PDA

View Full Version : Is it OK to hire a Dad to land the son?? Important issue .



MDABE80
08-14-2016, 02:40 AM
http://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/candid-coaches-its-ok-to-hire-a-prospects-father-if-it-will-help-land-a-recruit/

23dpg
08-14-2016, 06:56 AM
Good article. I agree with Parrish's conclusions as to why it's not so taboo these days, esp the first take.

1. Package deals have been normalized by some of the sport's biggest names.

willandi
08-14-2016, 07:10 AM
We get paid big bucks to win, and this is one of the ways to win!

Sounds like North Carolina and the secretary grading papers and changing grades for 25 years! It is a way to win, and since other students took the classes (even though the secretary didn't change any of their grades), the NCAA has no jurisdiction!

Feels like a slippery slope to me.

23dpg
08-14-2016, 07:11 AM
But I agree with the 15%. It's not ok.

Zagdawg
08-14-2016, 07:33 AM
Basically paying the relative to land the player --not a fan.

Martin Centre Mad Man
08-14-2016, 07:58 AM
http://www.theonion.com/article/girl-dating-star-recruit-thrilled-to-learn-auburn--36109

willandi
08-14-2016, 08:48 AM
http://www.theonion.com/article/girl-dating-star-recruit-thrilled-to-learn-auburn--36109

That's funny!


Obviously the coach thing isn't a problem. This is the same NCAA that ruled that Cam Newton's Dad did nothing wrong in trying to solicit schools to bid for the services of his son! The pinnacle of integrity, the NCAA!

Martin Centre Mad Man
08-14-2016, 10:52 AM
If they allow this shady practice, what prevents a university from hiring a player's mom as a $250,000/year secretary, his uncle as a $250,000/year groundskeeper, and his sister as a $250,000/year cafeteria employee? This just feels like the NCAA is inviting schools to bid on player's services by offering increasingly outrageous job opportunities to his friends and family.

willandi
08-14-2016, 10:58 AM
If they allow this shady practice, what prevents a university from hiring a player's mom as a $250,000/year secretary, his uncle as a $250,000/year groundskeeper, and his sister as a $250,000/year cafeteria employee? This just feels like the NCAA is inviting schools to bid on player's services by offering increasingly outrageous job opportunities to his friends and family.

The NCAA has made a rule change that the hire has to be as an assistant coach, a legitimate spot, but you are right. If the family relocates, what is to stop the school from hiring a family member for a needed school position?

gonzagafan62
08-14-2016, 03:22 PM
It's part of the rules. Absolutely ok with it.

Hoopaholic
08-14-2016, 07:24 PM
If they allow this shady practice, what prevents a university from hiring a player's mom as a $250,000/year secretary, his uncle as a $250,000/year groundskeeper, and his sister as a $250,000/year cafeteria employee? This just feels like the NCAA is inviting schools to bid on player's services by offering increasingly outrageous job opportunities to his friends and family.
The union

MDABE80
08-14-2016, 07:47 PM
Best be hiring the 5 most well paid assistants with the 5 best sons (maybe twin 5stars) then.

soccerdud
08-14-2016, 09:28 PM
Best be hiring the 5 most well paid assistants with the 5 best sons (maybe twin 5stars) then.

you get a max of three. so, you gonna fire lloyd, daniels, and/or michaelson? how many players are worth dumping one of them (forever, cause it's not like they'd sign back up after that) for a 1-4yr rental and an empty suit assistant?

as stated in the very article you linked, there is a real cost to this. i think that the cost is enough to prevent widespread abuse. in fact, i think that's pretty close to indisputable because i have seen NO ONE claim that there is widespread abuse of this.

in niche situations it may get used and may affect a recruit or two, for a year or two. but as long as it's romar pulling the recruit, it's not like it's going to change the cbb landscape any. maybe some midlevel team will complain because they had to play a top-5 draft pick in the NIT and it kept them from a trip to MSG or something, but that's about it...

i like that college basketball is "amateur". i don't like the way the NCAA handles most things. but this is not even a blip on the radar to me.

demian
08-14-2016, 11:21 PM
well for me I think its not good. I am a father of a son who is a incoming freshman football player at Idaho State University as we speak. I coached at my sons high school on the football staff. I WOULD NEVER WANT TO GO TO MY SONS COLLEGE AND LIVE IN THAT CITY AND COACH HIS COLLEGE TEAM. I want to be a DAD and a FAN and enjoy FINALLY getting to watch my son play. So no for me I don't think a kids dad should be hired to get the kid to come to the school. Does the kid REALLY EVEN WANT HIS DAD TO COME TO HIS COLLEGE TO BE A COACH.

soccerdud
08-15-2016, 12:16 AM
well for me I think its not good. I am a father of a son who is a incoming freshman football player at Idaho State University as we speak. I coached at my sons high school on the football staff. I WOULD NEVER WANT TO GO TO MY SONS COLLEGE AND LIVE IN THAT CITY AND COACH HIS COLLEGE TEAM. I want to be a DAD and a FAN and enjoy FINALLY getting to watch my son play. So no for me I don't think a kids dad should be hired to get the kid to come to the school. Does the kid REALLY EVEN WANT HIS DAD TO COME TO HIS COLLEGE TO BE A COACH.

not sure how what you want with your son affects this. so don't do it. same for the son's perspective-- if he doesn't want to go to a school where his dad is an assistant coach, he can tell the dad, the coach, or choose a different school. easy. your post is like saying that people drinking iced tea is bad because you wouldn't want to drink it, and then asking (in all caps) if the people that are drinking it really even want to drink it.

i think we can assume that the kids/parents that did it, are doing it, or will choose to do it in the future want to do it, and therefore your post is entirely inapplicable.

MDABE80
08-15-2016, 01:41 AM
you get a max of three. so, you gonna fire lloyd, daniels, and/or michaelson? how many players are worth dumping one of them (forever, cause it's not like they'd sign back up after that) for a 1-4yr rental and an empty suit assistant?

as stated in the very article you linked, there is a real cost to this. i think that the cost is enough to prevent widespread abuse. in fact, i think that's pretty close to indisputable because i have seen NO ONE claim that there is widespread abuse of this.

in niche situations it may get used and may affect a recruit or two, for a year or two. but as long as it's romar pulling the recruit, it's not like it's going to change the cbb landscape any. maybe some midlevel team will complain because they had to play a top-5 draft pick in the NIT and it kept them from a trip to MSG or something, but that's about it...

i like that college basketball is "amateur". i don't like the way the NCAA handles most things. but this is not even a blip on the radar to me.

Nope we win the correct way. I doubt we'll be stooping to the Romar style in the near future.

Coach Crazy
08-15-2016, 07:17 AM
If you're doing this with more than one kid, you run the risk of doing serious harm to your coaching staff. And what do you do if the kid is a one and done, and you want to repeat the process with someone else? Not only are you going to have to fire or demote the other coach fairly quickly, and potentially create bad blood...but you're going to have a hard time with bringing on coaches you may actually want that are not attached to players. In the end, this is a very self-regulating thing. Unless the players are so good that the coaching staff doesn't matter as much (unlikely), and the "coaches" know what the deal is, and are okay with it.

Romar's time is running out, if he doesn't start winning. Fans want to see wins. If Few and Co. get Daejon, it's going to be a tougher road forward for HecEdian's

TheGonzagaFactor
08-15-2016, 07:18 AM
Was UW allowed an extra coach to accommodate for Porter Sr.?

If not, I don't see the big deal. Sure, it's a bit sketchy. However, they had an opening and used it to their best strategic advantage -- within the rules. Porter stays for one year, goes to NBA, and Romar has an opening on his staff again.

If Lloyd took some HC job somewhere and Few knew a guy who has coached and has a son that is a top 5 prospect and plays what we see as a position of need, I would hope we would hire the guy and get his kid, especially if we had missed the tournament FIVE CONSECUTIVE SEASONS.

It would be strange having a player that we know would not have messed with us had his dad not accepted a coaching job in the program, but that's their awkward situation to deal with as they struggle for relevance during these next two 18-14 seasons. :lmao:

LongIslandZagFan
08-15-2016, 07:44 AM
It seems to be accepted... but JMHO... it is, for all practical purposes, paying a player to sign with your team... which last I checked they weren't allowed to do.

Shady as all get out and I would hope Few falls into that 15% that think it is wrong.

Bogozags
08-15-2016, 09:11 AM
I believe and think this is a mistake that fell through between the lines somehow...the rule should be changed so that schools recruiting a kid are prohibited to hire any parent or relative of that kid! As LIZF stated, for all practical purposes, the school is "paying" that kid to sign with the school hiring their parent/relative/guardian...

Coach Crazy
08-15-2016, 09:24 AM
I believe and think this is a mistake that fell through between the lines somehow...the rule should be changed so that schools recruiting a kid are prohibited to hire any parent or relative of that kid! As LIZF stated, for all practical purposes, the school is "paying" that kid to sign with the school hiring their parent/relative/guardian...

Okay. But it is something that every school is allowed to do. And schools are allowed to offer scholarships and stipends to get a kid to sign. Which is paying players. And while it comes down to finances, some schools have better facilities and training, than others. So, while I agree that it seems like the kind of practice that just isn't right. It's harder to reason based on the "they are paying the kid" argument, when they are already actually paying the kids, and it's not being done under the table.

maynard g krebs
08-15-2016, 09:48 AM
Was UW allowed an extra coach to accommodate for Porter Sr.?

If not, I don't see the big deal. Sure, it's a bit sketchy. However, they had an opening and used it to their best strategic advantage -- within the rules. Porter stays for one year, goes to NBA, and Romar has an opening on his staff again.

If Lloyd took some HC job somewhere and Few knew a guy who has coached and has a son that is a top 5 prospect and plays what we see as a position of need, I would hope we would hire the guy and get his kid, especially if we had missed the tournament FIVE CONSECUTIVE SEASONS.

It would be strange having a player that we know would not have messed with us had his dad not accepted a coaching job in the program, but that's their awkward situation to deal with as they struggle for relevance during these next two 18-14 seasons. :lmao:

Minor point, but the other Porter kid is a 2018 4 star, so likely to be a 3-4 year player. Looks like Porter Sr will be there pretty long term. And I wouldn't be lmao at the Huskies the next couple of years. They can be dangerous. With the right pieces, Romar has put successful teams on the floor before. I think Fultz and then Porter will both lead them to the tourney.

In the bigger picture, I agree with those who say it's paying a player, and should be against the rules unless the asst has been there several years before his kid is a recruit. But as long as it's legal, can't blame a coach for taking advantage anywhere they can. Tinkle did the same; he deserves as much scrutiny as Romar.

coolhandzag
08-15-2016, 11:25 AM
If the patriarch is a good hire because of his coaching capacity….maybe.

If the form, if not function, is to land a specific recruit this can only be detrimental to the program long term. Regardless of what the rulebooks says.

I’ve worked in a family business when I have not been a member of the family. There are reasons for the expression “blood is thicker than water.” It may work out, it may not. If it doesn’t I would expect this ship to take on water……fast.

To me this smacks of desperation.

DixieZag
08-15-2016, 03:27 PM
It is shady either way, but it is far less shady when there was a relationship with the father long before the son was a star recruit.

It is the same action, agree, but the degree of awfulness increases by a factor of 100 if the head coach didn't even know the father of the kid, never mind having interest in the father coaching, until the kid blew up as a prospect.

ZagNative
08-15-2016, 03:53 PM
I don't care about this issue. It seems whiny to complain about it.

GrizZAG
08-15-2016, 05:07 PM
I believe and think this is a mistake that fell through between the lines somehow...the rule should be changed so that schools recruiting a kid are prohibited to hire any parent or relative of that kid! As LIZF stated, for all practical purposes, the school is "paying" that kid to sign with the school hiring their parent/relative/guardian...

Agree. Bribery comes to mind.
This move seems risky to me because the "hire" may be a detriment not an asset on staff.

willandi
08-15-2016, 05:24 PM
Okay. But it is something that every school is allowed to do. And schools are allowed to offer scholarships and stipends to get a kid to sign. Which is paying players. And while it comes down to finances, some schools have better facilities and training, than others. So, while I agree that it seems like the kind of practice that just isn't right. It's harder to reason based on the "they are paying the kid" argument, when they are already actually paying the kids, and it's not being done under the table.

...but this is on top of paying the kid, not instead of.

IowaSERE
08-15-2016, 05:26 PM
Unless the family member is the best available asst coach, this hurts every other player on the team when it comes to player development. I don't see how this is beneficial to the team.

Zagdawg
08-15-2016, 05:57 PM
Short term fix--- but it sounds like if a coach has enough kids they can write their own ticket.

Coach Crazy
08-16-2016, 08:17 AM
...but this is on top of paying the kid, not instead of.

Right, but any school can do this. The dominant factor here is that it is likely to benefit schools that are better (at least with regard to high end talent). And how those programs get better varies. I can see how this can create negative situations for coaches, players, and programs. But we are also talking about the father getting paid for being a part of the actual team. They have restrictions on what someone associated with the player can do and receive. So, I just have a hard time saying this should be a complete no-go, when there are enough negatives that can assist in self-regulating the industry with regard to this topic.

BurgessEraZag
08-16-2016, 10:17 AM
Sorry CCoach, your position is a little "fuzzy" to me. Either it is right or wrong, or if you are a "better school" you get to benefit or a school with more resources of jobs gets to benefit. Sounds like you like the fuzzy NCAA standards for who, what and when someone gets a penalty or a suspension, not the truth of the matter. I'm with wilandi, it's if you pay me my son will play. A take off on pay to play. Winking at the procedure doesn't raise the standards of college basketball for "student" athletes. In my wildest dreams I can not imagine Few subscribing to the policy.

SWZag
08-16-2016, 10:20 AM
If a company makes a bid for a government contract and to help their standing, hire a family member of a government official, there are serious consequences. It's unethical.

In my mind, it's no different with other government institutions, even universities.

It's unethical. Even if the hire is a good one and was done in good faith, the appearance of unethical behavior makes it unethical.

BurgessEraZag
08-16-2016, 10:25 AM
Right on SWzag

23dpg
08-16-2016, 10:32 AM
Barely legal but morally suspect.
Larry Brown open this door decades ago. He was never one to worry about ambiguous morality.
Other coaches followed, now it's commonly accepted.

Also, it's not part of the rules as one poster wrote. It's a practice that is hard to regulate. Morality alway is.

MDABE80
08-16-2016, 11:32 AM
I'm really with Burgess and SW on this. In some ways, this simply contaminates the game but does indicate the culture has changed to "win at all costs". NCAA is regulating too many things. This should be one of them.

DixieZag
08-16-2016, 11:54 AM
Just a question, are we coming down every bit as hard on Tinkle for doing the exact same thing or is this where we take our anti-husky bias out for a walk?

Near as I can tell, Tinkle did the exact same thing, and yet it is Romar that is really taking the heat here.

Have I read that wrong?

Coach Crazy
08-16-2016, 11:59 AM
Sorry CCoach, your position is a little "fuzzy" to me. Either it is right or wrong, or if you are a "better school" you get to benefit or a school with more resources of jobs gets to benefit. Sounds like you like the fuzzy NCAA standards for who, what and when someone gets a penalty or a suspension, not the truth of the matter. I'm with wilandi, it's if you pay me my son will play. A take off on pay to play. Winking at the procedure doesn't raise the standards of college basketball for "student" athletes. In my wildest dreams I can not imagine Few subscribing to the policy.

Is it inherently wrong? No. I don't see it as being immoral, and I don't see it as being unethical. I can see the potential for neglect to the best interest of the player. But that would be like me saying that parenting is unethical or wrong because of that potential. Recruiting is exclusive, exclusionary, and preferential in nature.

"Either it is right or wrong, or if you are a "better school" you get to benefit or a school with more resources of jobs gets to benefit. Sounds like you like the fuzzy NCAA standards for who, what and when someone gets a penalty or a suspension, not the truth of the matter."

None of those things are analogous to a school getting a recruit because they have more tradition, a better campus, better education, better fans, better coaching, or any advantage that is openly available to any school. Duke gets better players because Duke is a better school and basketball program than Gonzaga. That is not unethical. Gonzaga is building a facility that will assist them in their recruiting efforts and will give them an advantage over other schools. Not wrong. Not unethical. Nor immoral. Schools with a higher or certain profile are more likely to have the opportunity to engage in what Romar and Washington are doing, because it makes more sense to go there. Santa Clara is not likely to get Porter and his son because they are not a program worth going to. Nothing immoral. Nothing unethical. Nothing wrong...about that type of distinction.

What if a son wants to play for his father at a certain school? Is that wrong? No. And the NCAA has restraints so that it doesn't end up hooking everyone up and becoming an open check book/work around.

Coach Crazy
08-16-2016, 12:00 PM
If a company makes a bid for a government contract and to help their standing, hire a family member of a government official, there are serious consequences. It's unethical.

In my mind, it's no different with other government institutions, even universities.


Not the same...

Hoopaholic
08-16-2016, 12:00 PM
Just a question, are we coming down every bit as hard on Tinkle for doing the exact same thing or is this where we take our anti-husky bias out for a walk?

Near as I can tell, Tinkle did the exact same thing, and yet it is Romar that is really taking the heat here.

Have I read that wrong?


help me out as I am not familiar with whom tinkle hired to get his/her son to play for him.....and if that occurred than in my opinion it is the same simply paying for a kid to play at a school

Hoopaholic
08-16-2016, 12:03 PM
Is it inherently wrong? No. I don't see it as being immoral, and I don't see it as being unethical. I can see the potential for neglect to the best interest of the player. But that would be like me saying that parenting is unethical or wrong because of that potential. Recruiting is exclusive, exclusionary, and preferential in nature.

"Either it is right or wrong, or if you are a "better school" you get to benefit or a school with more resources of jobs gets to benefit. Sounds like you like the fuzzy NCAA standards for who, what and when someone gets a penalty or a suspension, not the truth of the matter."

None of those things are analogous to a school getting a recruit because they have more tradition, a better campus, better education, better fans, better coaching, or any advantage that is openly available to any school. Duke gets better players because Duke is a better school and basketball program than Gonzaga. That is not unethical. Gonzaga is building a facility that will assist them in their recruiting efforts and will give them an advantage over other schools. Not wrong. Not unethical. Nor immoral. Schools with a higher or certain profile are more likely to have the opportunity to engage in what Romar and Washington are doing, because it makes more sense to go there. Santa Clara is not likely to get Porter and his son because they are not a program worth going to. Nothing immoral. Nothing unethical. Nothing wrong...about that type of distinction.

Let's say that what if a son wants to play for his father at a certain school? Is that wrong? No. And the NCAA has restraints so that it doesn't end up hooking everyone up and becoming an open check book/work around.

we can agree to disagree

I believe it is unethical and wrong use of taxpayer dollars for a public university to take public funds to go out and "hire" a person simply to get their kid(s) to attend your school. It is a pass through mechanism that amonts to payment to the student

That is far different than an established coaches child wanting to come play for their parent.........

Zagdawg
08-16-2016, 12:08 PM
Did Tinkle demote a member of the existing coaching staff who is a more qualified assistant coach to bring the father on board?

Romar did .......

"To accommodate the move, UW will demote assistant Brad Jackson to the role of “special assistant to the head coach."

Jackson background:
Jackson, 60, coached 27 seasons at Western Washington and amassed a school record 518 wins during his time with the Vikings. The crowning moment of his tenure came in 2012 when he led Western Washington to a 31-5 record and the NCAA II national title with a 72-65 win over Motevallo (Ala.).

He was the 2012 National Association of Basketball Coaches and DII Bulletin National Coach of the Year.

"I think we got an absolute steal," said Romar, upon Jackson's arrival. "You hire a basketball coach off of winning a national championship ... it doesn't happen very often. I'm just ecstatic that he has decided to do this.

Jackson was NCAA II West Region, Little All-Northwest and Pacific West Conference Coach of the Year in 2001. He also was NCAA II West Region Coach of the Year in 2010, NAIA District 1 Coach of the Year in 1988, 1989 and 1990, Little All-Northwest Coach of the Year in 1988, NAIA Pacific Northwest Region I Coach of the Year in 1994 and GNAC Coach of the Year in 2005 and 2009.

Jackson ranks third among the winningest collegiate basketball coaches in state of Washington history with 518 victories, and is one of just five to reach the 500 mark. Jackson was recruited to WSU by the leader in that category Marv Harshman (637), who stands No. 2 in University of Washington history with 246 wins. Jackson also coached against the No.2 person on the state's list, Central Washington's Dean Nicholson (620).

SWZag
08-16-2016, 12:08 PM
If a company makes a bid for a government contract and to help their standing, hire a family member of a government official, there are serious consequences. It's unethical.

In my mind, it's no different with other government institutions, even universities.

It's unethical. Even if the hire is a good one and was done in good faith, the appearance of unethical behavior makes it unethical.



Not the same...

Maybe you could clarify as to why it's not? I'd like to hear your view.

Coach Crazy
08-16-2016, 12:54 PM
Maybe you could clarify as to why it's not? I'd like to hear your view.

One, the stated allowances for the industries are different. That doesn't always mean that one industry is right. To that I will agree. *BUT* my second point is that coaches are allowed preferential decision making that those in government contracting do not have. And it is *inherently* part of the right of the coach outside of an agreement with the hiring AD or university/college hierarchy that we afford. So, why is it okay for the coach of a public university, using public funds to pick the coaches he wants, instead of going to the lowest bidder (salary-wise), or the coach with the best resume' on paper? Why is he allowed to target certain recruits, and exclude others from priority or his recruiting efforts? You can't give someone that kind of exclusionary power and then say "How dare you bring on a coach that is connected to a player! Even though we already give you the discretion to choose whoever you want, both in player and coach!"

Coach Crazy
08-16-2016, 01:01 PM
we can agree to disagree

I believe it is unethical and wrong use of taxpayer dollars for a public university to take public funds to go out and "hire" a person simply to get their kid(s) to attend your school. It is a pass through mechanism that amonts to payment to the student

That is far different than an established coaches child wanting to come play for their parent.........

I am okay with agreeing to disagree. It's okay for people to do that. As long as we are having civil, productive debate. I am working on being less disagreeable in disagreeing. What about the kid that wants to play for his dad, and the father is not currently on the staff? Is that wrong? Something I see with this discussion, is that more than the mechanism of it all is the intent of the hearts involved. IF a father is doing it purely out of selfish motive and cares nothing for the son and is simply using him, then whether or not it is a legal or ethical mechanism, then that father would be in the wrong. But I can't discern the totality of what any of the 3 are feeling, in their hearts. I don't know them from Adam, and there are only certain potentials (and perhaps some definitives) I could glean from observing their behaviors.

23dpg
08-16-2016, 01:27 PM
help me out as I am not familiar with whom tinkle hired to get his/her son to play for him.....and if that occurred than in my opinion it is the same simply paying for a kid to play at a school

He hired Steven Thompson to be part of his staff. His son, once a Gonzaga target went to Oregon State and I think his younger brother has committed there as well. I think both kids were 3-4 star range. I'm not sure it's apples to apples because Tinkle was just starting on the job and building his staff.

http://www.osubeavers.com/sports/2014/6/19/209526366.aspx


Also, I don't see a lot of Romar bashing going on. I'm not bashing anyone. I do think it's a slightly skeezy practice. I believe that 25 years ago, those percentages would be flipped. More of an indicator of what "amateur" sports are these days.

soccerdud
08-16-2016, 04:19 PM
the appearance of unethical behavior makes it unethical.

this snippet is so far from being a reasonable statement that the mind boggles.

it somehow manages to misunderstand the nature of ethics, essence, and appearance all simultaneously.

if you're a gonzaga grad, i know for a fact that someone tried to teach you better.

MDABE80
08-16-2016, 11:10 PM
Just a question, are we coming down every bit as hard on Tinkle for doing the exact same thing or is this where we take our anti-husky bias out for a walk?

Near as I can tell, Tinkle did the exact same thing, and yet it is Romar that is really taking the heat here.

Have I read that wrong?
Yes!

SWZag
08-17-2016, 06:10 AM
One, the stated allowances for the industries are different. That doesn't always mean that one industry is right. To that I will agree. *BUT* my second point is that coaches are allowed preferential decision making that those in government contracting do not have. And it is *inherently* part of the right of the coach outside of an agreement with the hiring AD or university/college hierarchy that we afford. So, why is it okay for the coach of a public university, using public funds to pick the coaches he wants, instead of going to the lowest bidder (salary-wise), or the coach with the best resume' on paper? Why is he allowed to target certain recruits, and exclude others from priority or his recruiting efforts? You can't give someone that kind of exclusionary power and then say "How dare you bring on a coach that is connected to a player! Even though we already give you the discretion to choose whoever you want, both in player and coach!"


Thank you. While I disagree, I appreciate your opinion.



this snippet is so far from being a reasonable statement that the mind boggles.

it somehow manages to misunderstand the nature of ethics, essence, and appearance all simultaneously.

if you're a gonzaga grad, i know for a fact that someone tried to teach you better.

Thank you for your opinion. When it comes to ethics, just the appearance of unethical behavior can get you (or your company, etc) into trouble or disqualified, so it's not an unreasonable statement, in fact, it's a true statement.

DixieZag
08-17-2016, 06:17 AM
Yes!

Ok. If not "the same thing" it is close enough to put it in the reasonably shady category in my mind.

As I said, shady. Though there are degrees of shady.

And, again, since Romar had a relationship - a close one - with the players father long before he became a recruit, that is less shady than if just out of the blue hires a parent.

As the coach's poll indicates, the question is not black/white and can always be one of degree with not all situations being equal.

Hoopaholic
08-17-2016, 06:45 AM
I am okay with agreeing to disagree. It's okay for people to do that. As long as we are having civil, productive debate. I am working on being less disagreeable in disagreeing. What about the kid that wants to play for his dad, and the father is not currently on the staff? Is that wrong? Something I see with this discussion, is that more than the mechanism of it all is the intent of the hearts involved. IF a father is doing it purely out of selfish motive and cares nothing for the son and is simply using him, then whether or not it is a legal or ethical mechanism, then that father would be in the wrong. But I can't discern the totality of what any of the 3 are feeling, in their hearts. I don't know them from Adam, and there are only certain potentials (and perhaps some definitives) I could glean from observing their behaviors.
if a parent waits until the child is in recruiting stages to start to solicit or seek out a job knowing that its a 2 for 1 job that is sleazy, lacks ethics and integrity and is basically leveraging the kid for gain.............some think this is ok I do not...not in this situation, not in any other situation where a parent leverages their child to gain something for themselves

Hoopaholic
08-17-2016, 06:46 AM
He hired Steven Thompson to be part of his staff. His son, once a Gonzaga target went to Oregon State and I think his younger brother has committed there as well. I think both kids were 3-4 star range. I'm not sure it's apples to apples because Tinkle was just starting on the job and building his staff.

http://www.osubeavers.com/sports/2014/6/19/209526366.aspx


Also, I don't see a lot of Romar bashing going on. I'm not bashing anyone. I do think it's a slightly skeezy practice. I believe that 25 years ago, those percentages would be flipped. More of an indicator of what "amateur" sports are these days.

thanks didn't know that and had not really followed OSU basketball that closely...disappointing

soccerdud
08-17-2016, 07:52 AM
Thank you for your opinion. When it comes to ethics, just the appearance of unethical behavior can get you (or your company, etc) into trouble or disqualified, so it's not an unreasonable statement, in fact, it's a true statement.

oh, i think i see what you meant. if something has the appearance of being unethical, it will be judged as unethical by those who don't/can't know better. ok, that's reasonable.

i wanted to stay out of this entire discussion after the first page, but i made the mistake of reading more. i thought that you were making the equivalent of an "if it looks like a rock, it's a rock" about ethics (i.e. appearance is a sufficient condition)-- which, to be fair, is pretty much what you wrote. the philosophical issues with --and implications of-- such a statement prompted my response.