There was only a handful of college basketball games played Friday, and that probably was for the best. IUPUI pulled an upset of Wright State that might have delivered the Horizon League title to Northern Kentucky. Rhode Island continued its dominance of the Atlantic 10. Ohio State won in the cauldron of Indiana’s Assembly Hall – in double overtime, on a buzzer-beating 3-pointer by guard C.J. Jackson.

All of that was lost in the storm of revelations by Yahoo! Sports and ESPN, each of which obtained information relating to the Justice Department case against several men connected to the sport – and business -- of basketball.

NCAA BASKETBALL: Latest news, reactions from FBI investigation

Pat Forde and Pete Thamel of Yahoo! reported that documents obtained in a search of agent Andy Miller’s headquarters revealed a series of loans to former college players that were dated such that the players, if they indeed accepted the money, would have been ineligible for NCAA competition. There also were citations that family members of current players might have accepted funds.

ESPN’s Mark Schlabach reported sources told him an FBI wiretap caught Arizona coach Sean Miller discussing a potential payment to secure a commitment from current freshman star Deandre Ayton.

There were many reactions to these developments, some extremely important and valid. (If you can, read Brian Hamilton’s excellent piece in The Fieldhouse about Wichita State’s Fred Van Vleet.

These, however, are some essential points you are unlikely to have encountered elsewhere:

1. The worst part of this scandal remains the charges against a few assistant coaches that they were paid to steer athletes to particular agents or money managers. This is the part of the case that too often has been lost in the concern over college basketball’s future or the sex appeal of prospects allegedly being delivered to particular schools in exchange for large payments.

The original complaint from the U.S. Attorney for New York’s Southern District claimed Auburn’s Chuck Person, who was being paid well into six figures as a Tigers assistant coach, accepted $91,500 in exchange for promising to direct prospects to work with a financial manager who was a cooperating witness with the Justice Department.

MORE: Arizona's Sean Miller was caught on tape discussing payment for Deandre Ayton, report says

Person was not alone in being charged with this conduct.

There is no action that has been made public in any documents either released by the Justice Department or leaked to news outlets that is as disturbing as this. This one has actual human victims, young people who ought to be able to trust their coaches to have their best interests in mind.

2. The worst part of Friday’s stories is that the eligibility of so many players was, according to the leaked documents, put at risk for loans from agents. Not grants or payments or free cars or whatever. For loans. According to the documents, ASM was loaning money to help secure future representation agreements with the players who still were competing as collegians or were on their way to doing so.

The principal presumably then would be collected from the player’s earnings once he signed a professional contract and began gaining income with endorsements.

It’s another way these players were victimized. The athlete takes most or all of the risk in the transaction.

3. It’s never been more obvious that these sorts of decisions are made above the players’ heads. There are multiple references in the Yahoo! article to meetings held with family members, or even “handlers”, of elite young basketball players. The NCAA almost always has chosen to operate under the assumption the athlete should be held responsible for the actions of those around him or her.

MORE: Prominent NBA players weigh in on whether NCAA players should be paid

What if those people don’t act responsibly, though? Why does anyone believe the parent or guardian or family friend would inherently act in the athlete’s best interest?

It’s clear from past incidents that some of those close to some elite athletes have little regard for the value of NCAA eligibility. You get caught? Oh, well. Turn pro. You don’t get caught? You get some of the pro money ahead of time. Who cares if it must be paid back? That’s the player’s problem.

4. The other disappointing element to roll through Friday’s news cycle was NCAA president Mark Emmert’s hard-line statement in response to the revelations:

“These allegations, if true, point to systemic failures that must be fixed and fixed now if we want college sports in America. Simply put, people who engage in this kind of behavior have no place college sports. They are an affront to all those who play by the rules.”

Here's what’s wrong with this: Most of those who “engage in this kind of behavior” aren’t IN college sports. The agents, runners, family members, handlers – they’re not working for colleges or playing for colleges. So when Emmert then goes on in his statement to cite the work of his Independent Commission on College Basketball as “more important now than ever,” he is demonstrating again that he and his group are unlikely to repair the issues in the sport because they likely won’t understand what the issues are. Emmert promises “transformational” changes. But it seems unlikely they will move in the direction of addressing the two most obvious issues with the college game.

The first issue: Does amateurism work in the current environment, and can it be effectively enforced even if the answer is yes?

The second: Is there any logical reason why athletes in basketball should not be allowed agency representation while they are collegians? Baseball players always have been permitted “advisers” when coping with the entry draft process. This was expanded in January to include hockey players. The prohibition against representation is antiquated and illogical.

5. It’s not impossible that a some or a lot of what is present in the documents is unsupported in reality. Seriously, if you’re seeking reimbursement for a loan or gift to a player’s family member, you’re not turning in a receipt.

That could explain why many of the current athletes mentioned in the Yahoo! report apparently will not be sent through the NCAA’s eligibility reinstatement process.

MORE: Kentucky basketball addresses allegations of rules violations

6. If you’re still blaming this on “one-and-done,” you’re lost. At least two of the athletes cited as accepting significant loans were multi-year college players who became second-round NBA draft picks. One connected to a small gift was a four-year college star who went undrafted at the end of his college career who since has played two seasons in the league.

Thus the only way to chase this circumstance entirely out of the game, assuming that’s a not a delusional goal, would be to field teams with no players of any professional promise whatsoever.

7. It is rough on the athletes who merely met or dined with agents to put them in the same category as those who accepted five-figure loans.

It may not be clear as a result, but it is not against NCAA rules for a player or his family members to meet or dine with agents or financial managers. In the event the agent picked up the check, the athlete would have a short-term issue that would require an equivalent charitable donation to regain eligibility. But even Emmert was on CBS before Saturday’s Louisville-Virginia Tech game downplaying such circumstances.

8. This is not a college basketball issue. This is a basketball issue. It impacts the game at all levels, from high school and AAU through college and into the NBA. All have concerns and responsibilities that result from this.

The NBA? It needs to protect its current players and its future talent from those who would take advantage in a variety of ways.

The high schools and summer teams? Where do you think all of this begins?

It is college basketball that has the greatest problem, though, because it is trying to achieve the most daring balance. The game’s pratfall Friday was a demonstration it no longer can maintain this highwire act.