ShareThis Page

College basketball takes big hit with arrests

| Wednesday, Sept. 27, 2017, 8:18 p.m.
Arizona assistant coach Emanuel Richardson watches from the sideline during the second half against New Mexico State on Dec. 11, 2013 in Tucson, Ariz.
Arizona assistant coach Emanuel Richardson watches from the sideline during the second half against New Mexico State on Dec. 11, 2013 in Tucson, Ariz.

TUCSON, Ariz. — Arizona assistant basketball coach Emanuel Richardson entered the federal court wearing the same clothes he was arrested in earlier in the day, there to face charges of accepting bribes and paying at least one recruit to attend the school.

Across the country, nine other people, including three more assistant coaches, were arrested after a federal probe revealed hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes to influence star athletes' choice of schools, shoe sponsors, agents, even tailors.

The arrests will have an immediate — and potentially long-lasting — impact on the programs involved. As the tentacles of the probe reach deeper into college basketball, more schools could come into the crosshairs and the black eye on the sport could darken.

“The picture of college basketball painted by the charges is not a pretty one,” acting U.S. Attorney Joon H. Kim said.

Richardson, a former Pitt Johnstown player and assistant coach, along with fellow assistant coaches Chuck Person of Auburn, Southern California's Tony Bland and Oklahoma State's Lamont Evans were all suspended after charges against them were announced.

James Gatto, director of global sports marketing for basketball at Adidas, Rashan Michel, a maker of custom suits for some of the NBA's biggest stars, and various financial advisers and managers also were charged.

Federal prosecutors said at least three top high school recruits were promised payments of as much as $150,000, using money supplied by Adidas, to attend two universities sponsored by the athletic shoe company. Court papers didn't name the schools but contained enough details to identify them as Louisville and Miami.

Auburn coach Bruce Pearl could face similar heat.

He coached at Tennessee from 2005-11 before being fired and hit with a three-year show-cause penalty by the NCAA for lying to investigators about recruiting violations. Pearl was given a second chance at Auburn, but another scandal could spell trouble for him if the allegations are proven true.

Regardless of whether the federal probe leads all the way to the top, the programs could take a hit — and not just from the NCAA.

With the prospect of an NCAA investigation on the horizon, top recruits may stay away. Current players in the programs could be declared ineligible if the probe finds they accepted money from an agent or an assistant coach.

Arizona coach Sean Miller has one of the top recruiting classes for 2018, and the Wildcats have been projected to be a top-10 team this season. Andy Enfield has a strong incoming recruiting class at Southern California and has a potential top-10 team this season.

The trajectory of the two Pac-12 programs could be altered as the probe deepens. And the initial charges could be just the tip of the iceberg. More programs and coaches could be entangled as the FBI digs deeper, and schools where the arrested coaches previously worked could face scrutiny.

The FBI and U.S. attorneys have the reach and the power to expand the investigation. It has also set up a tip line and encouraged anyone with information on the case to come forward.

This is far from over, and the implications could last for years.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.