Breaking: NCAA Investigations could begin soon
- Thread starter HRTheCard
- Start date
Last I checked the only school around here suspending multiple players for taking payments and receiving impermisssble benefits was ku.
Please please feel free to correct me with FACTUAL evidence of it happening at Duke and U.K.
And before you come back with some stupid ass retort from the 90s I’m referring to the one and done era since that’s what the fbi scope is encompassing.
Here’s a hint little fella, you won’t find anything
So please continue trying to lump your scandal filled payment receiving illegal benefit players with other schools tif it makes you feel better, little fella.
Lol. Yes..I will lump them together because that's reality. Anyone who is not insane, incredibly biased or twelve years old would admit this.
Strange. You seemed to imply or outright admit that players are being paid everywhere. Now you're back to pointing the finger at a few. Are you a trolling hypocrite?
Spoiler alert
KU gets accomplishments from last year’s stricken from the record book
The middleweights in the investigation get a few postseason bans
The lightweights get as close to the DP as you can get
The assistants in the investigation get “lifetime bans” as if anyone would touch them after this
The head coaches get suspended for next year’s non conference schedule with pay
End of day some small programs will bear the brunt of the backlash, KU will get some things taken away from them that no one cares about with no money being given back from cashing in on those events, and some students will lose their scholarships.
KU gets accomplishments from last year’s stricken from the record book
The middleweights in the investigation get a few postseason bans
The lightweights get as close to the DP as you can get
The assistants in the investigation get “lifetime bans” as if anyone would touch them after this
The head coaches get suspended for next year’s non conference schedule with pay
End of day some small programs will bear the brunt of the backlash, KU will get some things taken away from them that no one cares about with no money being given back from cashing in on those events, and some students will lose their scholarships.
Literally untrue re: educating me (lol), and you are basing that solely because I did not mention the Rush brothers in a post. But the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so you can stop pretending that you informed me of anything that I did not already know. I was and am quite informed on the Piggie situation.
And for the, what, 5th time you yet again misstate my opinion by saying I want to "take advantage of something you thought was wrong." How much clearer could I be than saying the new rule is better? My only issue, as I have repeatedly stated, is that the NCAA changed the rule in the middle of an investigation and did not follow their own precedent. What I would like here, as always, is for 1) the application of the current rule (which I like), and 2) the NCAA not to change the rules in the middle of an investigation. That is, and always has been, consistent.
Look, I get that your (apparent) learning disability prevents you from comprehending what I am clearly stating, and for that you have my pity. But instead of repeatedly and egregiously misstating my opinion, why don't you just use the quote function next time? It will save a lot of hassle. Thanks in advance.
Edit: I didn't really mean to come of harsh, but you're either deliberately twisting what I say or just unable to comprehend it. Either way, it's pretty frustrating and akin to educating a toddler. I tagged you in the first post in this thread playfully, and you responded with a load of horsesh!t, so I feel compelled to respond in kind. Have a great day, kid.
Edit 2: I argued against some UNC apologist in 2015 about how the NCAA handles precedent and linked several articles about the Piggie situation. At least one link still works, and it mentions the other players involved. I am well aware of Piggie and the complete story.
Last edited:
^ the precedent was that a school vacated games (and a % of tournament money) if it was determined a player was ineligible, even if the institution was not aware (i.e. strict liability). Strict liability was the hook for vacating games/money in prior situations, including Chris Webber and Marcus Camby (although in those cases the payments happened in college, not high school, which for amateur considerations is irrelevant).
However, for the Piggie situation, the NCAA did not apply strict liability, and the punishment was that the players would have to sit X number of games (based on how much they took, IIRC). Since Maggette, who in a sworn statement admitted to accepting money, was already in the NBA, Duke was not punished at all, and the Rush brothers (and I think another guy) sat out some games. The Duke non-punishment wasn't ruled on until 2004 (the NCAA had Duke's investigation results and Maggette's testimony ~ 2001; whether you draw conclusions from this or not it looked fishy enough that there are columns by national writers about it), and the rationale for not applying strict liability was that Duke was not aware of Maggette's eligibility issue when he played. But there was no indication that either Missouri or UCLA knew, either, yet they faced the sanction of having their players forced to sit out, and UCLA forfeited its NCAA Tournament money (but I don't think the single NCAA Tournament game, a loss, itself).
Now you might be thinking, "Big_Blue79, you're a lawyer, so surely you're aware of the knew or should have known standard, which might have provided the distinction here." I am aware of that common legal standard (and as I've stated I think it's fine to use in such situations), but I don't think that does much work here because in 2000 the NCAA's spokesperson stated that precedent for an ineligible athlete where the university didn't know is forfeiture of games and the return of a % of revenue. So the (at least apparent) change was from strict liability to whether the university knew or should have known (only that doesn't account for UCLA's forfeiture of $45k and assumes that a player missing games is not a form of punishment, both of which are difficult to swallow).
All this feeds into the common perception that the NCAA protects its favorites. That's not just a "lol you hate Duke thing," because we're all aware of the common trope of "Kentucky cheated, watch out Cleveland State!" that Coach Tark famously advocated (yes, I'm aware of, and generally reject, the UK fan persecution complex, although Pete Thamel can EAD). Bringing this all to a close, the "spat" between me and Q stems from my post saying that Kansas will likely not have to forfeit games because in situations where a player received money before college and played at a blue blood program, there is no forfeiture of games even where the NCAA ignores its own precedent to make it so (i.e. the common perception). The rest has just been him misstating my position and me painstakingly trying to correct him.
However, for the Piggie situation, the NCAA did not apply strict liability, and the punishment was that the players would have to sit X number of games (based on how much they took, IIRC). Since Maggette, who in a sworn statement admitted to accepting money, was already in the NBA, Duke was not punished at all, and the Rush brothers (and I think another guy) sat out some games. The Duke non-punishment wasn't ruled on until 2004 (the NCAA had Duke's investigation results and Maggette's testimony ~ 2001; whether you draw conclusions from this or not it looked fishy enough that there are columns by national writers about it), and the rationale for not applying strict liability was that Duke was not aware of Maggette's eligibility issue when he played. But there was no indication that either Missouri or UCLA knew, either, yet they faced the sanction of having their players forced to sit out, and UCLA forfeited its NCAA Tournament money (but I don't think the single NCAA Tournament game, a loss, itself).
Now you might be thinking, "Big_Blue79, you're a lawyer, so surely you're aware of the knew or should have known standard, which might have provided the distinction here." I am aware of that common legal standard (and as I've stated I think it's fine to use in such situations), but I don't think that does much work here because in 2000 the NCAA's spokesperson stated that precedent for an ineligible athlete where the university didn't know is forfeiture of games and the return of a % of revenue. So the (at least apparent) change was from strict liability to whether the university knew or should have known (only that doesn't account for UCLA's forfeiture of $45k and assumes that a player missing games is not a form of punishment, both of which are difficult to swallow).
All this feeds into the common perception that the NCAA protects its favorites. That's not just a "lol you hate Duke thing," because we're all aware of the common trope of "Kentucky cheated, watch out Cleveland State!" that Coach Tark famously advocated (yes, I'm aware of, and generally reject, the UK fan persecution complex, although Pete Thamel can EAD). Bringing this all to a close, the "spat" between me and Q stems from my post saying that Kansas will likely not have to forfeit games because in situations where a player received money before college and played at a blue blood program, there is no forfeiture of games even where the NCAA ignores its own precedent to make it so (i.e. the common perception). The rest has just been him misstating my position and me painstakingly trying to correct him.
Commitment to.............Who, Indiana? Or an Adidas school? BTW, Adidas paying Tim(Romeo's dad) to coach an Adidas AAU circuit team is totally legal. Shady? Perhaps. But legal. NOW...If said arrangement was made with the understanding Romeo ws to go to Indiana? Now we have a problem.
So what Archie is the brother of Sean. Ok. I mean Archie is also great, very close friends with Cal. Family friends MOF. Hell, Sean, Archie and Cal basically grew up together. So I mean maybe it(cheating) all started then? During their childhood...In a tree house.
Maybe?
If I were UL or even KU, I'd be worried. Testimony under oath stated those guys either offered money (KU) or outright game money (UL) to recruits. UL being a repeat offender stands to be the one to take it balls deep.
Expect KU to have to fire at least one assistant and may end up having to part ways with the rug doctor.
Expect KU to have to fire at least one assistant and may end up having to part ways with the rug doctor.
I’m sure it will drag out through the season and much longer.
“I don’t understand why everybody is trying to make something of it. Clearly, in the article, (Dawkins) said he planned (to pay players). ‘Planned’ means that’s what he wanted to do. We don’t know this guy. We never met this fool a day in our life”. - Ashton Hagans father Marvin on the connection to agent Christian Dawkins.
Laughing
Laughing
I have no doubt the NCAA will do everything in their power to drag this out. That's what sucks about this whole thing.
I have not seen this discussed anywhere, but seems Miami is holding out a 5*, Dewan Hernandez, because his name was mentioned in the FBI report along with 18 other names. Not sure why Miami is holding this player out unless they know he did actually take money?
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-ba...hernandez-miami-held-ncaa-reviews-eligibility
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-ba...hernandez-miami-held-ncaa-reviews-eligibility
Similar threads
