Yahoo, Tattoos, and tOSU (1-year bowl ban, 82 scholly limit for 3 years)

[Deety]

I think if it were revealed that almost all player and family car deals at University "X" were being funneled through just one or two salesmen, most people would see that as a legitimate red flag no matter the institution.


Yep. I agree. Not saying there is something to it, but the fact of it being a virtual sales monopoly is an eyebrow raiser, if nothing more.

People routinely ask where others got a good deal and were treated well and go there, so while that is sufficient to take a look at the transactions, it is meaningless in and of itself.

At my dealership, one of the guys was involved with a large group that didn't get any special deals, but would always go through him because they felt he had their backs. A few bought from me without identifying themselves as part of that group and all hell broke loose. He started interrupting my sales, hiding keys so I couldn't show cars, stealing my lunches, and even tousling my hair in front of our boss so he would think there was something else going on if I complained. I won all those battles, but it gives you some idea how territorial things are in a dealership. So yes, if a salesperson gets in with one member of a group it's a pretty good bet he gets all that group from there on out, even if someone only recommends the dealership itself.

I'm not saying they shouldn't look into it, because the job of compliance is to look into everything that might be an issue. I'm saying that there is only one clear way to see if those transactions were legitimate, which is to compare the acquisition cost with the sales price. If there is a problem, appropriate action should be taken at that time. And since it is the facts that should determine whether there is a problem rather than gossip, I don't really see why you want to argue it.

 

[Jaxbuck]

If a salesperson knows a player is only going to spend so much, but has a bunch of friends who might be inclined to buy as well if they see their friend getting a great deal, it's almost certain they'll try hard to find a great deal for that kid. Thing is, the same would hold true for a group of Red Hat Ladies. Or an individual college student walking in - salespeople on commission are going to do what it takes. My minimum commission was a few hundred dollars regardless of profit, so you don't leave that on the table if you can help it.

In my humble IMHO, the only legitimate red flag in this case would be if the dealership sold a particular car below acquisition cost for that particular car, and the only way to know that would be to see the auction slip. If they did, that would mean they were looking at the difference as a way to use the player for advertising, and that's when it is a problem. If you and I can get similar deals - and we can - or at least I can - then it isn't an issue. The NCAA requires a clear benefit not available to others, and a good deal on a car does not fit that description, unless someone decides to get arbitrary about it, which is always a possibility.

It would also be incredibly, hugely, unbelievably stupid for a dealership to risk players' careers over a little advertising bump when it would also mean potentially losing favor in their entire selling territory over the bad PR of bringing down OSU football. Especially when there are plenty of legit deals to be made.

I've worked with 2 different PhD friends of mine when they were providing expert witness testimony for cases similar to this (our product does something x% better than yous type things that someone got their balls sued off for).

If you had the accurate data (big assumption) the standard deviation from retail for the player sample and the non player sample would allow you to make a case for or against this being improper benefits.

NADA black book that the dealers use, for the month the car was purchased, far right hand column (ex clean). How much off that is each individual buyers order? All the single case good deal exceptions are taken into account by the average number.

If joe public std deviation is -$500 from retail and Joe Player's is -$650 then fuck off, nothing to see here, go on about your bidness.

If Joe Public std dev is -$500 and Joe Player is -$1,500 then we have a problem. All the "yeah but's" would be baked into the numbers.

The other important thing I'd use to make a case is what % of the dealers business does this 50 some odd athletes represent? Is it a 100 car a month store or some big 500 plus dealership? If the players are more than say 20% of the total for the time period in question it gets harder to explain away I would think.

At least this is what seems to make sense to me for no more than I've looked at it. I haven't asked any actual expert witness/PhD types their thoughts.

 

[Deety]

I've worked with 2 different PhD friends of mine when they were providing expert witness testimony for cases similar to this (our product does something x% better than yous type things that someone got their balls sued off for).

If you had the accurate data (big assumption) the standard deviation from retail for the player sample and the non player sample would allow you to make a case for or against this being improper benefits.

NADA black book that the dealers use, for the month the car was purchased, far right hand column (ex clean). How much off that is each individual buyers order? All the single case good deal exceptions are taken into account by the average number.

If joe public std deviation is -$500 from retail and Joe Player's is -$650 then fuck off, nothing to see here, go on about your bidness.

If Joe Public std dev is -$500 and Joe Player is -$1,500 then we have a problem. All the "yeah but's" would be baked into the numbers.

The other important thing I'd use to make a case is what % of the dealers business does this 50 some odd athletes represent? Is it a 100 car a month store or some big 500 plus dealership? If the players are more than say 20% of the total for the time period in question it gets harder to explain away I would think.

At least this is what seems to make sense to me for no more than I've looked at it. I haven't asked any actual expert witness/PhD types their thoughts.

Yes, that would be a legitimate way to go about it, so long as you compared similar groups. College students as a group are going to get different deals than people with six figure incomes because their needs, demands, and resources will be different. I just don't see any chance of this sort of analysis actually happening, while it may be possible to get the dealership to release acquisition costs to the NCAA (probably not publicly) as a way to get out of this mess.

 

[Gatorubet]

I'm not saying they shouldn't look into it, because the job of compliance is to look into everything that might be an issue.

You are defending a position I never said you held. I made a simple point in response to your statement: "In my humble IMHO, the only legitimate red flag in this case would be if the dealership sold a particular car below acquisition cost for that particular car, and the only way to know that would be to see the auction slip."

Maybe you think red flag means something different. I took it as you saying that the only thing that would raise an eyebrow - which I take as the same concept as a red flag, is below cost price. I get your position that it's no unusual thing if everyone buys their car from one or two people. Cool, Deety. I happen to think it looks a little odd as a stand alone fact. Not damning or something that would make you auto assume impropriety, just a bit odd when coupled with the free loaner car thing.

I'm saying that there is only one clear way to see if those transactions were legitimate, which is to compare the acquisition cost with the sales price. If there is a problem, appropriate action should be taken at that time.

I'd ask to see where the actual money used to buy the car came from, but that's just me.

And since it is the facts that should determine whether there is a problem rather than gossip, I don't really see why you want to argue it.

If arguing is not accepting whatever opinion or conclusion you post, then yeah, I'm "arguing".

 

[jwinslow]

The standard deviation is also going to be greater for players because the dealer isn't point to try and screw them over like he might with a random and gullible customer.

 

[Deety]

I'd ask to see where the actual money used to buy the car came from, but that's just me.

Well, we know the "free car" payments are going to a bank. Was there some report I missed that suggested someone else was paying for the cars? If not, how is that part of the issue with the cars' sales prices?

I recall supporting your assertion that regardless how stinky the Cam Newton situation appeared to be, the NCAA actions had to be based on factual information. That's the red flag to which I referred - their standards, not those of general fans. In Cam Newton's case, you chastised people for thinking how the situation looked to the public should matter, only what can be proved by the NCAA, and I supported that assertion. I would appreciate some consistency.

There may well be an issue here; none has yet been proven.

 

[Gatorubet]

Well, we know the "free car" payments are going to a bank. Was there some report I missed that suggested someone else was paying for the cars? If not, how is that part of the issue with the cars' sales prices?

You just changed the subject from looking at all transactions to one transaction that had the title listed as zero, only to be proved incorrect. Look, you said "there is only one clear way to see if those transactions were legitimate, which is to compare the acquisition cost with the sales price." That comparison would not provide 100% proof of being "legitimate" even if it looked good, IMO (given the existence of other means to give an advantage), nor would it be the "only" clear way. I'd be happy to agree with you if you said different quotes.

I recall supporting your assertion that regardless how stinky the Cam Newton situation appeared to be, the NCAA actions had to be based on factual information. That's the red flag to which I referred - their standards, not those of general fans. In Cam Newton's case, you chastised people for thinking how the situation looked to the public should matter, only what can be proved by the NCAA, and I supported that assertion. I would appreciate some consistency.

Show me where I'm declaring your guilt before the evidence is in like many here did about Cam? Hell, I said over and over again that I believe he was bought by Auburn, but that the evidence was not in yet. I've never said I thought you provided improper benefits to the players via the car dealer. Ever.

I happen to think it looks a little odd as a stand alone fact. Not damning or something that would make you auto assume impropriety....

Yep. I agree. Not saying there is something to it, but the fact of it being a virtual sales monopoly is an eyebrow raiser, if nothing more.

I put those words together for a reason. Assuming you guilty was not one of them.

 

[Deety]

You just changed the subject from looking at all transactions to one transaction that had the title listed as zero, only to be proved incorrect. Look, you said "there is only one clear way to see if those transactions were legitimate, which is to compare the acquisition cost with the sales price." That comparison would not provide 100% proof of being "legitimate" even if it looked good, IMO (given the existence of other means to give an advantage), nor would it be the "only" clear way. I'd be happy to agree with you if you said different quotes.

Sorry, no. You changed the subject to who was paying for the cars, which is in no way related to the topic at hand. I was challenging you to explain a connection, if any. Throwing in the only fact we have related to your new topic was my way of saying that the new topic, in addition to being irrelevant to the current discussion, was also silly.

Show me where I'm declaring your guilt before the evidence is in like many here did about Cam? Hell, I said over and over again that I believe he was bought by Auburn, but that the evidence was not in yet. I've never said I thought you provided improper benefits to the players via the car dealer. Ever.

I put those words together for a reason. Assuming you guilty was not one of them.

In which case we agree, so your "well it looks bad" responses were made to what end?

 

[Gatorubet]

Sorry, no. You changed the subject to who was paying for the cars, which is in no way related to the topic at hand. I was challenging you to explain a connection, if any. Throwing in the only fact we have related to your new topic was my way of saying that the new topic, in addition to being irrelevant to the current discussion, was also silly.

Silly? Stop stating stuff that's obviously untrue and I won't point out why what you say is obviously untrue. :p

In which case we agree, so your "well it looks bad" responses were made to what end?

To the end of pointing out the incorrect assertions in your posts that I quoted? (IMO, of course)

Your pattern of persistently posting perfunctory positive postulates produces predictably pugilistic and petulant reposts from me. It's Bucky Katt's fault, and why you won't admit that is beyond me.

And Deety, yes I WILL have another Margarita. :p

 

[Deety]

Silly? Stop stating stuff that's obviously untrue and I won't point out why what you say is obviously untrue. :p


To the end of pointing out the incorrect assertions in your posts that I quoted? (IMO, of course)

Your pattern of persistently posting perfunctory positive postulates produces predictably pugilistic and petulant reposts from me. It's Bucky Katt's fault, and why you won't admit that is beyond me.

And Deety, yes I WILL have another Margarita. :p

Good grief, Charlie Brown.

If anyone else would like to post in this thread, please do so. Quickly.

 

[cjmik_75]

Fuck this thread.

 

[WyoBuck]

In.

 

[bassbuckeye07]

The car was paid for by Huntington bank.....since then Thadius Gibson has been contractually obligated to make 1/60th of a payment every thirty days 60 times untill interest plus principle is paid in full or be reported to three different reporting agencies as derogatory and be subject to collection action up to and including wage garnishment.....so weird that there is an entire industry that does this to make profit

 

[Jaxbuck]

Yes, that would be a legitimate way to go about it, so long as you compared similar groups. College students as a group are going to get different deals than people with six figure incomes because their needs, demands, and resources will be different. I just don't see any chance of this sort of analysis actually happening, while it may be possible to get the dealership to release acquisition costs to the NCAA (probably not publicly) as a way to get out of this mess.

No acquisition costs would be needed, just full retail from a black book for each month and a copy of each buyers order the dealership sent to the state for title work.

The size of the population would determine the statistical significance of the findings.

The standard deviation is also going to be greater for players because the dealer isn't point to try and screw them over like he might with a random and gullible customer.

Based on the several hundred dealers I've known over the years I'd be willing to bet a fair amount this dealer isn't as magnanimous toward the players as you may think but like I said, everything would be baked into the numbers if the population was large enough. The players sample's discount was X, the public's was Y. There would be no debate.

If I had the data I could simply tell you the x and Y. I could also tell you if it was statistically significant but I could not tell you the motives behind the discount discrepancy (if one existed). That would be left to the NCAA investigators/lawyers but common sense starts to narrow down plausible explanations pretty quickly if a significant discrepancy did in fact exist.

Besides, your cause for a bigger std dev is exactly what we don't want to see proven-the dealer giving a price break because the customer is an OSU athlete as a matter of policy.

 

[BayBuck]

Yep. I agree. Not saying there is something to it, but the fact of it being a virtual sales monopoly is an eyebrow raiser, if nothing more.

Where are you getting the wider set of data that suggests this is a 'virtual sales monopoly'? Were there really only 50-60 cars sold to this particular group during whatever time frame is being alleged here? There have been hundreds of football players and other OSU athletes and their family members in the car market over the past decade...