ADVERTISEMENT

FBI wiretap audio released

But we KNOW the shady people involved were concerned because the family wasn’t for sale. I don’t feel like that is a debatable part of this story. So, again, just not seeing where this is making any sense tbh.
Ok, I don't really care because if someone offered me $150k to go to Arizona or Miami and bang coeds I'd say yes please.

I would as well. But we know his family said no to this. It was kind of a big part of the story last week.
 
The MAJOR thing you’re missing (many tend to because they hate Duke and don’t really care about ALL of the facts) is that players from UCLA and Missouri also took money. What happened was by the time it came out, Maggette was in the NBA and the other players were still in school. They were allowed to pay the money back and missed a few games because of the amount they took. There was no way for the NCAA to punish Maggette and they couldn’t punish Duke since this happened before he came to Duke without Duke’s knowledge.

I really wish K would have held Maggette back (insider) and he would have paid the money back like the other players, who never gets mentioned.

:rolleyes:

I wasn't "missing" that at all, and it is irrelevant to the point I made. The precedent at the time was forfeiture of games and resulting money. The NCAA (rightly or wrongly) changed how they would handle such cases (I might point out here that the NCAA waited over four years between Maggette admitting receiving payments and the NCAA issuing a ruling, apparently because it was still investigating after having all the information from the school and the player. Insert LucilleBluthWiking.gif). They decided to change the punishment for cases where a player was paid and the school did not know, applied that punishment retroatively to Missouri and UCLA, and handed Duke no consequences because that new punishment regime (which was not the precedent) could not be applied to them (retroactively).

This isn't remotely controversial, either. It's in the article I linked: "Precedent for situations in which an ineligible athlete played in a postseason game and the university was unaware of the violations calls for the school to return 45 percent of its game revenue and give up any title it won, spokeswoman Jane Jankowski said."

See also: "What if the precedent for such an offense called for the embarrassing forfeiture of games and the stripping of a Final Four appearance?"

The only controversial part is whether the NCAA should have changed the rule. I think the new punishment regime is better, frankly, but the undisputed facts make the NCAA look like it was changing the rule specifically so it's perceived golden child would not get punishment. It's at the very least horrible optics.
 
Ok, I don't really care because if someone offered me $150k to go to Arizona or Miami and bang coeds I'd say yes please.
tenor.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: tw3301
:rolleyes:

I wasn't "missing" that at all, and it is irrelevant to the point I made. The precedent at the time was forfeiture of games and resulting money. The NCAA (rightly or wrongly) changed how they would handle such cases (I might point out here that the NCAA waited over four years between Maggette admitting receiving payments and the NCAA issuing a ruling, apparently because it was still investigating after having all the information from the school and the player. Insert LucilleBluthWiking.gif). They decided to change the punishment for cases where a player was paid and the school did not know, applied that punishment retroatively to Missouri and UCLA, and handed Duke no consequences because that new punishment regime (which was not the precedent) could not be applied to them (retroactively).

This isn't remotely controversial, either. It's in the article I linked: "Precedent for situations in which an ineligible athlete played in a postseason game and the university was unaware of the violations calls for the school to return 45 percent of its game revenue and give up any title it won, spokeswoman Jane Jankowski said."

See also: "What if the precedent for such an offense called for the embarrassing forfeiture of games and the stripping of a Final Four appearance?"

The only controversial part is whether the NCAA should have changed the rule. I think the new punishment regime is better, frankly, but the undisputed facts make the NCAA look like it was changing the rule specifically so it's perceived golden child would not get punishment. It's at the very least horrible optics.

AGAIN, if Maggette was a sophomore this wouldn’t be an issue. Quick, who were the other two players that also received money and what happened to them? From Maggette’s AAU team?

Your bias of “Golden child” let’s me know you don’t care for ALL and the facts; you just think Duke got away with something your precious Cal didn’t.
 
AGAIN, if Maggette was a sophomore this wouldn’t be an issue. Quick, who were the other two players that also received money and what happened to them? From Maggette’s AAU team?

Your bias of “Golden child” let’s me know you don’t care for ALL and the facts; you just think Duke got away with something your precious Cal didn’t.

It was the Rush brothers (although I think there were others). And you are clearly not understanding what the issue is. I'm not disputing that Duke could not be punished under the new punishment regime; I'm saying the NCAA changed the punishment in the middle of their 4-year investigation. Under the old punishment regime, Duke would have forfeited games. That's a fact. The NCAA changed the punishment while its 4-year investigation of Duke (and others) was pending. That's also a fact. That change meant that instead of having to forfeit games, Duke received zero punishment because Maggette was in the NBA. That's another fact. Not one bit of that is disputable.

The word "perceived" was deliberately used, and it has meaning. I said "perceived golden child" because that is and was the perception of the general public; my view has nothing to do with that, and surely you're not so daft as to not know that the public views Duke as the NCAA's "golden child."
 
  • Like
Reactions: kl40504
It was the Rush brothers (although I think there were others). And you are clearly not understanding what the issue is. I'm not disputing that Duke could not be punished under the new punishment regime; I'm saying the NCAA changed the punishment in the middle of their 4-year investigation. Under the old punishment regime, Duke would have forfeited games. That's a fact. The NCAA changed the punishment while its 4-year investigation of Duke (and others) was pending. That's also a fact. That change meant that instead of having to forfeit games, Duke received zero punishment because Maggette was in the NBA. That's another fact. Not one bit of that is disputable.

The word "perceived" was deliberately used, and it has meaning. I said "perceived golden child" because that is and was the perception of the general public; my view has nothing to do with that, and surely you're not so daft as to not know that the public views Duke as the NCAA's "golden child."

No you’re missing the point. HAD Maggette returned to Duke his sophomore year, LIKE the other players, he would have sat out and paid the money back. None of the games were forfeited that the other players played in. Why? Because they returned to school, returned the money and sat out some games.

Now, why would the NCAA punish Duke for something they said Duke didn’t have any knowledge about. Yes, it *looks* like Duke got away with something because Maggette was NEVER punished, but when you look at the entire ENTIRE situation (because everyone less than smart assumed this was a Maggette ONLY situation) and you will see that there was NO way they could punish Duke.

Now, had they forfeited UCLA and Missouri’s season AND made the players pay the money back + sit some games and DIDNT do ANYTHING to Duke, then you’re argument would hold more weight. But it doesn’t because the other schools weren’t punished and therefore the NCAA couldn’t punish Duke and couldn’t punish Maggette since he was in the NBA.

Opposing fans will scream murder but don’t realize the entirety of the situation. Almost 20 years later and folks will still feel like Duke got away with something despite not (or don’t care) about all of the facts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dattier
No you’re missing the point. HAD Maggette returned to Duke his sophomore year, LIKE the other players, he would have sat out and paid the money back. None of the games were forfeited that the other players played in. Why? Because they returned to school, returned the money and sat out some games.

Now, why would the NCAA punish Duke for something they said Duke didn’t have any knowledge about. Yes, it *looks* like Duke got away with something because Maggette was NEVER punished, but when you look at the entire ENTIRE situation (because everyone less than smart assumed this was a Maggette ONLY situation) and you will see that there was NO way they could punish Duke.

Now, had they forfeited UCLA and Missouri’s season AND made the players pay the money back + sit some games and DIDNT do ANYTHING to Duke, then you’re argument would hold more weight. But it doesn’t because the other schools weren’t punished and therefore the NCAA couldn’t punish Duke and couldn’t punish Maggette since he was in the NBA.

Opposing fans will scream murder but don’t realize the entirety of the situation. Almost 20 years later and folks will still feel like Duke got away with something despite not (or don’t care) about all of the facts.

To demonstrate the stupidity of your response, let's respond to the bolded part, which is the central question to answer. None of the games were forfeited because the NCAA changed the rules during the middle of an investigation. Under the old rules, all schools forfeit the games with the ineligible players. Under the new rules, none of the schools forfeit games with the ineligible players. The change benefited Duke. That you ignore that and focus on Maggette going to the NBA, as if it was always the case and the rules were not changed, shows you're hopelessly dimwitted, irrevocably biased, or both.
 
Amazing that Dick Vitale can’t keep Arizona Basketball off his mind. That wrinkled balls, dillusional has been,should focus his efforts on reporting facts and not his personal vendetta for Coach Miller. I under stand he has a man crush on Coach K and Self, but come on at some point his obvious biases become painful to take. ESPN has become a joke as well!
 
To demonstrate the stupidity of your response, let's respond to the bolded part, which is the central question to answer. None of the games were forfeited because the NCAA changed the rules during the middle of an investigation. Under the old rules, all schools forfeit the games with the ineligible players. Under the new rules, none of the schools forfeit games with the ineligible players. The change benefited Duke. That you ignore that and focus on Maggette going to the NBA, as if it was always the case and the rules were not changed, shows you're hopelessly dimwitted, irrevocably biased, or both.

So, the NCAA changed a rule that benefitted Duke, UCLA and Missouri.

WHY ARENT YOU GETTING THIS?
 
So, the NCAA changed a rule that benefitted Duke, UCLA and Missouri.

WHY ARENT YOU GETTING THIS?

Thanks for finally acknowledging what I've been saying all along. Why did it take so many reasoned posts for you to acknowledge the equivalent of "2+2=4?" You tried to hard to control the narrative here that you just ended up looking foolish. The first sentence here could have been your first and only post on the issue. I'm not even going to try to engage you on any discussion on the optics of this because I don't have the patience to keep you on track.
 
Thanks for finally acknowledging what I've been saying all along. Why did it take so many reasoned posts for you to acknowledge the equivalent of "2+2=4?" You tried to hard to control the narrative here that you just ended up looking foolish. The first sentence here could have been your first and only post on the issue. I'm not even going to try to engage you on any discussion on the optics of this because I don't have the patience to keep you on track.

Because YEW tried to make it seem it was changed ONLY for Duke without acknowledging the entire situation that I had to explain to you. We get it; you hate Duke, you think they got away with [something] and you omit other details.
 
One thing I don't understand about the Little recruitment, why did he re-open his recruitment? He must have already silently given a verbal to a school - why else would he have a need to re-open his commitment?

 
  • Like
Reactions: lurkeraspect84
One thing I don't understand about the Little recruitment, why did he re-open his recruitment? He must have already silently given a verbal to a school - why else would he have a need to re-open his commitment?

He was going to Arizona, forgot that he hadn't publicly committed, then his handler got busted and he went to UNC. He had no idea about the $150k that his handler was getting, just a coincidence, wish the media would quit dragging the poor kid's name through the mud.
 
He was going to Arizona, forgot that he hadn't publicly committed, then his handler got busted and he went to UNC. He had no idea about the $150k that his handler was getting, just a coincidence, wish the media would quit dragging the poor kid's name through the mud.
Classic case of victim blaming if I've ever seen one!
 
He was going to Arizona, forgot that he hadn't publicly committed, then his handler got busted and he went to UNC. He had no idea about the $150k that his handler was getting, just a coincidence, wish the media would quit dragging the poor kid's name through the mud.

So then how do you know for sure he was going to AZ? Just curious.
 
One thing I don't understand about the Little recruitment, why did he re-open his recruitment? He must have already silently given a verbal to a school - why else would he have a need to re-open his commitment?


Interview came out from his dad that stated he was resetting his recruitment, not reopening. He said the tweet was a Poor word choice by a 17 year old.

And if I’m him, with a brand, I’m tweeting something too... it’s another way of saying “Yeah, this AZ sh*t is busted.. f*k that, I’m dropping them.”
 
Cut the shady lawyer bull shit ....... lets talk common sense. The evidence shows that there was a bidding war going on for Little....

how was his AAU coach going to get Little to go to the school that offered that coach the money? This is where the lie breaks down

The NCAA wont touch UNC but if they had balls ... they could get Little to sit outjust on that logic alone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kl40504
So then how do you know for sure he was going to AZ? Just curious.
That's who was paying him. In all seriousness he tweeted that as soon as the Sean Miller stuff broke then deleted it, pretty widely accepted that AZ was going to be his destination.
 
Yes, 'Zona was going to be his destination. Then when they seemed to be in trouble he didn't want any part of it. Sounds kind of like saying one guy would go to a place when other places were offering him money and housing. Seems some have said that lately.
 
That's who was paying him. In all seriousness he tweeted that as soon as the Sean Miller stuff broke then deleted it, pretty widely accepted that AZ was going to be his destination.

Lol I think you’re reaching, bud. You’re ignoring The actual evidence/testimony proving that you’re wrong. But as you are a rival fan of UNC along with the fact that the family of a player playing for duke is on record actually asking for money, I can understand how you want this Little thing to be true.
 
Lol I think you’re reaching, bud. You’re ignoring The actual evidence/testimony proving that you’re wrong. But as you are a rival fan of UNC along with the fact that the family of a player playing for duke is on record actually asking for money, I can understand how you want this Little thing to be true.
I'm actually just ****ing around and no one attending Duke is on record asking for money. Also not reaching, see Cory's post... He was going to zona before the shit hit the fan. Really not a big deal, he committed to the school that wasn't accused of trying to buy him.
 
Williamson and Little are already representing the ACC, and hopefully will going forward. Can't wait to watch them play.
 
He was going to Arizona, forgot that he hadn't publicly committed, then his handler got busted and he went to UNC. He had no idea about the $150k that his handler was getting, just a coincidence, wish the media would quit dragging the poor kid's name through the mud.

Interview came out from his dad that stated he was resetting his recruitment, not reopening. He said the tweet was a Poor word choice by a 17 year old.

And if I’m him, with a brand, I’m tweeting something too... it’s another way of saying “Yeah, this AZ sh*t is busted.. f*k that, I’m dropping them.”

He did sign an affidavit, so I'll take his word for it.

But, Little himself said he was re-opening his recruitment, and he committed to UNC 9 days later. On top of that, he apparently said it was UNC all along... Just seems odd to me.

 
ADVERTISEMENT