Arizona Basketball 2018-2019

[Russ Smith]

My guess is he thinks he's an NBA 2 or 3 and doesn't want to play the 4. And he sees Green coming in next year with Randolph probably staying and realizes he won't get any time next year behind those 2 and probably behind Nnaji at the 4. I expected Lee to transfer, this probably ends that, at least for now, he'll get Akot's minutes or at least some of them.

I also think it's an example of Akot being somewhat sheltered in HS, he didn't get exposed enough to the elite HS AAU tournaments etc. He played in international ball, had very little exposure which is why his recruitment went the way it did he showed some talent at the world games (whatever it was called) and suddenly was a hot recruit. Arizona took him, there appeared to be a need for depth last year and he moved up a class because he was a year older anyways and it seemed like Arizona wanted the depth and he wanted to play so why not. In hindsight he should not have done that, the transfer gets that year back but he'll be 21 almost 22 before he gets to play college ball again. I think if he'd played against more top US players in HS or AAU he would have realized he wasn't as good as he thought he was and might not have reclassified. he's a big strong kid who probably overpowered guys in HS but not now and clearly hasn't adjusted.

 

[GatorAZ]

Wouldn’t be Arizona basketball without a little drama.

 

[MaoTosiFanClub]

He's not very good

 

[Lefty]

Jason Scheer said on the radio today that Akot's AAU coach didn't like the way he was being utilized. The AAU coach thinks he should play point guard. Sounds like he could be winding up at Boise State.

 

[TJ]

If Akot is a point guard, I’m a Calvin Klein underwear model.

 

[Timm Rosenbach]

If you want to go, there is the door... I remember Daniel Bejarano smearing Miller after leaving. Thank you for opening up a scholarship spot

 

[GatorAZ]

https://mobile.twitter.com/AZAuthority

 

[TJ]

https://mobile.twitter.com/AZAuthority

We knew this was going to be the outcome for Book. Money never exchanged hands, but the fact that it indicates that he intended on paying a recruit doesn't help the optics of the situation. I'm sure Arizona will argue that since no such transaction occurred, there was no foul, but the NCAA is what it is.

 

[GatorAZ]

We knew this was going to be the outcome for Book. Money never exchanged hands, but the fact that it indicates that he intended on paying a recruit doesn't help the optics of the situation. I'm sure Arizona will argue that since no such transaction occurred, there was no foul, but the NCAA is what it is.

By rule, no NCAA violations have occurred. Were there violations committed that can’t be proved? Possibly... The NCAA can site “Lack of Institutional Control” on just about anything though. I’m guessing a 1 year vacate and tourney ban for all involved. It’s a good thing Kansas was dragged into this otherwise they’d have no problems slamming the non-blue bloods.

 

[GatorAZ]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[TJ]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

That’s better, and what I thought this was all about.

There’s a legitimate argument that no NCAA violation occurred, but the NCAA plays by its own rules

 

[Russ Smith]

By rule, no NCAA violations have occurred. Were there violations committed that can’t be proved? Possibly... The NCAA can site “Lack of Institutional Control” on just about anything though. I’m guessing a 1 year vacate and tourney ban for all involved. It’s a good thing Kansas was dragged into this otherwise they’d have no problems slamming the non-blue bloods.

It depends. I agree this is a very good outcome for Arizona as it stands now. But the money not changing hands thing again it doesn't matter, the NCAA has clear rules that say players can't enter into agreements with agents or financial advisers, even if money doesn't change hands. The key is will the NCAA consider that to be what happened or not. Book says that was his intent, he pled guilty to it, but is there any proof that the players knew he was doing it and actually agreed to it or did Book just say they did so Dawkins and Sood would pay him?

Book said Alkins had already been paid, he said quinerly had already been paid and now the mom wanted money too. Right now the only word we have on that is Book, Quinerly has said he got no money, the NCAA let him play etc.

So right now if the NCAA believes Book about steering the kids, Alkins could be declared retroactively ineligible. If Josh is right and the other player is Ayton he too would be declared ineligible so Arizona would vacate every win either of them played in after this happened. So Alkins soph year and Ayton's freshman every single win would be vacated since Ayton played in ever game(Alkins didn't). The NCAA might not go that route we really don't know what they are going to do this is not something that has happened before. But obviously vacating games is a far cry from what it could have been when the story first broke.

The further the Dawkins case goes the less I think Arizona has anything to fear there. his attorney keeps saying we're not cutting a deal, actions occurred that we want to come out and be public. If he meant Sean Miller etc paying players why wouldn't he make that public now, why wait until trial? So I assume he means actions by someone else, either Adidas, or by the FBI, since they've consistently contended the FBI entrapped Dawkins. If he means coaches yeah it could be interesting but I think at this point it's unlikely that's what he means.

 

[GatorAZ]

It depends. I agree this is a very good outcome for Arizona as it stands now. But the money not changing hands thing again it doesn't matter, the NCAA has clear rules that say players can't enter into agreements with agents or financial advisers, even if money doesn't change hands. The key is will the NCAA consider that to be what happened or not. Book says that was his intent, he pled guilty to it, but is there any proof that the players knew he was doing it and actually agreed to it or did Book just say they did so Dawkins and Sood would pay him?

Book said Alkins had already been paid, he said quinerly had already been paid and now the mom wanted money too. Right now the only word we have on that is Book, Quinerly has said he got no money, the NCAA let him play etc.

So right now if the NCAA believes Book about steering the kids, Alkins could be declared retroactively ineligible. If Josh is right and the other player is Ayton he too would be declared ineligible so Arizona would vacate every win either of them played in after this happened. So Alkins soph year and Ayton's freshman every single win would be vacated since Ayton played in ever game(Alkins didn't). The NCAA might not go that route we really don't know what they are going to do this is not something that has happened before. But obviously vacating games is a far cry from what it could have been when the story first broke.

The further the Dawkins case goes the less I think Arizona has anything to fear there. his attorney keeps saying we're not cutting a deal, actions occurred that we want to come out and be public. If he meant Sean Miller etc paying players why wouldn't he make that public now, why wait until trial? So I assume he means actions by someone else, either Adidas, or by the FBI, since they've consistently contended the FBI entrapped Dawkins. If he means coaches yeah it could be interesting but I think at this point it's unlikely that's what he means.

If Book put Alkins and Quinerly in the same boat (as to have already been paid), and the NCAA looked into Quinerly and cleared him along with Alkins then they should be clear. The NCAA didn’t find anything at the time and Book never admitted paying them in the case. That seems like two significant correlations along with Villanova doing their own investigation.

But the NCAA could still pummel Miller with a fine/suspension for lack of control.

 

[TJ]

Alkins and Ayton were both cleared by the FBI last season. There’d have to be something else that’d surface to deem them ineligible.

 

[Russ Smith]

If Book put Alkins and Quinerly in the same boat (as to have already been paid), and the NCAA looked into Quinerly and cleared him along with Alkins then they should be clear. The NCAA didn’t find anything at the time and Book never admitted paying them in the case. That seems like two significant correlations along with Villanova doing their own investigation.

But the NCAA could still pummel Miller with a fine/suspension for lack of control.

the NCAA didn't clear Alkins they've never looked into him they were told to wait until the FBI was done. he's in the NBA now if the NCAA decides to look now it's pretty clear he's the guy whose relative apparently was working with Book to steer Alkins to a certain agent and advisor. if Alkins was involved, that's a violation of amateurism and he could be ruled retroactively ineligible. Note doesn't mean he WILL be, the NCAA has been down that road before and not done it, Tyler Honeycutt had an agent while at UCLA, the NCAA never ruled him ineligible and vacated games, Beasley took money and admitted it in a court case, teh NCAA never ruled him ineligible. This case is different because the FBI was involved but there is lots of precedent for the NCAA not caring enough to make Arizona vacate games over Alkins, or Ayton if he's the other kid.

The NCAA cleared Quinerly to play for Nova, nobody ever said Nova paid him. He may have been cleared at Arizona too but we'll never know.

I don't think the IC thing is going to happen. If Arizona is going to get hit it would be either ineligible players, because they had reason to believe they might be ineligible and still played them. It could be because they had 2 coaches involved in the Dawkins scheme but again one of them left before he could actually take money and the other one pled guilty in a plea bargain.

The worst case scenario people bring up is Dawkins, if he has dirt and decides to spill it in court but again to me it makes no sense for him to wait that long. if the dirt is on coaches he would be talking now IMO, I think his dirt is on Adidas, or his dirt is his attempt to prove the FBI entrapped him. We'll see but I'd be surprised if he reveals anything in court that gets Arizona or anybody else in serious trouble.

 

[GatorAZ]

the NCAA didn't clear Alkins they've never looked into him they were told to wait until the FBI was done. he's in the NBA now if the NCAA decides to look now it's pretty clear he's the guy whose relative apparently was working with Book to steer Alkins to a certain agent and advisor. if Alkins was involved, that's a violation of amateurism and he could be ruled retroactively ineligible. Note doesn't mean he WILL be, the NCAA has been down that road before and not done it, Tyler Honeycutt had an agent while at UCLA, the NCAA never ruled him ineligible and vacated games, Beasley took money and admitted it in a court case, teh NCAA never ruled him ineligible. This case is different because the FBI was involved but there is lots of precedent for the NCAA not caring enough to make Arizona vacate games over Alkins, or Ayton if he's the other kid.

The NCAA cleared Quinerly to play for Nova, nobody ever said Nova paid him. He may have been cleared at Arizona too but we'll never know.

I don't think the IC thing is going to happen. If Arizona is going to get hit it would be either ineligible players, because they had reason to believe they might be ineligible and still played them. It could be because they had 2 coaches involved in the Dawkins scheme but again one of them left before he could actually take money and the other one pled guilty in a plea bargain.

The worst case scenario people bring up is Dawkins, if he has dirt and decides to spill it in court but again to me it makes no sense for him to wait that long. if the dirt is on coaches he would be talking now IMO, I think his dirt is on Adidas, or his dirt is his attempt to prove the FBI entrapped him. We'll see but I'd be surprised if he reveals anything in court that gets Arizona or anybody else in serious trouble.

That’s the key here. How can they prove involvement without proof of payments or either guy admitting it? The press release states Book pleaded guilty to taking bribes in return of steering guys to the agency. It isn’t clear whether he’s admitting to actually steering them or just telling Dawkins and Code that he would steer them.

 

[Russ Smith]

That’s the key here. How can they prove involvement without proof of payments or either guy admitting it? The press release states Book pleaded guilty to taking bribes in return of steering guys to the agency. It isn’t clear whether he’s admitting to actually steering them or just telling Dawkins and Code that he would steer them.

Exactly. People keep saying the FBI cleared Ayton and Alkins, I know Arizona sites are saying that but I still don't know where they're getting it, I'm not aware of any public statement from the FBI saying that. I know Ayton's mom said they talked to the FBI several times and we did nothing, but that was also before it came out in open court that Kansas coaches are on tape talking about paying the guy who brought Ayton over to America. If that really happened it puts every statement the mom made in question because she said nobody in the family or connected to them took any money ever, unless she didn't know about that, that statement is false if the testimony about Kansas and Adidas is true.

It's the usual problem in cases like this that so many of the people involved are proven liars, Book, Dawkins, Sood, Gassnola etc that you have to decide which liar to believe.

It's entirely possible Book was brokering kids that didn't know they were being brokered. The original report very clearly says the FBI believes Book used some of the money to pay a HS recruit that everyone assumes was QUinerly but we have no idea if the kid ever got the money or if Book kept it. Book said he got it, he said Alkins had been paid but all we have is him on tape saying that. The FBI just accepted a plea that doesn't include either of those alleged payments so it sure looks like that part of the original story is not in play now, unless dawkins presents evidence of it in court and it doesn't seem like he intends to.

 

[TJ]

Exactly. People keep saying the FBI cleared Ayton and Alkins, I know Arizona sites are saying that but I still don't know where they're getting it, I'm not aware of any public statement from the FBI saying that. I know Ayton's mom said they talked to the FBI several times and we did nothing, but that was also before it came out in open court that Kansas coaches are on tape talking about paying the guy who brought Ayton over to America. If that really happened it puts every statement the mom made in question because she said nobody in the family or connected to them took any money ever, unless she didn't know about that, that statement is false if the testimony about Kansas and Adidas is true.

It's the usual problem in cases like this that so many of the people involved are proven liars, Book, Dawkins, Sood, Gassnola etc that you have to decide which liar to believe.

It's entirely possible Book was brokering kids that didn't know they were being brokered. The original report very clearly says the FBI believes Book used some of the money to pay a HS recruit that everyone assumes was QUinerly but we have no idea if the kid ever got the money or if Book kept it. Book said he got it, he said Alkins had been paid but all we have is him on tape saying that. The FBI just accepted a plea that doesn't include either of those alleged payments so it sure looks like that part of the original story is not in play now, unless dawkins presents evidence of it in court and it doesn't seem like he intends to.

That's per Gershon

 

[Russ Smith]

There's a thread going back and forth I guess it's on Scheer's twitter page it has UCLA fans I know and Scheer and I think even our own TJ is on the thread. Someone linked it to me today. The question there is what NCAA rule did Arizona break. The answer is of course it's impossible to know until the NCAA is done. If the NCAA treats Alkins and Ayton the way they treated Honeycutt and Bazz, the answer is no NCAA rule was broken. Those players were not declared ineligible. If the NCAA rules Alkins and or Ayton ineligible, then the rule Arizona broke was playing an ineligible player when they had reason to believe he was ineligible. Just too early to know on that one nobody knows. Like I said lots of precedent for them to NOT rule kids ineligible it just depends how they do it this time, obviously with the story being in the news so much for so long, there is more pressure on them to do something.

But if I were an Arizona fan at this point I'd feel pretty good that it's not going to be a big deal

 

[Russ Smith]

That's per Gershon

Yeah I know I've asked Josh about it before on BRO, he says he has contacts that told him that but he can't for obvious reasons say who or how they know. I like Josh I'm not in any way saying he's lying, I just can't verify it, he posts on BRO regularly and his track record is very good so he may well be right.

At this point if I were an Arizona fan I'd feel pretty confident at worst you might vacate some games and even that seems unlikely. It seems like the punishment so far was losing Book, and losing an entire recruiting class. Right now of the kids you lost it appears Little is the big loss, Quinerly is still not playing well and Bol is now out for the year. I think there was another kid I actually can't remember but those are the 3 I remember you probably getting if not for the FBI story.

I told GatorAZ this before in the end for schools involved in this their best friend might turn out to be TJ Gassnola the AAU guy. He was the one who got suspicious of one of the new "players" in the recruiting stuff and started giving cash to his girlfriend to hide. When the FBI got him on tape asking Adidas people about that person and if they were suspicious the person might be FBI undercover, the FBI decided to wrap up the case. That person was in fact an FBI agent. If that didn't happen and the thing went a bit longer it's entirely possible money would have changed hands in several of these deals that were being discussed. Especially the guys like Bland and Book if what was being discussed had actually happened even their plea deals would likely be longer time in jail because the money would have been higher.

At this point I have very little expectation of anything big happening in the Dawkins trial. Dawkins might turn out to be lucky in that regard too the longer the case had gone on the more money he would have agreed to take from the undercover FBI agent.

 

[GatorAZ]

I was wondering what ESPN would do after the Book stuff was over. Turns out nothing different. Still trying their best to shade positive headlines.

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[Russ Smith]

I was wondering what ESPN would do after the Book stuff was over. Turns out nothing different. Still trying their best to shade positive headlines.

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

Yeah that's just a terrible headline. They were not under FBI investigation they had people caught up in an FBI investigation. The kid on the picture wasn't involved at all.

 

[TJ]

I love this phenomenon when a team's key player magically returns from injury or suspension just in time for Arizona. It was Wooten last week. Today, Porter Jr.

 

[Russ Smith]

I love this phenomenon when a team's key player magically returns from injury or suspension just in time for Arizona. It was Wooten last week. Today, Porter Jr.

We were predicting that on BRO in the middle of the game against UCLA, as soon as Enfield realized USC was back in the hunt in the conference he reinstated his problem child.

 

[1Sun]

As horribly as the Wildcats are playing tonight, I don't think it matters who USC has available.