If this goes the wrong direction, I can assure you it won’t be the last time somebody “promises” a coach and then reneges for more cash. Don’t be surprised when it happens more than once every season in the new mercenary era. The definition of a mercenary is a soldier of fortune who fights for the highest bidder with no loyalty. This is no different so get ready.
There has always been money involved, it was just under the table. And I'm not a fan of catastrophizing about NIL or the portal. (I am even a rare bird (in this forum, at any rate) who likes this so-called wild west, but I don't want to go into that.)
But if you are interested in documenting the beginning of players promising a coach and then reneging for more cash, you will have to go far, far back in time.
Even the scholarships for athletes (which nowadays supposedly epitomize "amateur athletics") were introduced 100 years ago because (it was claimed) that
pay would be
pay enough, and so get rid of the problem of teams paying players under the table.
Kansas basketball shoe money, anyone? The examples go on forever. The difference at present is that the NCAA is not in a position to play favorites by deciding who
not to go after and which of their favorites' rivals to go after.
As far as the post you quoted, I regret having said that because I was quibbling about people saying
categorically that he would
either "screw us over" or "
not screw us over" (to use their terms). The truth is more complicated. Also people are assuming all kinds of things we don't know in the Lanier case. I am not angry with Lanier.
The biggest factor in the Lanier recruitment, I still think, was the NCAA making a sudden, unanticipated, and rather secretly conducted change to its policy on grad transfers.
Btw, I still think we will get him.
