Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
UNC Suspends 13 FB players
Author Message
IWokeUpLikeThis Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,726
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation: 1434
I Root For: NIU, Chicago St
Location:
Post: #1
UNC Suspends 13 FB players
08-06-2018 11:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #2
RE: UNC Suspends 13 FB players
(08-06-2018 11:53 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...t-one-game

So F.ree S.hoes U.niversity has moved to Chapel Hill!
08-07-2018 01:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,231
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #3
RE: UNC Suspends 13 FB players
(08-07-2018 01:37 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-06-2018 11:53 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...t-one-game

So F.ree S.hoes U.niversity has moved to Chapel Hill!

FREE?
Those Retro Air Jordan 3’s were sold for between $150-$2500 per pair.

Fifteen players impermissibly exchanged the shoes in association with their participation in athletics for cash, according to correspondence released by the school on Monday in response to public records requests. UNC ordered 175 pairs of the special-edition shoes, in which 152 pairs were provided to players and staff on Jan. 11, 2018. The 15 involved players subsequently sold their shoes for cash.

Three players – deemed student-athletes Nos. 6, 9 and 13 in the case summary - sold their shoes directly to retail outlets and were unable to retrieve them upon discovery of the violation. Two of the three pairs were sold on the day the shoes were given to the players, one going for $1,500 and another for $1,300. Two other players – SA Nos. 1 and 4 – also sold their shoes to a boutique for $2,300 and $2,500, respectively, and were able to retrieve the shoes from the store.

Six players – SA Nos. 2, 3, 5, 8, 10 and 11 – sold their shoes to SA Nos. 2 and 6 on Jan. 11 for prices ranging from $300 to $1,000 and were unable to retrieve them upon discovery of the violation. The remaining four players – SA Nos. 7, 12, 14 and 15 – also sold their shoes to teammates (Nos. 4 and 6) on Jan. 11 for prices ranging from $150 to $2,500 and were able to retrieve their shoes and return cash.

https://247sports.com/college/north-caro...120346425/
08-07-2018 04:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,327
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1209
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #4
RE: UNC Suspends 13 FB players
(08-07-2018 04:44 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(08-07-2018 01:37 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-06-2018 11:53 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...t-one-game

So F.ree S.hoes U.niversity has moved to Chapel Hill!

FREE?
Those Retro Air Jordan 3’s were sold for between $150-$2500 per pair.

Fifteen players impermissibly exchanged the shoes in association with their participation in athletics for cash, according to correspondence released by the school on Monday in response to public records requests. UNC ordered 175 pairs of the special-edition shoes, in which 152 pairs were provided to players and staff on Jan. 11, 2018. The 15 involved players subsequently sold their shoes for cash.

Three players – deemed student-athletes Nos. 6, 9 and 13 in the case summary - sold their shoes directly to retail outlets and were unable to retrieve them upon discovery of the violation. Two of the three pairs were sold on the day the shoes were given to the players, one going for $1,500 and another for $1,300. Two other players – SA Nos. 1 and 4 – also sold their shoes to a boutique for $2,300 and $2,500, respectively, and were able to retrieve the shoes from the store.

Six players – SA Nos. 2, 3, 5, 8, 10 and 11 – sold their shoes to SA Nos. 2 and 6 on Jan. 11 for prices ranging from $300 to $1,000 and were unable to retrieve them upon discovery of the violation. The remaining four players – SA Nos. 7, 12, 14 and 15 – also sold their shoes to teammates (Nos. 4 and 6) on Jan. 11 for prices ranging from $150 to $2,500 and were able to retrieve their shoes and return cash.

https://247sports.com/college/north-caro...120346425/

Don't you think UNC could have foreseen this when they ordered such pricey shoes and gave them to players? I would almost think that giving players what amounts to nothing more than swag is a violation in its own right. Clearly these weren't intended to be used by the players in competition.

Another question springs to mind - were any shoes given to basketball players?
08-07-2018 07:14 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hokie4Skins Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,909
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 157
I Root For: Ed O'Bannon
Location:
Post: #5
RE: UNC Suspends 13 FB players
The horror of it all. These kids actually selling items that were gifted to them!
08-07-2018 07:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,231
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #6
RE: UNC Suspends 13 FB players
(08-07-2018 07:14 AM)ken d Wrote:  
(08-07-2018 04:44 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(08-07-2018 01:37 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-06-2018 11:53 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...t-one-game

So F.ree S.hoes U.niversity has moved to Chapel Hill!

FREE?
Those Retro Air Jordan 3’s were sold for between $150-$2500 per pair.

Fifteen players impermissibly exchanged the shoes in association with their participation in athletics for cash, according to correspondence released by the school on Monday in response to public records requests. UNC ordered 175 pairs of the special-edition shoes, in which 152 pairs were provided to players and staff on Jan. 11, 2018. The 15 involved players subsequently sold their shoes for cash.

Three players – deemed student-athletes Nos. 6, 9 and 13 in the case summary - sold their shoes directly to retail outlets and were unable to retrieve them upon discovery of the violation. Two of the three pairs were sold on the day the shoes were given to the players, one going for $1,500 and another for $1,300. Two other players – SA Nos. 1 and 4 – also sold their shoes to a boutique for $2,300 and $2,500, respectively, and were able to retrieve the shoes from the store.

Six players – SA Nos. 2, 3, 5, 8, 10 and 11 – sold their shoes to SA Nos. 2 and 6 on Jan. 11 for prices ranging from $300 to $1,000 and were unable to retrieve them upon discovery of the violation. The remaining four players – SA Nos. 7, 12, 14 and 15 – also sold their shoes to teammates (Nos. 4 and 6) on Jan. 11 for prices ranging from $150 to $2,500 and were able to retrieve their shoes and return cash.

https://247sports.com/college/north-caro...120346425/

Don't you think UNC could have foreseen this when they ordered such pricey shoes and gave them to players? I would almost think that giving players what amounts to nothing more than swag is a violation in its own right. Clearly these weren't intended to be used by the players in competition.

Another question springs to mind - were any shoes given to basketball players?

The shoes were ordered for the basketball players, but were not distributed to them.
08-07-2018 07:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,327
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1209
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #7
RE: UNC Suspends 13 FB players
(08-07-2018 07:36 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  The horror of it all. These kids actually selling items that were gifted to them!

Do players ever sell any of the (officially sanctioned) swag they get at bowl games?
08-07-2018 08:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hokie4Skins Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,909
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 157
I Root For: Ed O'Bannon
Location:
Post: #8
RE: UNC Suspends 13 FB players
(08-07-2018 08:37 AM)ken d Wrote:  
(08-07-2018 07:36 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  The horror of it all. These kids actually selling items that were gifted to them!

Do players ever sell any of the (officially sanctioned) swag they get at bowl games?

I'm not sure. But so what if they do? It's theirs.
08-07-2018 09:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hokie Mark Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,719
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 1392
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #9
RE: UNC Suspends 13 FB players
So arguably the worst football team in the ACC just lost 13 players... gonna be a LONG season in Chapel Hill.
08-07-2018 09:40 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,327
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1209
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #10
RE: UNC Suspends 13 FB players
(08-07-2018 09:31 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  
(08-07-2018 08:37 AM)ken d Wrote:  
(08-07-2018 07:36 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  The horror of it all. These kids actually selling items that were gifted to them!

Do players ever sell any of the (officially sanctioned) swag they get at bowl games?

I'm not sure. But so what if they do? It's theirs.

I tend to agree. It's just that when I'm expected to rise up in righteous indignation about something that gets reported, I like to look at it from all angles.
08-07-2018 09:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Statefan Offline
Banned

Posts: 3,511
Joined: May 2018
I Root For: .
Location:
Post: #11
RE: UNC Suspends 13 FB players
I wonder how many pair of shoes were actually stolen or traded for drugs.


The Greensboro New and Record says that UNC could account for 92 of 101 pair, but of course account is not the same as "have in their possession". UNC has had some very unsavory folks hanging around their program for the past 20 years.
(This post was last modified: 08-07-2018 12:50 PM by Statefan.)
08-07-2018 12:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,231
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #12
RE: UNC Suspends 13 FB players
(08-07-2018 12:48 PM)Statefan Wrote:  I wonder how many pair of shoes were actually stolen or traded for drugs.

03-zzz
08-07-2018 12:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Statefan Offline
Banned

Posts: 3,511
Joined: May 2018
I Root For: .
Location:
Post: #13
RE: UNC Suspends 13 FB players
Were any of the shoe sellers the same ones involved in the assault of their teammate at the ALOFT hotel year before last. If so, I would say get rid of them.
08-07-2018 01:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #14
RE: UNC Suspends 13 FB players
(08-07-2018 09:31 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  
(08-07-2018 08:37 AM)ken d Wrote:  
(08-07-2018 07:36 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  The horror of it all. These kids actually selling items that were gifted to them!

Do players ever sell any of the (officially sanctioned) swag they get at bowl games?

I'm not sure. But so what if they do? It's theirs.

So if a player is given a gift of $12,000 dollars just because a booster was happy they signed, (an amount that is allowable without taxation) and that player spends it as they see fit then it was just a gift and there is no violation because it's theirs. And those gifts are allowable as long as the limit applies to 1 giver. The recipient could theoretically accept several of those. So is a 48 thousand dollar set of gifts is just their money and not an inducement?

I don't think "it was a gift" as a defense will hold up in court when it is pointed out that they wouldn't have received the shoes had they not been UNC basketball players. Especially if random kids in random high schools didn't also receive the same gifts simply because they weren't UNC signees.
(This post was last modified: 08-07-2018 04:42 PM by JRsec.)
08-07-2018 04:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #15
RE: UNC Suspends 13 FB players
(08-07-2018 12:48 PM)Statefan Wrote:  I wonder how many pair of shoes were actually stolen or traded for drugs.


The Greensboro New and Record says that UNC could account for 92 of 101 pair, but of course account is not the same as "have in their possession". UNC has had some very unsavory folks hanging around their program for the past 20 years.

Do you always forget the coach's cut? That's 10% isn't it. There are your 9 pairs of shoes roughly.
08-07-2018 04:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,327
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1209
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #16
RE: UNC Suspends 13 FB players
Here's my problem with all of this (well, one of my problems).

We aren't talking about basketball players selling shoes that were issued to them for use in their sport for their school. We are talking about football players who were given expensive shoes with no expectation that they would ever be used in their capacity as representatives of their school. This is an item of apparel akin to a gift of jewelry - ornamental in nature.

And what we are focusing on is what those players did with that gift that they were given, instead of on the fact that their school should not have given it because it (should) violate the most basic NCAA rules about impermissable benefits.

These aren't benefits given in the shadows by unethical boosters. They are being given out in the open by the very people who should be working every day to make sure nobody is giving their athletes stuff like this. Why aren't we decrying this ethical lapse by the UNC athletics administration? Why are we blaming the athletes?
08-07-2018 06:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,231
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #17
RE: UNC Suspends 13 FB players
(08-07-2018 06:01 PM)ken d Wrote:  Here's my problem with all of this (well, one of my problems).

We aren't talking about basketball players selling shoes that were issued to them for use in their sport for their school. We are talking about football players who were given expensive shoes with no expectation that they would ever be used in their capacity as representatives of their school. This is an item of apparel akin to a gift of jewelry - ornamental in nature.

And what we are focusing on is what those players did with that gift that they were given, instead of on the fact that their school should not have given it because it (should) violate the most basic NCAA rules about impermissable benefits.

These aren't benefits given in the shadows by unethical boosters. They are being given out in the open by the very people who should be working every day to make sure nobody is giving their athletes stuff like this. Why aren't we decrying this ethical lapse by the UNC athletics administration? Why are we blaming the athletes?

I'm looking squarely at the Athletic Director.
08-07-2018 07:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,327
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1209
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #18
RE: UNC Suspends 13 FB players
I am not a conspiracy theorist. I admit that I tend to be very dismissive of those who are, whether in politics or sports. So it's hard for me to say out loud a crazy notion that has occurred to me about this flap.

It seems to me that any athletic administrator in today's environment would not only not be surprised that student athletes would sell these boutique quality shoes, he would be an idiot if he didn't expect it. Yet they gave them anyway. Why?

Is it possible that he (or they) wanted these players to take the bait so they could demonstrate how vigilant they were in ferreting out non-compliance? Could this be a perverse attempt to regain credibility with NCAA investigators after a number of scandals in which they were seen as asleep at the switch?

To take this notion a little further, why were the shoes given to the football players but withheld from the basketball players? Was it seen within the athletic department as OK to suspend football players who weren't expected to have a successful season anyway, in order to protect basketball players of whom much was expected?

Like I said. That's a crazy notion, right? What's wrong with me that it popped into my head?
08-07-2018 08:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,231
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #19
RE: UNC Suspends 13 FB players
(08-07-2018 08:45 PM)ken d Wrote:  I am not a conspiracy theorist. I admit that I tend to be very dismissive of those who are, whether in politics or sports. So it's hard for me to say out loud a crazy notion that has occurred to me about this flap.

It seems to me that any athletic administrator in today's environment would not only not be surprised that student athletes would sell these boutique quality shoes, he would be an idiot if he didn't expect it. Yet they gave them anyway. Why?

Is it possible that he (or they) wanted these players to take the bait so they could demonstrate how vigilant they were in ferreting out non-compliance? Could this be a perverse attempt to regain credibility with NCAA investigators after a number of scandals in which they were seen as asleep at the switch?

To take this notion a little further, why were the shoes given to the football players but withheld from the basketball players? Was it seen within the athletic department as OK to suspend football players who weren't expected to have a successful season anyway, in order to protect basketball players of whom much was expected?

Like I said. That's a crazy notion, right? What's wrong with me that it popped into my head?

You are correct 01-wingedeagle.
08-07-2018 09:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,327
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1209
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #20
RE: UNC Suspends 13 FB players
(08-07-2018 09:01 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(08-07-2018 08:45 PM)ken d Wrote:  I am not a conspiracy theorist. I admit that I tend to be very dismissive of those who are, whether in politics or sports. So it's hard for me to say out loud a crazy notion that has occurred to me about this flap.

It seems to me that any athletic administrator in today's environment would not only not be surprised that student athletes would sell these boutique quality shoes, he would be an idiot if he didn't expect it. Yet they gave them anyway. Why?

Is it possible that he (or they) wanted these players to take the bait so they could demonstrate how vigilant they were in ferreting out non-compliance? Could this be a perverse attempt to regain credibility with NCAA investigators after a number of scandals in which they were seen as asleep at the switch?

To take this notion a little further, why were the shoes given to the football players but withheld from the basketball players? Was it seen within the athletic department as OK to suspend football players who weren't expected to have a successful season anyway, in order to protect basketball players of whom much was expected?

Like I said. That's a crazy notion, right? What's wrong with me that it popped into my head?

You are correct 01-wingedeagle.

So you think Cunningham was just colossally stupid for signing off on this? That he really was dumb enough not to see this coming?

Do you think he ran it by the NCAA first to make sure that giving football players expensive basketball shoes wasn't a violation in its own right?

Do you think the players were explicitly warned not to sell these shoes at the time they were distributed?

It seems to me that if Cunningham didn't do both of these things, then he should be the one on the hot seat. Even if this was done by an underling in the department without his knowledge, he comes off looking pretty incompetent, IMO.

And even though we are just hearing about this, it happened months ago. Was the Chancellor aware of this in January? Has she made any public comment about it?
(This post was last modified: 08-08-2018 09:16 AM by ken d.)
08-08-2018 08:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.