With O.J. Mayo getting a full court press of questions surrounding his suspicion for taking money and other gifts from an area sports promoter and area sports agent, will the NCAA finally get a handle on the cash being passed under the table?
Paying players dates back a lot further than Mayo and the other recent athletes that have been caught with their hand in the cookie jar. According to many sources close to John Wooden and the UCLA Bruins it was suggested that Sam Gilbert, a Los Angeles contractor and supposed money launderer, took care of a string of greats that suited up for the legendary Wooden.
According the many of the program's greats, Gilbert was known as Papa Sam and he often extended an open invitation to his home for the players to hang out. Many former players have noted over the years that Gilbert provided them with cash and clothes during their playing days and even went on to say that Gilbert was a mentor to them.
Everyone wants a winner and coaches push the rules to the limit on many occasions. But that begs the question, who's policing the police?
But folks this is the NCAA. They pick and choose who they go after and how far the punishment goes. While some programs have been put on probation for recruiting and other numerous violations, other programs just get a slap on the wrist. It seems as though the NCAA doesn't distribute equal punishment.
While the rules have become stricter with the changing of the players, the media is the reason for that, not the NCAA. Anytime a prominent player is seen having lunch with someone it's in the news.
So in my opinion the NCAA will never fully stop players from getting paid from sports agents as they are attaching themselves to younger players every year. One of the few ways to stop these actions is to dole out heavy fines and possibly suspend the sports agency for doing business for a certain length of time. The only true way to stop this is to hit them where it hurts...in the wallet.
Also, if a team is found guilty of knowing about a player and his/her situation then scholarships should be taken away as well. Just ask the former Indiana University Basketball Coach if making illegal phone calls is worse than paying players. I know that cheating is cheating, but many programs don't get hit with the punishment they often deserve.
comments (26) write a comment »
write a new comment
about 1 month ago
Great article John.
Rules are made to be broken, or so the saying goes. I'm a supply/demand guy. As long as there is a demand for winning at any cost, that will be the end result.
Level playing field. Right!
about 1 month ago
The problem today, unlike in Wooden's era is the one year rule for players. And seriously, if you a somewhat intelligent sports fan you know players are getting things - this is big time sports and just as Lew mentioned, is really is simple economics of supply vs. demand. Good article
about 1 month ago
Nice article man! It's inevitable - money is just to strong.
about 1 month ago
I love this message, because of the hypocrisy of how the NCAA picks and chooses who they punish and how severely. Myles Brand was on Mike Tirico's radio show the other day, and he denied this happens, but any fan with half a brain can see what they choose to pay attention too. I am an Ohio State fan, and the spot light was on about the Maurice Clarrett saga, but Reggie Bush's situation has garnered very little if any attention from the NCAA. This OJ Mayo thing gets looked at and the Indiana situation, but Calipari was never suspended for his involvement with the UMass situation a few years back. It's just not right.
about 1 month ago
The money problem is not limited to college's either. Mayo attended countless middle and high schools including Rose Hill Christian which is about 15 miles from my couch where I sit writing this. That school loaded up on players for a couple of years to surround Mayo and buy a regional championship.
about 1 month ago
You are right on with this article. Good stuff. I have a few friends that played D-1 sports and this stuff isn't new at all. Mayo, Bush, Leinart, Iverson, C. Anthony you name it and they all received crap and we all know it. I am a college student and I know without working I would be a poor man, and these guys don't have time to work so how the hell does the NCAA expect them to survive? It's wrong, they make millions off of them and won't even allow them to put their names on NCAA video games. It's ridiculous.
about 1 month ago
Unfortunately, the only “evidence” supporting this slanderous hit-piece is the demonstrably false claim that Bill Walton wrote the book On The Road with the Portland Trail Blazers. He did not – it was written by a man named Jack Scott with a shady and disreputable past and an obvious ax to grind. Below is the text of the letter I wrote to Dan Wetzel when he initially published this lie in his Yahoo Sports column a few years ago. Hopefulyl you will do a better job of retracting your false premise that Mr. Wetzel did. Stay classy, John.
Dear Mr. Wetzel:
As a UCLA fan, I was alarmed by your April 2 column, concerning alleged statements that Bill Walton made in a book concerning improprieties in UCLA’s basketball program during John Wooden’s tenure. In a follow-up on April 5, you wrote to a reader, “You don't think those comments by Walton were, at the very least, worthy of reprinting? When I first read them last year, I couldn't believe they weren't better known. Seriously, Bill Walton said that, if investigated, UCLA would have to give up seven NCAA titles and go on probation for 100 years. Sorry, but that's worth cribbing.”
I ordered a copy of the book, “On the road with the Portland Trail Blazers,” used copies of which are readily available on Amazon.com. I assume you will be surprised to learn (and will immediately inform your readers) that your characterization of Walton’s comments is completely false.
First, you stated in your April 2 column that the book was written by Walton (“Those quotes come from none other than Bill Walton, maybe the greatest Bruin of them all, in his 1978 book ‘On the Road with the Portland Trailblazers’”). This is false. The book was written by Jack Scott. In the Author’s Note, Scott wrote: “Bill never asked to read even one page of the manuscript – never mind the entire manuscript – before it went to the printer. Consequently, I am solely responsible for the book’s content. You should not automatically assume that Bill agrees with all of the opinions I express throughout the book…”
Second, you quoted Walton as saying (or writing), “If the UCLA teams of the late 1960s and early 1970s were subjected to the kind of scrutiny (other schools) have been, UCLA would probably have to forfeit about eight national championships and be on probation for the next 100 years.” This, too, is false. This was the author, Scott’s, statement, not Walton’s (page 215).
Moreover, the insertion of the parenthetical statement “(other schools)” is misleading. The actual words Scott wrote (which you replaced with “(other schools)” was “Jerry Tarkanian and his players.” Scott was defending Tarkanian, with whom Scott identified for obvious reasons: Scott was a former athletic director at Oberlin College, which, he wrote in “On the Road,” the NCAA “put under intensive investigation for illegal recruiting while I was the athletic director” (page 215). A quick Google search reveals that in a 2000 obituary on the Oberlin College website, Scott is described as “a renowned critic of organized athletics [who] took every opportunity to lash out against the financial exploitation of collegiate and professional athletes, arguing that sporting events should cater to the needs of participants rather than owners, advertisers and spectators.”
Had you correctly attributed this seemingly damning quote to Scott, rather than incorrectly to Walton, you might also have thought it appropriate to inform your readers about Scott’s background, to which much of his book was devoted. Scott was a writer for the radical 1960’s magazine Ramparts, and was closely associated with the Symbionese Liberation Army. Extended portions of the book detail Scott’s refusal to cooperate with the FBI as that agency (which he accused of “crimes and killings,” see Introduction, page xvii) “harassed” him and his family for years merely because he harbored his fugitive friends, SLA members Patty Hearst and Bill and Emily Harris, for six months. Your readers might have been interested in examining the merit of Scott’s opinions of Sam Gilbert and Jerry Tarkanian in the context of his opinions of the FBI and SLA.
The only conceivably damning quote in your article that Scott actually attributes to Walton was Walton’s alleged statement to Scott that “It’s hard for me to have a proper perspective on financial matters, since I’ve always had whatever I wanted since I enrolled at UCLA” (page 212). However, Scott’s book (unlike your article) at least put this alleged quote in context – it comes immediately after Scott’s explanation that it was easy for Walton to stay at UCLA for four years and resist turning pro because “he came from a comfortable middle-class background.” Even as presented by Scott, it appears that Scott and Walton were discussing Walton’s privileged background, not largesse from Gilbert. Of course, Scott, who barely disguised his anti-Gilbert agenda throughout the book, is content to let the reader draw the more nefarious conclusion.
Perhaps due to his political viewpoint, his own anger at being under “intensive investigation” by the NCAA, and/or Walton’s firing of Gilbert as his advisor at about the time the book was written (pages 168-69), Scott used Gilbert as a whipping boy whenever Gilbert came into play. He implied, without evidence, that Gilbert had mob connections (page 213) and made unsupported but provocative statements such as “[h]is critics have questioned how someone who does so much for free could also be a self-made millionaire” (id.). This is typical of Scott’s “journalism,” in which, for example, he suggests without evidence that NBA referees are on the take (page 68) and accuses Trail Blazers coach Jack Ramsey of racism based on unsourced innuendo and despite Walton’s admiration for Ramsey (page 115). Scott also excused Kareem Abdul-Jabbar from publicly accusing Walton of marijuana use by writing that “Kareem explained that it was Sam Gilbert who told him this story about Bill” (page 211).
Yet even with his undisguised bias and politically charged point of view, Scott ultimately wrote that “Bill and I doubt John Wooden was aware of the ‘support’ his star players regularly received, and these revelations should not detract from his brilliant coaching record” (page 215).
The bottom line is that Jack Scott – a radical sportswriter and rogue athletic director, closely associated with the murderous SLA – is the person who provided the “money quote” on which your article was based, not Bill Walton. I think you would be doing your readers (as well as journalism) a disservice if you fail to correct the falsehoods on which your article was based.
Sincerely,
about 1 month ago
This article is utter, total trash, and belongs on some rag like the National Enquirer. To begin with, Walton never wrote the book to which the author (!) refers. The book was written by Jack Scott, an ex-athletic director for a small (Oberlin) college who got angry with the NCAA for dumping on his school because of recruiting violations. (Scott later became infamous for harboring Patty Hearst and other members of the Symbionese Liberation army, which rather accurately gives us a depiction of his personal character.)
Wetzel, a writer for Yahoo! took quotes twisted by Scott and attributed them to Walton. Scott had made a point of taking everything said completely out of context in order to sensationalize his book. For instance, Walton told him that he never needed money at UCLA, that everything was taken care of. He added that it was because his family was fairly affluent and they bought him anything he needed. Scott wrote that Walton said didn't need money or anything else at UCLA, that everything was taken of and then promptly implied that was because Sam Gilbert was taking care of all his financial needs. By taking the exact words and twisting them into different context, he gave them a totally false meaning.
Wetzel bought into all that and offered it as quoted by Walton. He was confronted shortly afterward by someone in the UCLA public affairs office and forced to recant. Needless to say, while his story was front page, his apology was almost invisible.
You would do yourself and your readers a favor by checking your sources a bit more carefully. I believe it was Pulitzer who said the 3 most important things in news writing are accuracy, accuracy and accuracy. You might remember that.
about 1 month ago
Mr. Lewis, What is your motivation to slander John Wooden the way that you have? Is it pure shock value and an attempt to attract readers or do you have some kind of personal issue with him? I believe that you owe it to the readers of this nonsense to answer the researched critiques of the posters above. If you have an appropriate and honest answer, so be it. If you choose not to answer, then we should assume that you indeed did not do your research, twisted "facts" and are too craven to account for these behaviors.
about 1 month ago
Oh wow what a surprise another USC homer trying to justify Mayo getting paid, but this time instead of blaming the system this time you blame UCLA. Next time, instead of lying about UCLA's basketball legacy, grow up and actually do your job.
about 1 month ago
Look I know it's hard to hear that the UCLA players were paid but what about the Los Angeles Times report that was done...they found that players were paid.
I didn't write the report so there is evidence out there linking Sam Gilbert to the the UCLA players, whether the UCLA fans like it or not there's a link.
I've heard other reports, most recently on ESPN radio about Sam Gilbert and his supposed paying of players, so say what you want but it really could've happened...just like when no one wanted to admit that baseball players were doing steroids. They later found out that it was a big problem, just like paying college athletes.
from about 1 month ago
Here are some others reports and quotes...straight from Wooden himself.
Gilbert was a wealthy and powerful L.A. contractor who made little secret of lavishing gifts upon UCLA basketball and USC football players – even paying for their girlfriends’ abortions – at the height of those teams’ glory days. An NCAA investigation during Larry Brown’s watch put the Bruins on probation during the 1980-81 season, voided their second-place finish in 1980 and forced Gilbert to disassociate himself from the program.
Nothing was found on Wooden, though he still is often charged with turning a blind eye toward Gilbert, who died in 1987, four days before an unaware Florida grand jury, indicted him on a money-laundering scheme. The irreverent Jerry Tarkanian once called Gilbert the most important block in Wooden’s Pyramid of Success.
“My feeling on Sam Gilbert was that, probably at heart, he thought he was doing a good thing,” Wooden said. “But I thought he was doing things. I never knew for sure, but I was always suspicious. I always worried about him, I’ll tell you that.”
“I had asked him to let my players alone and to not bother them. And Mr. Morgan had, too. I would tell my players to stay away and not be involved, because they could get themselves in trouble and the school in trouble.”
“I tried my very best,” said Wooden, “but I sometimes found the leather jackets and boots that Rowe and Wicks were wearing, I don’t think they could afford them.
“I questioned: ‘Did Sam Gilbert get these for you?’
“(Rowe and Wicks): ‘No.’
“(Wooden): ‘Did he arrange for you to get them at a better price?’
“(Rowe and Wicks): ‘Don’t you shop around for better prices when you get things?’
“(Wooden): ‘Well, now you’re beating around it. You better be careful. I don’t like this at all.’”
about 1 month ago
"John Wooden paid players"
Excuse me?? Do you have a single shred of evidence that this is true? Anywhere?? Of course you don't. You are taking previously published implications that a booster may have given gifts to UCLA athletes over 30 years ago, and writing "John Wooden paid players".
Beside the fact that your interpretation of Mr Scott's book is flawed, as was very well addressed above, the title of your article is outright slander. Do you have any sense of professionalism at all? We can certainly debate what happened in the past with Sam Gilbert. But for you to write that title is as unprofessional as one can be. But I guess when anyone these days can have a blog, then personal responsibility and accountability are no longer necessary.
Unfortuately, the casual reader may be swayed by your article. However, any intelligent reader will be offended.
from about 1 month ago
Well Greg, you make a valid point that John Wooden didn't actually hand over checks to his players but it's obvious that he knew about it. Where I grew up cheating is cheating and if you are aware that your players are paid and that your program could be in trouble then you're still guilty.
Remember, knowing about a crime and not reporting it is still a crime in itself. So again there are well documented quotes from Wooden himself that he knew that this was happening.
about 1 month ago
Directly from the NY Times...let me guess they are wrong also.
Now let's talk about the myth. What we didn't know back then is that the Wizard of Westwood had a helper. His name was Sam Gilbert.
According to N.C.A.A. investigations and published reports, Gilbert, a multimillionaire contractor and adviser to U.C.L.A. athletes, arranged and paid for abortions for players' friends and helped athletes get discounts on cars, stereos and airline tickets.
Jerry Tarkanian, who coached Long Beach State from 1969 to 1973, accused U.C.L.A. of turning the N.C.A.A. on his program. ''It would be like the U.C.L.A. guys are all in Mercedes and our guys are all on bikes and the N.C.A.A.'s coming in saying, 'Hey, we've got to take these bikes away from these guys.' It was the damnedest thing you've ever seen. I mean, the time they came after us was the Sam Gilbert era. Everybody knows what went on during the Sam Gilbert era. The only team with a higher payroll was the Lakers.''
Wooden said he had been aware of the closeness between his players and Gilbert and warned them to ''be careful.''
The N.C.A.A. ultimately hit U.C.L.A. with a two-year probation in 1981 and ordered the Bruins to sever ties with Gilbert. But that was six years after Wooden retired.
about 1 month ago
John,
First, fix your initial article. It is factually incorrect on many levels, including it not being Walton's book, and libelous because Walton never said anything that you are attributing to him.
Second, in the future, learn to cite your sources. At minimum, your citations should include author, title, publisher, year published, location published and page numbers. If there were co-authors, editors or translators; they should be included as well. If you are citing a magazine or newspaper, there is additional information that should be present. For web citations, you should ALWAYS provide a link. Unless you can prove the statements were cited from the sources, you are entering into a potentially libelous situation.
Also, after reading your follow up posts, I don't see anyone credible accusing Sam Gilbert of paying players. I see him being accused of getting players discounts or paying for medical services but I don't see anyone getting paid.
As for Jerry Tarkanian, he is far from a credible source. Trying to convince anyone of Wooden being dirty using Jerry's statements is like trying to convince someone that Jews are bad by using statements from Hilter or some Muslim extremists.
While I really don't care what your motivation is for writing the article, I do care about good journalism and do not care for internet hackalism.
Correct, your errors and learn how to write before someone decides to make you pay for writing fiction about them.
Regard,
Your Biggest Fan
about 1 month ago
You guys make some very valid points and there is a better way to state my points, but it certainly doesn't take away the fact that the UCLA more than likely were paid while playing basketball.
Look we have no actual proof of anything but why did UCLA get put on probation if they did nothing wrong? What about Roger Clemens, we have no actual proof that he was having relations with a 15 year old...but what was he doing with her in his hotel room?
Oh and I wouldn't compare Jerry Tarkanian to Hitler.
from about 1 month ago
I wouldn't compare John Wooden to an alleged pedophile either.
about 1 month ago
"Look we have no actual proof of anything ..."
Game Over. You Lose, John.
When you're in a hole, quit digging. Maybe you should worry more about laying out the reasons why usc doesn't deserve the death penalty that so many are calling for.
from about 1 month ago
BTW, in case you're wondering what constitutes "proof" (since you obviously adhere to no jounalistic standards on this subject), I'm talking about smoking guns like receipts that they have in abundance with Mayo. Parroting long debunked innuendo and rumor mongering doesn't make you look like a whistleblower, John. It makes you look like an uninformed and ignorant tool.
It's sweet how you were so sure that you could pass your opinion based on rumors as fact, and you essentially had to retract everything by admitting that you have no evidence. Just take the next step and admit your article is garbage. Distancing yourself from this tabloid trash is pretty much the only way for you to save face.
about 1 month ago
John...what are you talking about. If there was nothing to this than UCLA wouldn't have been put on a two year probation...so don't tell me that there isn't anything to this.
Many sources, more credible than you and your jounalistic skills, say that it happened. Even Wooden himself said that players were getting gifts and money from Gilbert. You can't get more credible than Wooden.
Again, while I'm not the best writer, this doesn't excuse the fact that it happened. The whole point to the aritlce was that the NCAA doesn't do their job to police college sports. And if you think that it couldn't have happened with the Bruins than you're just walking around with blinders on.
Game over...good come back.
from about 1 month ago
Actually John,
UCLA was put on probation in 1981 for Larry Brown's recruiting violations. It was not for anything that might have occurred in the John Wooden era.
Again, if you are going to make claims like "many sources say that it happened" or "Wooden said that players were getting gifts and money from Gilbert" please provide the evidence.
You can't and you won't because making up a story is much easier than writing an accurate and well supported article. And stop throwing the word "fact" around, you wouldn't know a fact if it bit you on the @ss.
Regards,
Your Biggest Fan
about 1 month ago
So Poor, Brown only coached for one season before they were put on probation so did Sam Gilbert help the players under Larry Brown as well, because when the NCAA put UCLA on probation for two seasons, they were told to stop associating with Gilbert. In 1981 (years after Wooden's retirement), the NCAA found that Sam Gilbert's name was used to co-sign a loan for a player's car. The basketball program was placed on probation and ordered to disassociate with Gilbert.
Also, Wooden has been quoted about Gilbert on many occasions, you don't need evidence when Wooden says it out of his own mouth. Point blank, Wooden knew about this and made it known he didn't like what was going on...but he never stopped it either.
from about 1 month ago
John,
You need to brush up on your college basketball history, it is severely lacking.
First, Larry Brown is as sleazy as they come in the college basketball world. He not only left UCLA on probation. He also left Kansas on probation. Beside the two probations, he was the creator of one of slimiest package deals in college basketball history when he hire a long haul truck driver to be an assistant coach to land his son. You have probably heard his name before, Danny Manning. The father is still employed by Kansas some 20 years later. Although Manning Sr recently moved to another position so Kansas could hire another recruit's relative.
Second, you have made many accusations that you have tired to pass off as fact. Many of them are blatant lies that are easily disproved like the following from your article:
"10 National Championships, 34 first-team All-America selections, and an 88 game win streak...all paid for. This was according to Bill Walton in his 1978 book "Bill Walton: On the Road with the Portland Trailblazers."
Lets jut go over the errors in this simple statement...
1. Even the most ardent John Wooden haters, like Tarkanian, admit that Gilbert was never around the program for the first 3 national championships.
2. Bill Walton never said such a thing. Please provide any quotes and page numbers to support your allegation.
3. The book was not written or even authorized by Bill Walton. In fact, the author even states that in the book.
When you admit to your previous errors and correct your initial article, we can move forward in this discussion.
Regards,
Your Biggest Fan
about 1 month ago
John:
I wish you'd quit masking your attempt to produce a modicum of credibility by trying to associate what happened to UCLA under Brown with John Wooden's record. Brown was sleasy, but what he did, as far as is known, was never shown to be involved with Gilbert, and definitely had nothing to do with Wooden. The infringement was a financial arrangement Brown made with a player who was recruited and grabbed up by him before the playoffs began in 1981. Let me repeat: there is not now, nor never has been, the slightest hint or suspicion that Wooden was involved in that, or in any other payments made to UCLA players. In fact, there is no concrete evidence that those same players were ever paid by ANYONE while at UCLA.
No one is arguing that there was a smoking gun when Brown was there, but that's not what your article said -- in fact, you never once mentioned Brown. You dreamed up a massive headline that stated "EVEN JOHN WOODEN PAID HIS PLAYERS" and when called on it, you try to weasel out of your slanderous remark by noting that UCLA was put on probation for offenses that occurred 6 years after Wooden retired, or by quoting comments made by Jerry Tarkanian, a man who is so resentful of Wooden that he would say anything to disparage what John did. Tarkanian himself was caught with his hand in the cookie jar three times (that we know of) and still couldn't win an NCAA title. He's not what I, or anyone else, would consider to be a reliable source.
As "your biggest fan" has noted (above) you need to correct that fictional - and vilifying - headline in font size just as big as it is printed in, admit to yourself that you neglected to check on your sources.... and move on.
about 1 month ago
Even if one could be completely swayed by whatever exaggeration, oversimplification, half-truth, or outright lie the TrOJay apologists put out, the fact still remain that the current allegations against them stand. Instead of looking to correct the obvious problems, SC apologists continue to point the finger elsewhere. Their favorite target? Let's just say it lies due Westwood.
I find it remarkable that some, instead of facing up to the facts that their school's athletics department is in real trouble, continue to find every excuse possible other than to fix the problem. They will contort to any half-assed accusation against anyone else so that it will take their minds off of their own SCandal ridden predicament. The onus is on those honest Trojans who care about their institution as opposed to those who would sacrifice its integrity for short term gains. That is up to them, not us. I think that if you really hate SC, keep encouraging such behavior.
The article is shameful. I lament that objectivity has become the long forgotten watchword of a more scrupulous time. Comparing what is happening at SC now with what hypothetically (giving you the benefit of the doubt) happened under the Wizard blows any objective credibility you have. Even if you were to say that a UCLA example was chosen because of our peerless place in college basketball, it will not hold up to scrutiny. Anyone with half a brain would avoid such comparisons because the bias would show like a bright red neon light.
If you wanted to draw a comparison, why not use Michigan or some other less-inflammatory basketball SCandal? There are many to choose from. As it stands, the arguments presented in the this article, if striped to the very core of their substance, are nothing more than the child's "But everyone else is doing it, why can't I" variety. It leads one to wonder how this could make good copy to a rational mind. Are the Trojans really this infantile? Are these the only arguments they have?
write a new comment