Question about Dean Smith's "Gift"
- Thread starter UKjanitor
- Start date
He gave it to his former players. Most of them are millionaires so the 200 dollars did little for them. It was the idea, the players probably framed it.
You could will your money to Brandon Knight.....but not to Jalen Brown
This post was edited on 3/27 9:25 AM by thecatsareback#8
You could will your money to Brandon Knight.....but not to Jalen Brown
This post was edited on 3/27 9:25 AM by thecatsareback#8
He willed his money to players that had already exhausted their eligibility. It wouldn't have mattered in that particular context.
However, if during the recruiting process of those players, he informed the players that if they committed to him, he would leave them some money in his will after he died, that in and of itself could be considered an illegal benefit.
Think of it when Cal and his wife were trying to set up a foundation to pay players' tuition after their eligibility had been exhausted in order for them to still obtain their degrees------the NCAA wouldn't allow it.
However, if during the recruiting process of those players, he informed the players that if they committed to him, he would leave them some money in his will after he died, that in and of itself could be considered an illegal benefit.
Think of it when Cal and his wife were trying to set up a foundation to pay players' tuition after their eligibility had been exhausted in order for them to still obtain their degrees------the NCAA wouldn't allow it.
It would matter because it could potentially open up the door for current coaches that have accumulated large sums of money over the years (Coach K, Cal, Roy, Self, etc...) the opportunity to make indirect enticements to potential recruits such as, "I can't offer you anything at this moment, but I can promise you that one day down the line, when I'm gone, there will be some money in it for you if you commit to me."
In the grand scheme of things, you are correct. Their eligibility is exhausted and who really gives a flip about $200? But, it could potentially open the doors for someone who wants to stretch the line a little further. Smith did a good deed here for his former players------as if Michael Jordan really needs $200? But, whose to say that the door couldn't be opened for only the best of the best recruits to get this money?. What if Smith had only left the money to his top players, and not just his role players as well? How would that be viewed? What if Cal passed away tomorrow and only left money to Wall, Cousins, Bledsoe, and AD? But, he didn't leave a nickel to Hood, Beckham, Poulson, etc....? The media outrage would be staggering.
This post was edited on 3/27 9:43 AM by G0BigBLUE00
Granted, we would all agree that it's ridiculous for this to me an issue, but it sounds officially out of compliance to me.
Can someone who understands the rule book better, explain this?
Can someone who understands the rule book better, explain this?
He willed his money to players that had already exhausted their eligibility. It wouldn't have mattered in that particular context.
However, if during the recruiting process of those players, he informed the players that if they committed to him, he would leave them some money in his will after he died, that in and of itself could be considered an illegal benefit.
Think of it when Cal and his wife were trying to set up a foundation to pay players' tuition after their eligibility had been exhausted in order for them to still obtain their degrees------the NCAA wouldn't allow it.
You really can't give an extra benefit ever. That's why Roy got in trouble for giving graduation gifts to Kansas players.
That's why former player Will Graves wasn't supposed to be living rent-free in Roy Williams house.
Maybe death changes things, but if that were the case, big time boosters could get pretty creative with their family trusts.
I'm 99.9% positive nothing will ever come of it, but by the letter of the law I don't think it's allowed.
That's why former player Will Graves wasn't supposed to be living rent-free in Roy Williams house.
Maybe death changes things, but if that were the case, big time boosters could get pretty creative with their family trusts.
I'm 99.9% positive nothing will ever come of it, but by the letter of the law I don't think it's allowed.
Here's where it's shady.
"Hey, come play for me, and after you leave, we will give you money."
It's really not that hard to see how this violates the spirit of the law.
There is a reason why Krzyzewski always wanted people to see Brutus & Cassius sitting on either side of him on tv and in commercials. He's showing what awaits you in the future if you play for Duke, even if you don't have an NBA career.
It's questionable.
This post was edited on 3/27 10:53 AM by UKUGA
"Hey, come play for me, and after you leave, we will give you money."
It's really not that hard to see how this violates the spirit of the law.
There is a reason why Krzyzewski always wanted people to see Brutus & Cassius sitting on either side of him on tv and in commercials. He's showing what awaits you in the future if you play for Duke, even if you don't have an NBA career.
It's questionable.
This post was edited on 3/27 10:53 AM by UKUGA
Maybe not all millionaires, but likely very well off...pull the money electronically and donate the food to a food store and frame the check...and then vacate the wins.
This post was edited on 3/27 11:01 AM by CatPhight
Um, it's clearly an enticement to future recruits that in about 30 yrs they might get a small check, which they probably won't even cash. Duh!
Two reasons why this is not any kind of violation.
First, Smith almost certainly never told players or recruits he would give them money at some point in the future. (He might have told them they could all major in African American studies and graduate without any work, but that's another issue.) Had he done so, that would almost certainly be a violation. Without him having done so, it isn't a violation.
Second, Smith hasn't been the coach for 15 years, and his players haven't been eligible for 15 years. Do you really think the NCAA can hold the university responsible for the actions of its coach from 15 years ago? If Joe B Hall pays for Kenny Walker's dinner at Coles 735 Main, do you think the NCAA is going to put UK on probation?
First, Smith almost certainly never told players or recruits he would give them money at some point in the future. (He might have told them they could all major in African American studies and graduate without any work, but that's another issue.) Had he done so, that would almost certainly be a violation. Without him having done so, it isn't a violation.
Second, Smith hasn't been the coach for 15 years, and his players haven't been eligible for 15 years. Do you really think the NCAA can hold the university responsible for the actions of its coach from 15 years ago? If Joe B Hall pays for Kenny Walker's dinner at Coles 735 Main, do you think the NCAA is going to put UK on probation?
Technically, as I understand the rulebook, it is a violation. I don't believe that the NCAA will ever say anything about it, however.
For those of you screaming that this shouldn't be discussed, yes it should. I don't think ANYONE agrees with the NCAA on their petty rules but we discuss violations of cream cheeze on bagels, washing a car with the university water, free ride on a golf cart, AND ROY giving gifts to graduating seniors who have used up their eligiblity!!!
If it isn't a violation, I would like someone to show me that in any of the NCAA rules. From my understanding of the rules, it is TECHNICALLY a violation.
If you are upset by this discussion, write the NCAA and complain.
For those of you screaming that this shouldn't be discussed, yes it should. I don't think ANYONE agrees with the NCAA on their petty rules but we discuss violations of cream cheeze on bagels, washing a car with the university water, free ride on a golf cart, AND ROY giving gifts to graduating seniors who have used up their eligiblity!!!
If it isn't a violation, I would like someone to show me that in any of the NCAA rules. From my understanding of the rules, it is TECHNICALLY a violation.
If you are upset by this discussion, write the NCAA and complain.
Originally posted by CatPhight:
Maybe not all millionaires, but likely very well off...pull the money electronically and donate the food to a food store and frame the check...and then vacate the wins.
This post was edited on 3/27 11:01 AM by CatPhight
Roy was the coach at the time. That's one HUGE difference. Roy was subject to NCAA rules. Dean Smith isn't by virtue of (a) being dead and (b) being retired for about 15 years.
This post was edited on 3/27 11:44 AM by far_away_fan
Again, I am NOT complaining. But, by rule, Dean is a booster and subject to booster rules. Here is what so many of you are missing, the NCAA has closed as many loopholes as possible. They don't want Joe B Hall giving $10K to players used up their eligiblity. Thus, the reason for the rule.
This isn't Ricky Henderson-esque. --- Glad I didnt have Pepsi in my mouth when I read that .... one of the greatest stories of all time ... waitin' on the interest rates 
Pretty simple....they don't play for UNC anymore. And it's not like he promised them the money afterwards if they came played for him....they didn't know And he hasn't coached there in well over a decade. This is nothing.
In fact the kid being a Uber driver from xavier is probably a bigger deal.
In fact the kid being a Uber driver from xavier is probably a bigger deal.
It's a silly complaint, but two points:
(1) It doesn't matter whether Dean Smith told his players that he'd eventually give them a cash benefit after they'd exhausted their eligibility. Their prior knowledge is irrelevant. Technically, it's an improper benefit because someone associated with the university who would qualify as a "booster" under NCAA rules provided something to UNC players and UNC players alone, and the gift was premised solely upon their participation in UNC athletics.
(2) The fact that we're even talking about this being a violation demonstrates just how broken the NCAA's student-athlete model truly is. There's simply no justification for this kind of gesture to be construed as a violation, but it is under current rules. It's like the fake video game in John Oliver's piece on the NCAA a few weeks ago. College administrators and coaches can make snow angels in all of the money they've earned as a result of their involvement with college athletics. But give even one dollar to an athlete? You lose.
(1) It doesn't matter whether Dean Smith told his players that he'd eventually give them a cash benefit after they'd exhausted their eligibility. Their prior knowledge is irrelevant. Technically, it's an improper benefit because someone associated with the university who would qualify as a "booster" under NCAA rules provided something to UNC players and UNC players alone, and the gift was premised solely upon their participation in UNC athletics.
(2) The fact that we're even talking about this being a violation demonstrates just how broken the NCAA's student-athlete model truly is. There's simply no justification for this kind of gesture to be construed as a violation, but it is under current rules. It's like the fake video game in John Oliver's piece on the NCAA a few weeks ago. College administrators and coaches can make snow angels in all of the money they've earned as a result of their involvement with college athletics. But give even one dollar to an athlete? You lose.
Preacherfan:
Can you point to an NCAA rule that prohibits former players from doing anything? Can you point to a rule that prohibits former coaches from doing anything for former players? Can you point to a rule that prohibits dead people from doing anything at all? (OK, the last one is just a joke...)
I've done some looking, and I can't.
Can you point to an NCAA rule that prohibits former players from doing anything? Can you point to a rule that prohibits former coaches from doing anything for former players? Can you point to a rule that prohibits dead people from doing anything at all? (OK, the last one is just a joke...)
I've done some looking, and I can't.
I'm sure with enough digging I could find it but just read this and you can see how unbelievably ridiculous some these rules are:
"Q: As a booster, can I give a student-athlete Christmas and/or birthday presents?
A: No. A representative of athletics interests (booster) is strictly prohibited from providing a student-athlete or prospective student-athlete with gifts, privileges or services that would be considered by the NCAA as an extra benefit. Generally, if the NCAA does not authorize the special arrangement of a particular benefit, the benefit may not be provided. If however, a booster is invited by a current or former student-athlete to attend his/her wedding and the booster can demonstrate that he/she provides such gifts to all the weddings he or she attends, and the gift is consistent with the type of gifts normally given, then it would be permissible to provide a wedding gift."
This post was edited on 3/27 10:40 AM by preacherfan
http://www.12thman.com/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=205238364
I don't know if this is a violation or not. If it was considered to be one, it would be absurd.
I have no problem with FORMER players being treated like human beings by their FORMER coach. that is none of the NCAAs or anyone else's business.
I think it was actually a nice show of love and respect. I don't like UNC but just because they do something it doesn't automatically make it wrong. I know that if this story was about Joe B hall and the 78 team, that rival fans would be doing the same thing...but they would be wrong as well.
I have no problem with FORMER players being treated like human beings by their FORMER coach. that is none of the NCAAs or anyone else's business.
I think it was actually a nice show of love and respect. I don't like UNC but just because they do something it doesn't automatically make it wrong. I know that if this story was about Joe B hall and the 78 team, that rival fans would be doing the same thing...but they would be wrong as well.
On the contrary, what he told them does matter. Because if he promised the gift while he was coaching them or recruiting them, then it would have been an improper benefit WHILE they were players. You can't give players or recruits things of value, and the promise of future payment has present value.
You can pretty much do whatever you want for FORMER players. Boosters give former players jobs. They take them out for meals and rounds of golf. They give all kinds of benefits to FORMER players that they couldn't give to current players (or recruits).
The ones who are getting all twisted here are the ones who act like we shouldn't talk about it. By the letter of the law, it is probably a violation. Smith, as a booster, can't give extra benefits...ever.
Is that realistic? No. Does it go on all the time? Of course. I don't think anyone here is complaining about Smith buying all his former players dinner. We are simply discussing the absurdity of some of the NCAA rules.
In all reality, Smith should have contacted the NCAA and asked if they had any problem with him doing this. If they had any common sense, they would have allowed it. It's possible that he did just that.
Is that realistic? No. Does it go on all the time? Of course. I don't think anyone here is complaining about Smith buying all his former players dinner. We are simply discussing the absurdity of some of the NCAA rules.
In all reality, Smith should have contacted the NCAA and asked if they had any problem with him doing this. If they had any common sense, they would have allowed it. It's possible that he did just that.
Of course this happens, but you are completely wrong here. By NCAA rules, you can't do whatever you want for former players. Any benefit that can be construed as being given due to your involvement in athletics is disallowed for the rest of your life.
It's ridiculous, and silly, and obviously broken a million times a year. But that's what the rule is. And in my mind, that is what this discussion is about. Silly, overbearing NCAA rules. Not a coach buying his players dinner.
You could be right, but I'd be shocked. First, every rule I've been able to find applies only to enrolled students or recruits. None (that I have found) apply to former players. Second, if what you say is true, then the way former players of many big-time programs get treated by boosters would certainly be landing people in hot water regularly. That just doesn't happen as far as I know.