ESPN reporting that Georgia looking at Rick Pitino

Submitted by Blue in Paradise on March 11th, 2018 at 12:53 PM… It is ESPN and quite possibly click bait but there are enough people talking about it is worth posting. This would put the nail in the coffin for those who hoped the FBI probe would have a lasting impact on the sport. Time for players to be able to profit on their name and likeness.


Blue in Paradise

March 11th, 2018 at 12:56 PM ^

That Georgia is even considering this, it tells you all you need to know about their athletics department. Also, it would effectively confirm the rumors about Kirby and the GA football program picking up where Hugh Freeze and Ole Miss left off.


March 11th, 2018 at 5:13 PM ^

Just ask Isiah Wilson. Shit Clemson offered Gary ten grand and he said so. Georgia, Clemson and Alabama all pay their big time recruits. There are many other programs that do, but these programs are the big time and the dirtiest of all.

Funny that all the coaches are connected to Alabama at some point in their career. Ole miss investigation probably prompted by Saban as they were getting better at it than him and his so called boosters. Any one who counts any of his national championships as legitimate is flat out delusional in my book. Nick Saban is the all time biggest recruitment violator that ever walked the face of the earth, and he has taught his froggies well. Smart, Saban and that piece of shit from clemson are all one in the same. All three schools knowingly cheat, so why not bring on Pitino. Smart is the same thing in football.


March 11th, 2018 at 1:04 PM ^

I know we used to hear that UGA was one of the "clean" SEC programs, but that's certainly not the case anymore. Smart is as dirty as they come, and for fucks sake we have decades of evidence that Pitino is a sneak and a creep.


March 11th, 2018 at 5:24 PM ^

The penalties so far were just for the prostitutes--they gave show-cause penalties to the assistant coach and the director of ops who actually made the arrangements, but all Pitino got was the five-game suspension he already served.

There's probably a show-cause waiting for him down the road when they finally process the FBI bribery stuff, but if anyone wants to hire him in the meantime they can.


March 11th, 2018 at 1:15 PM ^

Why wouldn’t you consider Pitino?

It would be dumb not to.

First, it’s up to the NCAA to give him a show cause penalty or not, and if they don’t, it’s completely within the rules to hire him.

Look at all the other coaches who were fired for cheating or other serious personal issues that were rehired in D1.

Tubby Smith
Bruce Pearl
Bobby Knight
Steve Fisher (don’t even start)

Guys like Lute Olsen were never fired even though they were documented chesters.

It’s literally malpractice to not look at Pitino if he doesn’t get a show cause.


March 11th, 2018 at 1:59 PM ^

somebody is going to hire him.  It's just a matter of who.

Honestly - Massachusetts (Pitino's alma mater) probably wishes now they had waited a year to fire Derek Kellogg.  Pitino would have fallen right into their laps.  It's not impossible Georgia may hire McCall (the UMass coach) themselves.

Memphis might consider Pitino.  They've never particularly cared about optics over the years down there.

Mr Miggle

March 11th, 2018 at 7:14 PM ^

are Pearl and Fisher and the NCAA let Fisher skate. Auburn is soon going to regret signing Pearl. They aren't going to get enough out of him to make it worthwhile. Just my opinion.

Tubby has only been fired for not winning enough or not recruiting hard enough. You can take that second part as code for being too honest.

I don't agree about Pitino at all. He's got a show cause hanging over his head. You're setting your program back by hiring him when a show cause is coming. He's already been fired for cause by Louisville. They're not going to be defending him to the NCAA. He's still a great coach, but I would bet against Pitino recruiting well until the NCAA issues are settled.


March 11th, 2018 at 1:15 PM ^

Georgia dropping any pretenses of athletic integrity. Downvoted OP only for suggesting that player payments would actually resolve this problem and not have the opposite effects.


March 11th, 2018 at 3:25 PM ^

You can't just dismiss the tuition argument when the cost of tuition and room & board for out of state students (which is most of the roster) averages around $60+65k/year, which is much higher than the average US salary... not bad for someone right out of high school. True, walkons do not get that, but there is obviously a favorable risk/reward calculation involved in doing so (e.g. Kovacs and the Glasgows), hence the high demand for those positions despite no direct compensation.

Blue in Paradise

March 11th, 2018 at 4:14 PM ^

What about the other 97 or so?  Why shouldn't walk-ons have the same rights as any other member of the student body?  Of course there is demand for the PWO roles because it gives you a shot at a scholarship and a very small shot at a pro-career, but that doesn't justify the fact that those players can't go out and get any job they want and endorsements.

I actually think that scholarship athletes should not have basic economic rights restricted, but at least they are getting something back.  I don't even understand what the argument is against walk-ons getting the same opportunities as any other person.


March 11th, 2018 at 5:31 PM ^

There are many other examples of walkons that have made it to scholarship player level, if not farther - I only mentioned a few recent examples. You argue about all the other walkons that aren't profiting from their name and likeness, but that doesn't apply to the vast majority of those cases anyway (since they would likely become scholarship players if their skill warranted demand for their jerseys, etc.) And comparing to the student body, these players are still getting significant benefits and perks not available to the greater student body.

Blue in Paradise

March 11th, 2018 at 6:09 PM ^

The PWO route and then sell their likeness. You can say that these guys are likely going to make millions in the NFL but that is no guarantee.

They could make hundreds of thousand today guaranteed based on their popularity and the huge Michigan fan base.

The Georgia’s of the world with their less affluent alumni networks and shadowy bag men could not compete with the Michigan fan base money cannon.


March 11th, 2018 at 7:47 PM ^

Again, the PWOs that you are describing are unlikely to have their name/likeness in demand anyway. For the rest if the players (scholarship and high performing PWOs), an alternative route could be provided for athletes to compete professionally if they do not want to be an "unpaid" amateur in college (and actually go to school). This exists already in baseball, hockey and basketball (via European leagues) and might soon be active again for football (trying to restart one of the private leagues; forgot the name offhand but Adidas is involved). Those players wishing to defer immediate monetary compensation in favor of professional development and maybe a free education also can do so in college.

Blue in Paradise

March 12th, 2018 at 12:00 AM ^

Why do you have such a hard time accepting that these American adults should have the same rights as any other citizens? I am not even advocating that the university pay them a salary.

Off the top of my head, I can’t think of another group of people in our society who are unable to profit from their name and likeness. Maybe folks in prison, not sure about that. Can you name another group of people?

Anyway, what is the argument against college athletes? Again, don’t say it is because of their scholarships, we have already established that walk-ons are also restricted and they do not have scholarships.


March 12th, 2018 at 8:49 AM ^

Firstly, in this case you are not discussing an actual "right" in a constitutional sense, since we are discussing participation in a voluntary extra-curricular school activity (not to mention that we have already seen that college students, even 18+ year olds, can be subject to different rules/restrictions than are applicable to the rest of the adult population through the use of student codes of conduct and other similar frameworks). Second, the PWOs would need to be treated the same as any other non-scholarship student athlete at the university. This means not being paid for their participation, but it would/should probably allow them to have side employment. Additionally (as I said earlier), most PWOs would not be in a position to have a market for their name/likeness, so the discussion is academic anyway (insert rimshot here).