming that some high level recruit/transfer was being offered additional $$$ under the table on top of the normal maximum compensation (scholarship) to choose Iowa.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on May 29, 2019 12:02:29 GMT -5
I'm familiar with the NCAA rules. My post had to do with the idea that money isn't necessarily the recruitment equalizer that the post I was responding to suggested. I didn't suggest you weren't familiar with the rules. I think I interpreted "a full-ride to Iowa wasn't enough?" to mean you thought a scholarship player was the one given the extra money. We don't know whether it was or was not a scholarship player (or at least, I don't). What I was suggesting was that if you can't build a strong enough program by convincing players that a full-ride scholarship to Iowa (or any other school for that matter) is valuable enough, then the root of the problem isn't money (or bribery).
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on May 29, 2019 12:41:28 GMT -5
This is totally irresponsible; it's been almost a week, if it was true we would've heard about it by now. Why? His termination is a confidential personnel issue. An interim has already been named, and we won't necessarily hear anything until there is another personnel action. Well it was reported that his contract requires 30 days notice to be fired for cause, so my guess would be that he was notified that he would be fired, but won't actually be fired for 30 days. But if they owe him $15,000 on June 30, surely we will hear about him being fired by then.
|
|
|
Post by Wiswell on May 29, 2019 12:50:05 GMT -5
Ok, let's pretend some player was being paid, not that we know that is the issue.
Who would be doing the paying, and through what vessel? There's not exactly a booster club or the "programs" that CFB teams have illicitly used.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2019 13:21:05 GMT -5
Ok, let's pretend some player was being paid, not that we know that is the issue. Who would be doing the paying, and through what vessel? There's not exactly a booster club or the "programs" that CFB teams have illicitly used. Making an example up out of thin air: coach purchased a plane ticket for a recruit to visit ____ destination, free of charge, by using the women's volleyball program's recruiting budget, which I'm guessing is allotted five-figures per year to travel around and recruit players. Could've purchased the ticket with his personal credit card and then submitted the expense to that account for reimbursement, as a recruiting expense, with no one in accounting the wiser. Like I said, I made that up out of thin air.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2019 13:27:13 GMT -5
Regarding the "root of the problem". It all comes back to winning, of course. How does a program like Iowa, clearly outside the top 25, ever expect to be able to boot-strap itself up into the top 25, consistently? It seems like too much of a barrier to entry to overcome?
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on May 29, 2019 13:35:47 GMT -5
Why? His termination is a confidential personnel issue. An interim has already been named, and we won't necessarily hear anything until there is another personnel action. Well it was reported that his contract requires 30 days notice to be fired for cause, so my guess would be that he was notified that he would be fired, but won't actually be fired for 30 days. But if they owe him $15,000 on June 30, surely we will hear about him being fired by then. If they owe him 15K, they'll just pay him the money. There's no need to make an announcement.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on May 29, 2019 13:38:04 GMT -5
Ok, let's pretend some player was being paid, not that we know that is the issue. Who would be doing the paying, and through what vessel? There's not exactly a booster club or the "programs" that CFB teams have illicitly used. Somebody implied earlier in this thread that an athlete may have been paid well above the going rate for working Iowa camps. I find this more likely than the previous post about phony flights through a recruiting budget (which could also be fraud and potential legal troubles).
|
|
|
Post by hammer on May 29, 2019 14:06:52 GMT -5
Regarding the "root of the problem". It all comes back to winning, of course. How does a program like Iowa, clearly outside the top 25, ever expect to be able to boot-strap itself up into the top 25, consistently? It seems like too much of a barrier to entry to overcome? Without spending considerable amounts of money it is tough, assuming the spending is done according to NCAA rules. The money would be spent on a well known head coach (who you might have to entice from another institution), assistants, and infrastructure (training facilities, new volleyball venue, etc). The new coaching staff and assistants will then be able to recruit top level talent and bootstrap the program. It would take several years -- it doesn't happen overnight.
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on May 29, 2019 14:14:48 GMT -5
Well it was reported that his contract requires 30 days notice to be fired for cause, so my guess would be that he was notified that he would be fired, but won't actually be fired for 30 days. But if they owe him $15,000 on June 30, surely we will hear about him being fired by then. If they owe him 15K, they'll just pay him the money. There's no need to make an announcement. They owe him $15,000 if he is still employed on June 30. I assume they'll try to fire him before that bonus kicks in.
|
|