JT requests Release from NLI

[HenryB]

26 minutes ago, Quality Is Job 1 said:

A bribe is an offering of payment to get away with something improper.  Hiring Michael Porter Sr. as an assistant coach with the likelihood that his highly-talented sons will commit is not covering anything up.  It's payment for legitimate services.  They made a high bid in order to stave off other bidders.  Hate Missouri all you want and talk as much trash as you want about "SPUMAC," but stop trying to paint the situation as unethical, because it simply is not.

Pouring perfume on a manure pile doesn't keep it from still being manure.  It is 100% unethical.  The ONLY reason he is being employed (at an exorbitant salary) is to skirt the rule that prevents direct payment to players.  Porter's resume doesn't remotely qualify him as a top assistant at a Power 5 school.   This goes back to the original focus of this thread - support Martin all you want but don't try to tell us how superior his character is compared to others.  Despite the "perfume" this crap still stinks.

[BIG BILL FAN]

1 hour ago, Quality Is Job 1 said:

A bribe is an offering of payment to get away with something improper.  Hiring Michael Porter Sr. as an assistant coach with the likelihood that his highly-talented sons will commit is not covering anything up.  It's payment for legitimate services.  They made a high bid in order to stave off other bidders.  Hate Missouri all you want and talk as much trash as you want about "SPUMAC," but stop trying to paint the situation as unethical, because it simply is not.

Please don't confuse illegal with unethical. The money was paid for one reason only and that was to bring his son to Missouri. The money couldn't be delivered legally through the son so it was diverted through the father. The practice would have been tolerable if Porter Sr would have received a typical entry level assistant coach pay ($75,000). Instead Porter Sr became the highest paid assistant coach on Missouri's staff (that should really be great for moral) and one of the highest paid in the country. What's to keep any team from offering enormous amounts of money to a parent and calling them a coach?  What happened was disgusting in my opinion, and only encourages others to practice the same behavior. I can only imagine the number of parents demanding money for their son's services. 

By the way, ever wonder why there are so many coaches on the bench when the limit is three? Read the attached article. 

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/03/16/sports/ncaabasketball/theyre-here-there-and-everywhere-college-basketball-assistants.html

 

[Quality Is Job 1]

8 minutes ago, HenryB said:

Pouring perfume on a manure pile doesn't keep it from still being manure.  It is 100% unethical.  The ONLY reason he is being employed (at an exorbitant salary) is to skirt the rule that prevents direct payment to players.  Porter's resume doesn't remotely qualify him as a top assistant at a Power 5 school.   This goes back to the original focus of this thread - support Martin all you want but don't try to tell us how superior his character is compared to others.  Despite the "perfume" this crap still stinks.

Give me a break!  There is ABSOLUTELY nothing unethical about the situation.  The only way it's unethical is if no entertainer should ever be paid according to perceived value.

Professional sports is entertainment.  The top leagues pay their employees (athletes and coaches) high salaries in exchange for raising their commercial value and profitability.  Networks and advertising licensees also find a way to profit.  And the end consumers (the fans) derive value from the product — even if they don't want to pay ticket prices, they'll watch on television, boosting ratings that influence commercials.  Everyone is getting something they value in exchange for the products others are offering.  Moreover, the economics of the entertainment business, along with the perceived benefits of participating, cause young people to aspire to contribute in order to enter the circle themselves.  You see Jordan, with his wagging tongue, pitching his shoes, or whatever, and you want to see if you can do that too.  Anything unethical, yet?

So Michael Porter Sr. was a cager in his youth, but he didn't achieve the ultimate dream, but he did benefit from basketball in that it entwined him deeply in the game: romantically and familially.  After a detour into another culturally-sexy entertainment genre (rapping), he went back to his roots in basketball to try his hand in coaching.  Romar told him to get some experience.  So he interned at lower levels and then, thanks in large part to who he knows — his sister-in-law — got an entry-level position in Div. 1 college coaching.  While, sure, he has children that are the offspring of a basketball-centric environment, no one could possibly know that those kids would go on to have elite-level talent.  So Porter Sr. works his way up in a profession he loves, and it so happens his children are great at the sport.

And why do some of you — if not because of envy — balk at the amount of money that some schools offered Porter Sr. for his talents?  The schools are willing to pay that because they expect it will be well worth it.  They'll get greater exposure and have the chance to be better than ever before — and produce more revenue.  Who is not getting what they perceive is fair value?

And please don't tell me you would refuse to earn top dollar for what you provide out of your talents and experience if others are getting what they perceive to be a valuable result, because only a fool would do that.

[Quality Is Job 1]

15 minutes ago, BIG BILL FAN said:

Please don't confuse illegal with unethical. The money was paid for one reason only and that was to bring his son to Missouri. The money couldn't be delivered legally through the son so it was diverted through the father. The practice would have been tolerable if Porter Sr would have received a typical entry level assistant coach pay ($75,000). Instead Porter Sr became the highest paid assistant coach on Missouri's staff (that should really be great for moral) and one of the highest paid in the country. What's to keep any team from offering enormous amounts of money to a parent and calling them a coach?  What happened was disgusting in my opinion, and only encourages others to practice the same behavior. I can only imagine the number of parents demanding money for their son's services. 

I'm not confusing illegal with unethical, because I don't view the situation as unethical.  Read my post above in response to HenryB.  I believe you're confusing envy for moral outrage.

[Coach314]

Happy Easter 

[majerus mojo]

14 minutes ago, Quality Is Job 1 said:

Give me a break!  There is ABSOLUTELY nothing unethical about the situation.  The only way it's unethical is if no entertainer should ever be paid according to perceived value.

Professional sports is entertainment.  The top leagues pay their employees (athletes and coaches) high salaries in exchange for raising their commercial value and profitability.  Networks and advertising licensees also find a way to profit.  And the end consumers (the fans) derive value from the product — even if they don't want to pay ticket prices, they'll watch on television, boosting ratings that influence commercials.  Everyone is getting something they value in exchange for the products others are offering.  Moreover, the economics of the entertainment business, along with the perceived benefits of participating, cause young people to aspire to contribute in order to enter the circle themselves.  You see Jordan, with his wagging tongue, pitching his shoes, or whatever, and you want to see if you can do that too.  Anything unethical, yet?

So Michael Porter Sr. was a cager in his youth, but he didn't achieve the ultimate dream, but he did benefit from basketball in that it entwined him deeply in the game: romantically and familially.  After a detour into another culturally-sexy entertainment genre (rapping), he went back to his roots in basketball to try his hand in coaching.  Romar told him to get some experience.  So he interned at lower levels and then, thanks in large part to who he knows — his sister-in-law — got an entry-level position in Div. 1 college coaching.  While, sure, he has children that are the offspring of a basketball-centric environment, no one could possibly know that those kids would go on to have elite-level talent.  So Porter Sr. works his way up in a profession he loves, and it so happens his children are great at the sport.

And why do some of you — if not because of envy — balk at the amount of money that some schools offered Porter Sr. for his talents?  The schools are willing to pay that because they expect it will be well worth it.  They'll get greater exposure and have the chance to be better than ever before — and produce more revenue.  Who is not getting what they perceive is fair value?

And please don't tell me you would refuse to earn top dollar for what you provide out of your talents and experience if others are getting what they perceive to be a valuable result, because only a fool would do that.

[BIG BILL FAN]

28 minutes ago, Quality Is Job 1 said:

Give me a break!  There is ABSOLUTELY nothing unethical about the situation.  The only way it's unethical is if no entertainer should ever be paid according to perceived value.

Professional sports is entertainment.  The top leagues pay their employees (athletes and coaches) high salaries in exchange for raising their commercial value and profitability.  Networks and advertising licensees also find a way to profit.  And the end consumers (the fans) derive value from the product — even if they don't want to pay ticket prices, they'll watch on television, boosting ratings that influence commercials.  Everyone is getting something they value in exchange for the products others are offering.  Moreover, the economics of the entertainment business, along with the perceived benefits of participating, cause young people to aspire to contribute in order to enter the circle themselves.  You see Jordan, with his wagging tongue, pitching his shoes, or whatever, and you want to see if you can do that too.  Anything unethical, yet?

So Michael Porter Sr. was a cager in his youth, but he didn't achieve the ultimate dream, but he did benefit from basketball in that it entwined him deeply in the game: romantically and familially.  After a detour into another culturally-sexy entertainment genre (rapping), he went back to his roots in basketball to try his hand in coaching.  Romar told him to get some experience.  So he interned at lower levels and then, thanks in large part to who he knows — his sister-in-law — got an entry-level position in Div. 1 college coaching.  While, sure, he has children that are the offspring of a basketball-centric environment, no one could possibly know that those kids would go on to have elite-level talent.  So Porter Sr. works his way up in a profession he loves, and it so happens his children are great at the sport.

And why do some of you — if not because of envy — balk at the amount of money that some schools offered Porter Sr. for his talents?  The schools are willing to pay that because they expect it will be well worth it.  They'll get greater exposure and have the chance to be better than ever before — and produce more revenue.  Who is not getting what they perceive is fair value?

And please don't tell me you would refuse to earn top dollar for what you provide out of your talents and experience if others are getting what they perceive to be a valuable result, because only a fool would do that.

Trying not to laugh, but can't help myself. "Go get some experience" and then get back to me. Yes, you should have enough experience by the time he is a freshman in college. Oh, and I wish I could have one of those entry level jobs that pay $400k. Just stop, you are looking worse by the minute. I get it your a Missouri fan, but sleaze is sleaze no matter how you spin it. 

[STL Hoops Insider]

Still nothing sleazy about hiring a 7 year collegiate coaching veteran with 4 and 5 star children who used to coach at the same school and live in the same city.

[Quality Is Job 1]

31 minutes ago, BIG BILL FAN said:

Trying not to laugh, but can't help myself. "Go get some experience" and then get back to me. Yes, you should have enough experience by the time he is a freshman in college. Oh, and I wish I could have one of those entry level jobs that pay $400k. Just stop, you are looking worse by the minute. I get it your a Missouri fan, but sleaze is sleaze no matter how you spin it. 

You can't help yourself from laughing because you don't realize how ridiculous you are, not realizing your own envy.

No one — not Romar, not Porter Sr., not Pingeton — had any clue the Porter clan would produce such talent at the time he broke into coaching.

Of course you wish you could have an entry level job that pays a lucrative salary, but does your talent in your field warrant it?  And the field one that the economics of will support such a salary?

What does which school(s) I root for have to do with it?  Envious people will try to justify their envy by trying to paint those who are doing better than they are as being unscrupulous when they're not.  Stop, you are looking worse by the minute.

[Aquinas]

Simple question; would Mizzou or any team for that matter have hired him and paid the same salary without his sons in the picture?  If the answer is yes, its ethical.  If no then it is pay to play which is unethical. It ends up smelling bad and further corrupting the system when an under qualified/over paid Parent Coach is hired.   Otherwise what is to stop each team from having a "Parent Coach".   Almost every dad has coached or been an assistant on some level. 

 

[BIG BILL FAN]

6 minutes ago, Aquinas said:

Simple question; would Mizzou or any team for that matter have hired him and paid the same salary without his sons in the picture?  If the answer is yes, its ethical.  If no then it is pay to play which is unethical. It ends up smelling bad and further corrupting the system when an under qualified/over paid Parent Coach is hired.   Otherwise what is to stop each team from having a "Parent Coach".   Almost every dad has coached or been an assistant on some level. 

 

Well put. It's not complicated to see what is going on. Of course this is pay to play. 

[Quality Is Job 1]

13 minutes ago, Aquinas said:

Simple question; would Mizzou or any team for that matter have hired him and paid the same salary without his sons in the picture?  If the answer is yes, its ethical.  If no then it is pay to play which is unethical. It ends up smelling bad and further corrupting the system when an under qualified/over paid Parent Coach is hired.   Otherwise what is to stop each team from having a "Parent Coach".   Almost every dad has coached or been an assistant on some level. 

 

I disagree with your conditions to establish the ethicality of the situation.  Do all assistant coaches get paid the same?  Do all schools pay their assistant coaches the same as other schools at the same level?  Only if the answer is yes can this be unethical.

No, they pay the coaches according to perceived value.  And the thing that stops each team from having a "parent coach" — not that each school couldn't is the fact that they can have only three full-time assistant coaches.

It would be unethical if they would hire such a parent in name only and not get any contribution from them aside from the services of the offspring.

Michael Porter Sr. has been involved in basketball for a long time and wants to be a coach.  The fact that he, because of nature and nurture, can develop such talent makes him in more demand than others, so it's to his benefit that schools are bidding for his services.

I think it's only out of envy that you guys are trying to paint Porter Sr. as under-qualified.

[HoosierPal]

The facts as we know, or think we know them.

1) Mr. Porter is being paid $1.125 million for three years.  I don't think anyone believes he would have been paid this salary without delivering his sons to Columbia.  Raise your hand if you do.  This averages out to $375,000 per year.

2) The Underwood's assistant staff at Illinois is being paid $850,000 per year.  This averages out to $283,000, or 75% of what Mr. Porter is receiving.   

3)  I am unaware of ANY D1 program that was offering Mr. Porter a head coach job, with or without his sons in tow.  If he is an assistant coach with a 33% markup, why wasn't he a candidate at other D1 schools?  If anyone can supply a link to Mr. Porter being a 'candidate' for a D1 job please forward.

This isn't the first time nor will it be the last time it has happens.  Coach Integrity paid the Porter family $1.125 million for a minimum of one year of Michael Porter Jr. service.  Dad gets to enjoy the ride.  Let's hope that Mr. Porter Senior is decent enough to give his son a significant cut of the money.  Coach Integrity can't do it, but Dad can surely give Jr a healthy allowance.   

It happens. Debating labels "ethical, unethical, legal or illegal" or whatever is a waste of time.

[goonaha]

The sanctimony in this thread is unreal. Not a great look guys.

[mechee89]

I just want to know where the kid is going so we can move on.

[Quality Is Job 1]

4 minutes ago, mechee89 said:

I just want to know where the kid is going so we can move on.

Looks like Kansas or Missouri; we can probably already move on.

[TheChosenOne]

2 hours ago, Aquinas said:

Simple question; would Mizzou or any team for that matter have hired him and paid the same salary without his sons in the picture?  If the answer is yes, its ethical.  If no then it is pay to play which is unethical. It ends up smelling bad and further corrupting the system when an under qualified/over paid Parent Coach is hired.   Otherwise what is to stop each team from having a "Parent Coach".   Almost every dad has coached or been an assistant on some level. 

 

That is the point though, what are you willing to pay an assistant coach that adds you the #1 recruit in 2017 and a top 30 recruit in 2018? I assume a sizable amount. I would be interested in exploring the financial impact of having Michael Porter Jr. at Mizzou for a season, it is crazy to see what his commitment has done for the program to this point. Definitely a good decision for a program that was a complete dumpster. Michael Porter Sr. had plenty of options (heck he was under a multi year deal at Washington).

[WVBilliken]

Sounds like a good guy........http://www.columbiamissourian.com/sports/mizzou_sports/from-the-court-to-the-stage-and-back-the-journey/article_0a860d38-783e-11e5-a655-c7d8c6dda7b3.html

[HoosierBilliken]

19 minutes ago, WVBilliken said:

Sounds like a good guy........http://www.columbiamissourian.com/sports/mizzou_sports/from-the-court-to-the-stage-and-back-the-journey/article_0a860d38-783e-11e5-a655-c7d8c6dda7b3.html

Even the best Christian men can get involved in questionable deals.  He would have never been paid that much taxpayer money if it were not for the quality player of his son.  They aren't paying for his upstanding citizenship.

With that said, that puff piece certainly makes him sound like a good family man, good mentor, thoughtful, and a good hire at Mizzou.  His kids should be happy to have a dad that involved.   

Mizzou will be good for years to come.  Where would Martin go after Mizzou?  Seems like a good situation for him for years to come.

[brianstl]

Any business that allows a father of an legal adult to become a millionaire because of his son's talent and doesn't allow the player's to get paid is corrupt.

How many coaches (head or assistant) at Mizzou have a country club membership provided for them like Porter?

[3star_recruit]

We've been knowingly watching and enjoying a corrupt business for decades.  What does that make us?

[AnkielBreakers]

It is plain and simple, it is not sleazy because I would fully support Travis Ford doing the same thing.  You have to go with your gut on these things.  I would not support having an assistant coach pay for prostitutes for the players.  I would not support handfuls of cash to the players.  Hiring a players father is a loop-hole, but I am fine with it.

[willie]

2 minutes ago, 3star_recruit said:

We've been knowingly watching and enjoying a corrupt business for decades.  What does that make us?

Not to sound like Kevin Slaten but the NCAA is one of the most corrupt organizations in the world. They really do not care about the student athlete. I'm still waiting for North Carolina. 

[HoosierBilliken]

10 minutes ago, 3star_recruit said:

We've been knowingly watching and enjoying a corrupt business for decades.  What does that make us?

Enablers. 

[DeSmetBilliken]

12 minutes ago, brianstl said:

Any business that allows a father of an legal adult to become a millionaire because of his son's talent and doesn't allow the player's to get paid is corrupt.

How many coaches (head or assistant) at Mizzou have a country club membership provided for them like Porter?

I think this is a good point. As long as the NCAA allows it, I can't really fault Mizzou for doing it. I did hear that college football either has or will soon implement a rule that will regulate hiring parents as coaches in an attempt to get recruits.