Ethics and recruiting: How far is too far?

by Truzenzuzex on Oct 14, 2008 8:42 AM EDT in Commentary Comment 44 comments

We have recently had numerous harsh takes on Kentucky coach Billy Gillispie this year for everything from accepting verbal commitments from middle schoolers to moving Big Blue Madness, and now we have another complaint from The Loathsome Troll Jeff Goodman -- paying players' fathers and connections to speak coach's camps.

I have discussed the ethics of accepting young recruits at length, and despite the protestations of the NABC (among others) to the contrary, there is really no ethics problem at all there -- unless of course, Gillispie goes against his word, which he gave to abide by the NABC pronouncement that coaches should not do this. Now that Billy Donovan has violated the NABC's "strong opposition," let's keep in mind that as far as I know, Donovan never agreed to go along with the NABC, at least not publicly. What does this mean? Well, nothing really, but Gillispie has essentially unilaterally disarmed himself here. From an ethics standpoint, he is now obliged to walk the walk, even if Donovan and others don't.

But therein lies what we call a an ethical dilemma -- there is a strong non-ethical consideration there, namely his job at Kentucky depends significantly on not letting others have a recruiting advantage. Indeed, he has an ethical obligation to the University to do all he can within the rules and mores of good behavior to field a winning team. These may well come into conflict with the NABC pronouncement if others refuse to abide by it as Billy Donovan evidently has.

But leaving that aside for now, what of moving Big Blue Madness? No ethics problem here -- Gillispie cleared it well in advance with the compliance department and the NCAA themselves, and it was clearly within the rules. The NABC just didn't like it because it interfered with one of their pet agenda items, and characterizing it as an ethics breach isn't just a stretch, it is a joke. That deserves no further examination for now.

So finally, we move to this new allegation by The Loathsome Troll Jeff Goodman:

But because it certainly didn’t hurt that Kentucky coach Billy Gillispie paid Orton’s father, Larry, to speak at camps in Lexington on three separate occasions this past summer.

Goodman goes on to admit that this isn't against the rules, and he's right. But he then asks whether this is an ethics problem, and concludes "It depends on who you ask."

No, it really doesn't. What we have here is essentially a conflict of interest, no different from hiring the father as an assistant coach, or providing employment for a family member at the university. These things are all the same, and they are all clearly designed to influence a recruit's decision through their parents to come to whatever school is forking out that money. Goodman is on to something here, as much as it pains me to say it and as poor a messenger as he is about anything to do with ethics.

Even if this isn't against the rules, it is an ethical breach by every coach engaging in similar practices, including coach Gillispie, or Tubby Smith, or Roy Williams. The intent of the NCAA rules is to ensure that money is not in any way an incentive to recruiting -- to the player or to the player's family. What the schools who are engaging in this sort of temptation are doing is essentially excusing conduct that flies directly in the face of the intent of the NCAA rules by claiming that it is not forbidden by those rules. This is known as the "compliance dodge," which essentially states that if it is strictly within the rules, it is compliant and therefore ethical. That is wrong.

As I have said more than once on this blog, the fact something isn't illegal does not make it ethical. The purpose of the NCAA rules is to promote good behavior, not enable unethical behavior by the things it doesn't explicitly forbid. Paying players' relatives for services that they are not competing with other equally qualified candidates to perform and, in fact, offering them said employment as a transparent attempt to influence a decision that their son or daughter makes is clearly not good behavior from an ethics standpoint.

Next, we will hear the argument that "Everyone else does it, and if we don't they will get all the good recruits and we won't." That's a problem, to be sure. It is, as I said before, an ethical dilemma -- a powerful non-ethical consideration is at work here, and that consideration affects not only coach Gillispie, but his employer, the University of Kentucky. Is it strong enough to justify the paying of Orton's father, behavior that I have just declared unethical?

Unfortunately, I am unable to answer that question with confidence. I am not sure how much of a factor such relatively small external motivations are to recruits and their parents, and there is no doubt that when it comes to compliance issues, the UK compliance department is careful perhaps even to the point of working against the university's best interests. Do they have a problem with this behavior? We don't know. They have been silent on the subject, and as any lawyer will tell you, the silent are understood to consent.

Not only that, the NCAA rulebook itself is silent on the subject, and it isn't as if this is something new -- the employment of recruits' relatives in various forms has been going on, and even complained about, for many years now. At what point does the apparent violence this does to the intent of the rules become trivialized by the fact that is a long-accepted practice? But it clearly looks bad, even though most people are inclined to give Gillispie a pass because the practice is widespread and not against the rules, it still looks improper and calls into question the effectiveness of the NCAA in accomplishing its objectives.

Engaging in behavior that looks exploitative is never a good thing, especially when it goes to the heart of amateurism in college athletics. But the bottom line is, it could well be unethical regardless of the non-ethical considerations if these earnings are a significant influence in a recruit's decision. $1,500-$3,000 or so does not seem like enough to matter in today's world, but then again, it may be enough -- remember the $1,000 Emory Express envelope? But hiring a relative or coach looks much worse, because there is no doubt that a good-paying job would have a significant impact on the what these individuals in a position of influence say to their charges.

So I find myself unable to judge whether or not the ethical dilemma Gillispie finds himself in here can be justified by the various non-ethical considerations pulling the other way, likely because of my UK partisanship. What I can tell you is that I hope the NCAA explicitly outlaws the practice, because it makes coaches look unethical and places recruiting in a negative light, and I don't like my coach or university looking bad whether or not his actions are justified by the circumstances. Much like universities paying NCAA officials to assist them when they travel abroad for games, it has an appearance of impropriety, and as in most cases, even the tiniest appearances of impropriety, however superficial, are sufficient for some to make harsh judgments about a person's character -- just ask Billy Reed and The Loathsome Troll Jeff Goodman.

How does this compare to the other two issues Gillispie has been criticized for? It doesn't. Neither of the other two were even pro forma unethical, and that only requires a tiny bit of intelligence to figure out -- perhaps a level just above that of an air-conditioned room, which would appear to exclude Reed and Goodman. But the employment of recruits' parents in any capacity by a university recruiting them, unless it is a pre-existing relationship, is much different and goes to the very core of what the NCAA is supposed to be doing with their regulations -- ensuring players and their relations aren't being paid other than in the form of a scholarship, room and board to play at an NCAA member institution.

So instead of worrying about banning early verbals or moving a practice around, the NCAA should be focusing on pithy issues such as this and the paying of officials to referee games out of the country. Those are actually important issues which raise legitimate fairness and integrity concerns about the college game.

1 recs | Comment 44 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Too many of us are very comfortable with our own "ethical" condition. Therefore,

it is easy to be the first to judge others, pick up the stone and throw it. That doesn’t mean there aren’t things that are right and things that are wrong. What concerns me that in the midst of our growing level of success that we don’t give the enemies of our great program fuel for their hate. Avoiding all appearances of evil is a good mantra.

Secondly, I feel for the Ortons, by all accounts a classy family who are excited about their choice to come to Kentucky. Universities and head coaches are relatively thick skinned, but individual families of recruits should not have to put up with slanderous inferences about bout why they made there decision. The infernce here is that Kentucky has to buy its players to stay competitive in the recruitment process. I just don’t believe that is true.

by Blueobsessed on Oct 14, 2008 9:38 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Good point

Good point about the Ortons. I hadn’t even thought of it that way. I wonder if Goodman had. If so, and he wrote this anyway, I think he’s even more loathsome than before.

by Acdixon on Oct 14, 2008 9:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed, but how?

I agree that the practice should be forbidden somehow, because it does strike at the spirit of NCAA rules, but the question is how to ban it. If you ban employment of parents by the university, they’ll hire a grandparent or sibling. If you ban all family, they’ll hire a player’s AAU or high school coaches, not to mention the new groundswell of genealogy experts hired by universities trying to show that the new assistant coach at State U is the fourth half-cousin, twice removed by marriage of their latest recruit.

I have seen a proposal floated somewhere about banning the hiring of anyone “with connections” to the recruit. That’s a nightmare of ambiguity! In fact, I think that was discussed in an article by Gary Parrish not long ago. Maybe if I get over my bout with laziness this morning, I’ll try to track it down.

So what kind of language would be appropriate?

by Acdixon on Oct 14, 2008 9:40 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: nightmare of ambiguity

Trust me, that is one way to force compliance. It sucks in principle, but in reality it works better than excess precision.

I know a lot about ambiguity, because I have to deal with the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (usually called the ITAR), and ambiguity along with dire penalties for violation exert powerful pressure on companies and individuals to ensure compliance. It is vastly imperfect and a genuine, almost overwhelming burden on American business, but the positive effects on national security are undeniable. Is there a better way? I’m sure, but sometimes ambiguity can be more useful than precision. That’s my point.

I think that language forbidding the employment or provision of any monetary or in-kind benefit to any coach or family member of a current recruit. Also, it should extend the prohibition one year past the matriculation of said recruit in order to forestall the possibility of a promised future benefit. Such future benefits should be expressly forbidden, as well.

A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan

by Truzenzuzex on Oct 14, 2008 10:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This comment is not as irrelevant as it might seem.

That’s not the regulation that was making it illegal for Apple to export their G4 desktop machines a few years ago, is it?

by Mahatma on Oct 14, 2008 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not sure ...

… about that particular case, but it is likely. The reason is that if the Apple software included strong encryption, it may have wound up being controlled under the ITAR rather than the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), which now controls all commercial products providing strong encryption that used to be controlled by the ITAR.

That change was made back in about 2003 or 2004, I think. Can’t remember for sure.

A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan

by Truzenzuzex on Oct 14, 2008 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Legislating morality, the bigger question!

I just don’t think it can be done. Make a new rule and there will be those who find ways of circumventing it. “The intent of the NCAA rules is to ensure that money is not in any way an incentive to recruiting — to the player or to the player’s family.” While I think this is a necessary position for the NCAA to take in a non-professional sport, two things must be considered.

From the perspective of the coach and university, they must ask how will an action be perceived? Perception is reality in the big-time.
From the perpective of the critics, they must ask do we really know the heart or mind of the individual? What really was the action’s intent? In this instance, Mr. Goodman is supposing he knows the heart and mind of the Ortons, Coach Gillispie and the University of Kentucky. I don’t think he should suppose to have that power.
I feel certain that all was check with the compliance officer and approved. The bigger question still lurks out there, "If it is not necessary, why do it?

by Blueobsessed on Oct 14, 2008 9:57 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

No doubt ...

… that when we write rules, the first thing that happens is that people set about trying to find ways around it. That’s just part of the reality of rule and lawmaking. But that does not mean that we should give up writing rules, does it? I think not.

As to legislating morality, I would argue that we legislate little else.

I can’t speak about perception, other than to say that it is largely up to each individual. When most people consider the practice of hiring recruits’ family and mentors, most of us think it is not an ethical practice. I don’t think that is something that requires much analysis at all.

Regarding the mind of those involved, what you are talking about is referred to in law as “mens rea,” or a desire to do something that is known to be illegal or wrong. We can’t speak to that, but we can take note of the fact that none of the fathers of lesser recruits are asked to speak. This seems passing strange, don’t you think? So with regard to intent, I don’t think there is really much question as to the intent of the coach. As to the father, it’s hard to blame him for taking what is offered. Perhaps a conspicuously ethical person would reject it as a conflict of interest, but I think that is drawing a line a bit too far away from reality.

I am quite positive that compliance did not complain, because it clearly doesn’t violate the NCAA regulations. But as I said, that doesn’t mean it is the right thing to do, or even ethically defensible. But there are serious non-ethical considerations at stake, and as I said, that puts Gillispie firmly on the horns of an ethical dilemma.

A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan

by Truzenzuzex on Oct 14, 2008 11:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Tru- Legislating morality

As you know, the making of the rule is the easy part. The enforcement is more difficult. My point of perception speaks, I think to your concern. If it is not going to make a difference, then why do it; even if it is within the current guidelines. Why cause the guidelines to change? Why bring suspicion to your program?

If we are speaking about ethical behavior, passing a rule or law will not cause me to be more ethical. Our prisons are full of people who have not been affected by a rule or constrained by the penalty that is associated with that rule.

In the end, personal integrity must rule not societal mandates.

by Blueobsessed on Oct 14, 2008 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Many, many, many, many coaches have proved over and over that that doesn't work.

by Ken Howlett on Oct 14, 2008 11:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Of course "all was checked with the compliance officer and approved."

That’s the point of Tru’s piece.

What is being done by these coaches is completely legal as far as the NCAA is concerned, but is it unethical and a terrible lesson to teach our children? Of course it is.

Pretending that Gillispie would have had Orton’s father in to speak at his camps if his son wasn’t being hotly recruited by UK is to deny reality; just as Larry Brown hired Danny Manning’s father as an assistant coach at Kansas to entice the young superstar to Lawrence. Would UK have created a assistant director of athletics/administration slot for Alvis Johnson if his son wasn’t an All-America football player considering the ’Cats.

There is no such thing as coincidence.

I’ve written about this issue before and I continue to feel the same way; these practices should be stopped. They aren’t illegal, but they are immoral.

by Ken Howlett on Oct 14, 2008 11:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Lets face it

the ungodly amount of money generated by college athletics is the root. Our entire country and Government from legislation to campaigning (and how often it is done) is driven by the same. So the rule is “just don’t break a specific rule” and the rest is open field until they close it down.

BCG has found himself in a different arena now. He quickly saw how really big time ball is done and saw the double standards the media places on UK by the prime example of BCG being raked for the early commits and Eddie Munster being called a brilliant coach for the same. Only BCG did it prior to the NABC “asking” not to and Eddie did it after.

BCG and UK will not, and I repeat NOT break any rules and commit violations. Will they walk the line while holding hands with every other major coach? Yes.

The game is so big and so much money riding on it all says the money BCG and Sandy Bell get is to wake up and keep one eye on the line and the other on building a team.

I see this latest attack as the rest. If anything the loathing of UK coupled with the fire and drive of BCG has struck fear around the basketball world and we just may be the defacto catalyst for the rules to change. Fine.

So, rules vs no rules vs ethics -

Well in football it is a rule that you can’t cut block at a players knees but by example of several “hits” that are against the rules one could assume that you can run across the field at full steam and knock a guy out as is the goal every down. Is that ethical outside of the rules of football?

Now, by creating such a long list of rules and leaving some things out, does that not imply the rest is within the rules and therefore ethical?

By definition then, following the rules is ethical.

Also, did TLTJG make note of Self calling him to say they had given the spot away could have had as big or bigger impact then $1,500 to speak at a camp?

Guys, I am just stoking a bit here for conversations sake. I had very little sleep due to work and have been writing contracts and proposals for 3 days so I am in an odd state of mind.

Changing how you think will change what you think.

by wilson452 on Oct 14, 2008 10:11 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

...

So what if they make relative hiring illegal in the university? It isn’t like a lex-based business wouldn’t give daddy Orton a job to help the basketball team out. How can that be illegal? No athlete’s parents are allowed to work? You are dealing with a lot of gray areas here. I think the bigger issue should be the job requirements/salary compared to the parent’s credentials. If a player’s parent is unqualified for a job and is making 6 figures then something is wrong. If I’m not mistaken, Daniel Orton’s father played small school college basketball and has done some coaching. To me, this makes him qualified to help coach a friggin’ basketball camp. It’s not like he got payed a million dollars either.

by goinss1 on Oct 14, 2008 10:25 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I think you’ve hit on why there’s no rule in place right now. While the intent may be simple enough to state, the implementation could get really tricky. Who decides how qualified the parent/associate is, or how much is fair compensation for the services rendered? Will it be a violation if the recruit’s mom gets a new job within 100 miles of the university? 200 miles? Or if their best friend is offered a scholarship? While I agree that the intent is good, it would be really tough to implement. The first time the rule inadvertently screwed somebody over (shades of Dakotah Euton here, although I’m sure neither his nor Vinny Zollo’s parents had any trouble finding new jobs) we’d be telling ourselves how shortsighted it was, blah blah blah.

I’ve been reluctant to read the Goodman article, as I’m sure his ‘journalistic bias’ is all about generating traffic. Did he mention in his article all of the other schools (at least 2 that I’ve read of) at which Orton’s father was paid to speak?

by Mahatma on Oct 14, 2008 10:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

A fair point, but ...

… it is already against the rules for the school to find outside employment for a recruits’ connections. So if the boosters of the program decided to step into the breach and help out that way, they would certainly face NCAA scrutiny under the existing regulations.

There are no real gray areas here, not really. We are talking about something relatively straightforward, and that is the school not hiring a recruits’ connections. That’s it.

And I didn’t say Orton’s father wasn’t qualified. I didn’t. But was he more qualified than the father of other recruits? I don’t know the answer, but even if it’s yes, it looks like a conflict of interest and strikes at the spirit, if not the letter, of the NCAA regulations. I think that’s a problem.

As I pointed out in the piece, the Emory Express envelope that landed UK in hot water was likely even less than Orton’s father got paid, and it was going to the family as well. Too bad they didn’t think to ask Chris Mills’ dad to talk at a camp, eh?

A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan

by Truzenzuzex on Oct 14, 2008 11:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good counter-point, but I still feel like a recruit’s family would be given jobs in the lexington area independent of booster involvement due to the popularity of the basketball team. You can’t tell me that some local businesses with no affiliation to the university wouldn’t want an inside connection to the basketball team.

by goinss1 on Oct 14, 2008 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

As I said ...

… boosters or companies giving jobs to recruits’ parents is already a violation of NCAA guidelines if there is any university involvement at all.

A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan

by Truzenzuzex on Oct 14, 2008 11:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Looking at the world through gray-colored glasses.

But what constitutes ‘connections’? Obviously family fits. I guess the next step is high school coach. And assistant coaches. Then AAU coach. And assistant coaches. And other assorted functionaries of their AAU program. (Actually, I guess you could rank the AAU connections ‘before’ high school coaches in a list like this.)

What if World Wide Wes hangs around the kid’s practices, pals around with the AAU coach, watches him on the playground? At what point does he become a ‘connection’? Giving him a ride home after school? Buying him a Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese meal (mmmmm)?

I do think there’s lots of gray that comes in when you talk about a rule like this, and frankly, often cases where it would be harmful. I’m not sure if John Wall’s AAU coach’s brother is qualified for his new job at Baylor (or whether he knows if Ferris is sick today), but you could make a pretty strong argument for Wade Houston when he got that job at Tennessee.

by Mahatma on Oct 14, 2008 11:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

How'd you know about "World Wide Wes?"

by Ken Howlett on Oct 14, 2008 11:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Orton

People are just mad that we got Orton and they didnt. Oh – that and Goodman is a loathsome troll. This will die down eventually and then there will be something else that Kentucky is doing that is unethical and wrong, then something else, then…. well, you get my point. All the haters have to have something to cry about. The crying will get resoundingly worse once the season starts and these Cats start Kicking a** and taking names.

by kentuckygirl0724 on Oct 14, 2008 10:42 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Try to get your facts right. It's hard read otherwise.

Gillispie actually said about two weeks ago after Donovan took the commitment of Rivers that he would still take younger commitments, because he wasn’t going to let Kentucky fall behind any other schools. He loosened his allegiance to the NABC’s guideline.

RANDALL COBB

by Biggameburt on Oct 14, 2008 11:01 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Well ...

… in the first place, you have provided no facts here. What Gillispie said was this:

“I’m a company man, but I’m not going to get beat up as far as competing,” Gillispie said during the Southeastern Conference basketball coaches’ teleconference earlier this week. “You always want to try to do what a coaches’ organization which I have a lot of respect for asks you to do. But I’m not going to be sitting by the wayside while other people are getting ahead of you as far as competition is concerned.”

That is a fact.

If you will note in my piece, I addressed the fact that other coaches refusing to adhere to the NABC statement created an ethical dilemma for Gillispie, one which may well justify his backtracking.

Before you accuse me of not getting facts straight, don’t you think you should get yours straight when you do? Gillispie has never said he would continue taking younger commitments. He did imply it, though, if other coaches continue to do it.

A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan

by Truzenzuzex on Oct 14, 2008 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Then there is this to consider

It has been reported that Orton’s parents plan to move to Lexington when their son does, and Mr. Orton plans to apply for work.

We need to prepare for that as well. Sure, all parents want to be able to watch their son play as much as possible. You can’t blame them. But his employment will be closely scrutinized.

by racercat98 on Oct 14, 2008 12:31 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

And it should be.

These kinds of things are ethical minefields that are tough to navigate. By no means should the NCAA forbid a man from trying to get work closer to his kids. But UK must scrupulously avoid any involvement in that end of the deal. Right now, it is legal for the university itself to offer him a job, but that could come under scrutiny if the forms aren’t followed. I would like to see that possibility foreclosed.

UK has to distance itself from the efforts of parents to obtain employment. Not doing so could get us in lots of trouble. If the parents aren’t aware of this fact, they should be made aware.

A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan

by Truzenzuzex on Oct 14, 2008 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Lets be honest

The university doesn’t need to take any steps to help Mr. Orton in the Lexington Area.

HR manager: So Mr. Orton, I see you have recently moved to the area. What brings you here?
Orton’s Dad: My son is playing basketball for UK here in town.
HR manager: Oh really?!!?

Of course its difficult, its a shortcut... if it was easy it'd just be "the way."

by chirop1 on Oct 14, 2008 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

A most excellent point.

by Ken Howlett on Oct 14, 2008 11:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Almost

I think the conversation would be even shorter. Something like this.

HR manager: Oh, I know you. You’re Daniel Orton’s father. I’ve been reading about your kid on the Internet for years. I was at Big Blue Madness chanting his name. You’re hired!

by Acdixon on Oct 15, 2008 9:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Tru

Makes a good point, however, when you start thinking about intent, it gets too confusing, in the end even talking to a player during recruitment becomes a sales pitch. Like any good salesman, you’re going to play on someone’s hopes and their fears and ethics becomes such an ambiguous term. I like BGC’s take on it which seems to be pretty much that he’s going to follow the letter of the law and let others concern themselves with judging it. He’ll abide by the rules but use whatever means available to achieve his ends. When they make a new rule, he’ll abide by it.

If you think about, ethically, that’s the best way to do it.

by Byron on Oct 14, 2008 12:43 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Perhaps not the best ...

… but maybe the only way that can work.

Asking Gillispie to unilaterally disarm in the name of ethics is a tough sell, even to me. I hate what I see, but the partisan part of me sees the need for it. That’s why I can’t bring myself to condemn him for it, and trust me, I am more than capable of doing that in most cases.

But one of the reasons we fell so far behind in recruiting, and ultimately in basketball performance, is that others were pushing the envelope and UK wasn’t. We have seen that outcome. We know that if you do not hew close to the rules, your program will suffer.

As I say, it isn’t the best way. But it may be the only way that respects the interests of all concerned, and that is an ethical consideration also.

A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan

by Truzenzuzex on Oct 14, 2008 12:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

maybe

“best” was the wrong way to phrase it, but laws are there to prevent blatant abuses, they can’t regulate intent and they can’t be too rigid, i think criticizing coaches for competing in the world they are forced to compete in is dumb. It’s like telling an all-out fighter not to win. He’ll look at you like you’re crazy. Journalists just like to talk about this crap, I guess just like we do. Fact is, they’re making their money picking people’s lives apart when they have no idea, so maybe they shouldn’t pontificate about ethics. Lets see them play the game first. I’m getting progressively more angry about this so I should stop. :)

by Byron on Oct 14, 2008 1:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Don't get angry.

There’s really nothing here to be angry about. Goodman is not known around here as The Loathsome Troll for nothing, and I have eschewed anger at him — that’s probably what he wants. Any more, I just try to mock him and set the record straight. :-)

A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan

by Truzenzuzex on Oct 14, 2008 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Anyway,

BGC will do what he wants/needs to do in order to stay on top and not get fired, he’ll casually disregard criticism publicly because he’s going to call it like he sees it. We’re probably more worked up about it than he is. Dude is my hero.

by Byron on Oct 14, 2008 1:14 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Oh ...

… I doubt Gillispie is concerned at all. His main concern is competing within the rules, and really, that’s what we should be asking of him. The ethical issues here are in large part due to the NCAA not dealing with this a long, long time ago.

A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan

by Truzenzuzex on Oct 14, 2008 1:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks for a stimulating discussion. For this a old western Kentucky boy, much of this

ethical stuff was over my head. Momma said, “there is only one family in this town with our name, live a good life and don’t wreck our reputation”. Maybe that is too simple of advise, but there is only one University of Kentucky, so let’s live a good life and don’t wreck her name."

by Blueobsessed on Oct 14, 2008 2:25 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Well said. Very well said, indeed.

A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan

by Truzenzuzex on Oct 14, 2008 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

hahah

Eddie Sutton?

by Byron on Oct 14, 2008 8:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hmmm...

I believe this was a bit more in depth and well-written than my fan post on the same matter. :-)

Still not a crook!

by TrickyD26 on Oct 14, 2008 4:22 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Amateurism? Surely you jest.

The only part of your piece with which I would take exception is using “NCAA” and “amateurism” in the same sentence…or same paragraph…hell, even the same whole piece. As long as filthy lucre is the driving force behind college athletics — and make no mistake, it is — gagging at such microscopic gnats is an exercise in self-righteousness.

by Wild Weasel on Oct 14, 2008 6:17 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Gillispie And Pitino Do This (Pay Speakers At Camps) But Tubby Wouldn't Do It

Itt’s no illegal. Until it becomes illegal, most coaches will do it. Some won’t.

by FortyYearCatFan on Oct 14, 2008 6:53 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

For any other shortcomings, and coaching was not one of them,

Tubby could NEVER be criticized for lack of character. He never"wrecked her (the university’s) name".

by Blueobsessed on Oct 14, 2008 7:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

AGREE 110%. I don't think BCG is either.

I think there are many in “the media” like TLTJG that trumpeted Tubby because the man was such a good man, the coach was such a good coach and his ethics were so sqeaky clean but somewhere deep down, they too saw the perception of UK slipping slowly and their UK Hater instincts liked it.
(PLEASE, no need to go any deeper here. We have too many times. It is not a statement for or against Tubby. It is historical fact and part of the legacy of UK so it is included in my comment here. Note the use of the word “perception.”)

Pitino said something to effect of “if they let Tubby go it will set the program back 10 years.” I have always laughed at that statement. Did he mean 3 straight F4’s and 2 rings? Did he mean we would suck eternally because only he and his tree of coaches could run UK?

I think the change of energy at UK has hit the country by surprise and they would like to tear down UK before we get back on top and they would also like it to be BCG who “does the tearing” for them.

These past 3 “incidents” of young commit, moving madness and paying a father to be a speaker are all well within the “rules” as they are not against a rule and it is big time B-Ball business as usual in 2 cases and we were joined last Friday by 3 or 4 other schools that I cannot name because they are still good and only UK and BCG are the devil. Don;t forget how they all rejoiced in telling us how fast his bags will get shipped to OSU. They were spooky in their glee. But wrong.

As I say time and again about our name in headlines constantly and it may have been JL that gave a great tag line for it -

Embrace The Hate!

Hell someone should sell shirts. Let me know when they are on sale.

Tru, if for whatever reason this comment spawns another Tubby spew fountain please kill it immediately. This is not about Tubby or BCG but about the media’s approach to UK.

Changing how you think will change what you think.

by wilson452 on Oct 15, 2008 11:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs