#1 ranked recruit being investigated for improper benefits

[CABUFan]

This column says that UCLA even knew about the money being given tot he kid...

http://www.ocregister.com/ucla/fallout-608097-honeycutt-likely.html

That is a pretty misleading way to characterize an article that indicates UCLA did everything right, including by immediately reporting the potential violations to the NCAA as soon as it became aware of them:

"Twice, UCLA was alerted of the benefits ??“ first by Lookofsky in 2011, and then by a reporter in February. In both instances, UCLA immediately reported the potential violation to the Pac-12 Conference and the NCAA. In 2011, an investigation into the allegations ended after four months when Lookofsky, Honeycutt and any other parties involved refused to cooperate. In February, according to a statement from Athletic Director Dan Guerrero, UCLA and the NCAA both reached out again to Lookofsky for an interview but were rebuffed."

[tornado]

so -- they knew about the benefits - just because nobody cooperated and everyone else looked the other way -
I certainly don't see that as a legit alibi for why UCLA still took the kid, played him, and pretended nothing wrong ever happened...but then I guess it's the status quo out there....
I remember the case of Renardo Sydney - a kid that UCLA thought was worth putting up in a nice house in California as they tried to find a way to get him eligible.
Ultimately they couldn't so when he was deemed ineligible UCLA dropped him and the story of his freebie luxury home came to light.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/20/sports/sp-sidney-ucla20

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=4137169

[CABUFan]

so -- they knew about the benefits - just because nobody cooperated and everyone else looked the other way -
I certainly don't see that as a legit alibi for why UCLA still took the kid, played him, and pretended nothing wrong ever happened...

Again, not accurate. Your link says "Lookofsky contacted former coach Ben Howland in spring 2011 after Honeycutt signed with another agent before the NBA draft. Howland then alerted administrators, and the NCAA soon launched an investigation."

So there is no evidence UCLA knew anything about any impermissble benefits at the time they played him, let alone when they took him (2010-11 was his sophmore and final season at UCLA). To the contrary, they appear to have alerted the NCAA and opened an investigation as soon as they were alerted to the fact something was wrong (which was after he had declared for the draft and ended his UCLA career).

The insinutation that he was paid to go to UCLA is also misleading, given that the person who claims to have made them doesn't appear to be a booster or connected to the school in any way, but rather is a sports agent who was hoping to represent him after school.

[tornado]

it doesn't matter who pays him one tiny bit --
Remember - there isn't the tiniest hint that Bradley ever paid Patrick O'Bryant but the NCAA attacked like a bat out of *** when they sniffed the possibility that O'Bryant maybe got money from anyone while he was an athlete.

If the kid got payments from anyone, it was a violation and it would have been the responsibility of UCLA even if they used the alibi that they didn't know...
remember - Bradley didn't know and the NCAA said that was NOT an allowable alibi.

BUT - getting paid by an agent is actually one of the most serious offenses of any possible because it does give UCLA a huge advantage if any other recruits then know they have a better chance of cashing in - so they'd gravitate to UCLA - whoa - what a RECRUITING ADVANTAGE!!

But worse - it then makes the kid a professional and thus he is an ineligible athlete and so all the games he played in should be forfeited --
we likely won't ever see that unless we have the "Reggie-Bush-like" uproar in the media that forced NCAA to act against USC...

Nope - expect this one to drop into oblivion like most cheating scandals a the big schools....the NCAA would be happy if it just went away as quick as possible.

[CABUFan]

I did not argue there is no problem with receiving payments from an agent. Obviously that is a violation and would have made him ineligible. But it is absurd to claim "it doesn't matter who pays him one tiny bit." Do you really think there is no difference between a school that knowingly pays a player, and one that unknowingly plays a player who received improper payments from someone completely unconnected to the school? I suspect that Bradley would have been hit a lot harder if POB had been given cash by the coaching staff.

I don't follow your logic regarding a supposed recruiting advantage. I have seen nothing indicating Honeycutt was paid because he was at UCLA. Presumably, the agent who supposedly paid him would have given him the same no matter where he was going to school. He got paid (assuming the agent's story is true) because he was a NBA prospect, not because of anything having to do with the school.

[tornado]

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/campusrivalry/post/2012/03/ncaa-rules-on-north-carolinas-football-penalties/1#.Uz6OS_ldVoQ

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000238710/article/greg-little-admits-to-being-paid-by-agent-while-at-north-carolina

I agree that coaches giving players money is a violation, too..but that's irrelevant to original argument that players taking $$ from agents is also an NCAA violation.

UNC was given serious penalties and post-season ban for having players paid by an agent. If the focus of the debate has now shifted to what NCAA violations are worse than others, then I don't really care, but making the argument that UCLA is innocent because they knew nothing about it just doesn't wash in every other such case the NCAA has acted on.
(plus, I remain a skeptic when they claim they don't know as the players drive Hummers)

But they don't always seem interested in acting - and this North Carolina case is another such example where the NCAA only acted interested after a long series of articles exposed the cheating and NCAA was embarrassed & forced to act.