Louisville files Appeal - Full

Discussion in 'College Basketball Board' started by HRTheCard, Aug 11, 2017.

  1. HRTheCard

    HRTheCard Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2016
    Messages:
    7,027
    Likes Received:
    5,491
    http://www.courier-journal.com/stor...s-infractions-appeal-response-ncaa/559876001/

    Thought I would go ahead and post this since someone else will.

    "U of L expanded on that point, saying one student-athlete left the room before any stripteases began; one was shielded by NCAA immunity in exchange for his testimony; and one received benefits below the NCAA's restitution threshold.

    "Even if these student-athletes were technically ineligible, they would unquestionably have been reinstated," the appeal said. "If nothing else, the (appeals committee) should reverse the COI’s decision to erase these two seasons of play in their entirety."

    To back that argument, U of L's appeal points to the example of a player who was still competing for the Cards when the allegations were first revealed, in the fall of 2015.

    U of L said it filed a petition for reinstatement after learning of the misconduct, which was valued at $205. The NCAA restored the student-athlete's eligibility "without any loss of competition," the appeal said, and the player was required to perform 20 hours of community service and attend an on-campus program "about respecting women and the dangers of high risk behavior."

    The school said it would accept several other penalties, including the NCAA's docking of four men's basketball scholarships over the next four years; a $5,000 institutional fine; and a requirement that prospects on unofficial visits stay off-campus."
     
    tkejones likes this.
  2. ALL IN YOUR FACE

    ALL IN YOUR FACE Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    Messages:
    821
    Likes Received:
    823
    Good post OP
     
    HRTheCard and Clive Gollings like this.
  3. lurkeraspect84

    lurkeraspect84 Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2014
    Messages:
    23,124
    Likes Received:
    18,780
  4. HRTheCard

    HRTheCard Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2016
    Messages:
    7,027
    Likes Received:
    5,491
    Louisville's claim that the ineligible players would've been reinstated proves to be somewhat true as a player in 2015 who was involved, was reinstated to play after UofL filed a reinstatement.
     
  5. lurkeraspect84

    lurkeraspect84 Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2014
    Messages:
    23,124
    Likes Received:
    18,780
    Did UL file a "reinstatement" for the ineligible player? If not, he's still ineligible.
     
  6. jarms24

    jarms24 Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    19,292
    Likes Received:
    10,311
    I thought the COI addressed the restitution threshold topic by saying that the nature of the violation essentially made that a non factor.
     
    csrupp and Blue_White_KY like this.
  7. UKBrassowTipIN

    UKBrassowTipIN Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,286
    Likes Received:
    1,385
    Claiming punishment for whores is "draconian".....always the victim
     
  8. Shawn (uk7spd)

    Shawn (uk7spd) Well-Known Member
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,322
    Likes Received:
    37,277
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    The problem with the reinstatement argument, which is still a necessary and somewhat persuasive argument, is that the example player may not have (and likely was not) involved in the more egregious acts. But I get it. Louisville is arguing, understandably, that they should be punished badly for what happened overall, but that the vacation of games and money is a separate issue that revolves solely around the ineligibility of players -- i.e., it should not turn on how bad the actual violations were by the school.

    I don't think that will fly in the end because of the scale of this, the nature, and the fact that no matter how much you speculate about what would have happened the players still played while technically ineligible. What Louisville's argument does is open a huge can of worms where so long as a player is not caught until after they have finished playing, then they and the school can never be punished for playing while ineligible. I can't see how the NCAA will allow that to become the precedent. And if Louisville concedes that some games should be vacated, but not all, then how on earth do you determine what games should be vacated? That would be a completely arbitrary and useless exercise.
     
    csrupp and tw3301 like this.
  9. HRTheCard

    HRTheCard Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2016
    Messages:
    7,027
    Likes Received:
    5,491
    Yes. The NCAA gave him eligibility and required an on-campus class and 20 hrs of community service. The 1 player was still on the team in '15, and thats when the news broke, and UofL pretty much immediately filed for eligibility and it was granted.
     
  10. HRTheCard

    HRTheCard Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2016
    Messages:
    7,027
    Likes Received:
    5,491
    I've done some digging trying to understand what UofL is doing.

    So pretty much all UofL is appealing is the 12-13 season wins + FF + Championship and money.



    UofL makes a solid argument that 1 player in 2015, once the news broke, UofL submitted reinstatement to the NCAA and the NCAA granted him eligibility. So UofL's argument is that had they known back in '12-13, they would have submitted reinstatement then for the players. He had to do community service hours and take an on-campus class in return for eligibility.

    Another argument UofL makes is that "NCAA granted immunity to a player in exchange for info. Then determined player should be ineligible & based vacating records on that." That's like "Hey you are immune if you tell us the truth, the player tells the truth, and then the NCAA says okay we've come to agreement that you were ineligible. That makes a whole lot of sense.

    I think UofL has a solid argument in the appeal. Do I think we win? Eh probably not. Seems like we are the example the NCAA wants to show. Rightfully so, but maybe not to the punishment extent that was given so who knows.

    You have to think, UofL is saying, we will take the 13-15 vacated wins, return the money, take the $5,000 fine, scholly reduction, unofficial visit penalty requirements, self imposed scholly reduction, and a self imposed tournament ban, all in return to keep the 12-13 season + money, which includes the FF and the championship.

    You decide if that's enough to keep 1 season.
     
    tkejones likes this.
  11. mebeblue2

    mebeblue2 Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2009
    Messages:
    13,202
    Likes Received:
    3,593
    i do not fault UL for trying to keep the 2012 and 2013 banners and money (a lot of money)
    i do however think it is a futile attempt

    minus those two seasons, everything else is a slap on the wrist
    do the violations UL committed just deserve a slap on the wrist?
    i highly doubt the NCAA believes that a slap on the wrist is enough to merit the crime
     
    csrupp likes this.
  12. Shawn (uk7spd)

    Shawn (uk7spd) Well-Known Member
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,322
    Likes Received:
    37,277
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    I didn't read it, but wasn't immunity for the future? Or was it a player that was already gone? If it was a current player, then it makes total sense that the NCAA would say that we will allow you to continue to play if you cooperate, just like they did for the recruits that went to other schools (Blakely and Lyle). That has nothing to do with and is not in any way inconsistent with declaring the player ineligible for games played up to that point.
     
  13. zipp

    zipp Well-Known Member
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2001
    Messages:
    700
    Likes Received:
    34
    Another "can" you're not mentioning is that the NCAA could devise another means of punishment: "...not caught until after they have finished playing...the school can never be punished for playing while ineligible..."

    Why should U of L be penalized because the NCAA hasn't addressed a very common issue that probably doesn't exist in most situations of governance? The NCAA's IN-action does not necessarily justify disproportionate penalties for the same offense.

    "Elite program," my a$$...
     
  14. KYtotheCore

    KYtotheCore Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2010
    Messages:
    3,741
    Likes Received:
    5,123
    Location:
    Anytown, USA
     
  15. Shawn (uk7spd)

    Shawn (uk7spd) Well-Known Member
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,322
    Likes Received:
    37,277
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    Well, look who it is. Glad you could join.

    Your post reflects a complete ignorance of or disregard for the purposes behind the penalty of vacating games. Of course the NCAA could come up with myriad other penalties, but that is not the point. Vacating games is a recognition that schools (and players) should not benefit/profit from playing players that violated amateurism rules (especially when the school was directly complicit), AND a recognition that other schools should not suffer for having to play teams that are cheating or that have players who should not be playing. The only way to satisfy those goals is to ban players going forward until they can regain eligibility (if possible) and to ban them retroactively for games played after becoming ineligible. Relying merely on other types of penalties would not be sufficient, and those other penalties are intended to be punitive and provide deterrence. The vacating of games is about retribution/justice.
     
    Blue_White_KY and trav55 like this.
  16. Wildcat-in-STL

    Wildcat-in-STL Well-Known Member
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2012
    Messages:
    1,595
    Likes Received:
    1,303
    so You know what, The other players besides mathiang should of self reported back in 2012 and 2013 and they could of been reinstated like Mathiang was.

    But tough luck, they didn't and because of it, they stayed ineligible
     
    csrupp likes this.
  17. lkc1234

    lkc1234 Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    Messages:
    1,040
    Likes Received:
    501
    But that was before the full NCAA investigation and it was known how egregious these acts were. That is before the NCAA confirmed that Louisville had provided prostitutes for four years to minors and some of them as young as 16.
     
    csrupp and Wildcat-in-STL like this.
  18. BigBlueFanGA

    BigBlueFanGA Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2005
    Messages:
    336
    Likes Received:
    182
    Was it retroactively granted or going forward?
     
  19. BigBlueFanGA

    BigBlueFanGA Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2005
    Messages:
    336
    Likes Received:
    182
    So, you're saying UL admits proper punishment in each year affected that does not end with a banner? How could the NCAA ever split that hair?
     
    csrupp likes this.
  20. zipp

    zipp Well-Known Member
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2001
    Messages:
    700
    Likes Received:
    34
    I didn't ask you for a remedy. I just pointed out where your analysis is deficient.

    There is in principle no "only way". That's just how you wanna address the issue. In fact, penalizing players "going forward" who didn't know about a violation is completely inappropriate in that it penalizes someone who didn't knowingly commit a violation and had no way of knowing.

    Of course, I expected you to reason as you did.

    "Elite program," my a$$...
     
    20 zipp, Aug 11, 2017
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2017
  21. zipp

    zipp Well-Known Member
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2001
    Messages:
    700
    Likes Received:
    34
    In drawing the comparison, U of L is claiming that the NCAA's system of justice relies too much on when a violation is found. It's analogous to breaking a law, and incurring a penalty based on how long it took you to be arrested and convicted. Except for statutes of limitation, that's not the way the law works.

    Pretty sound reasoning on U of L's part. And it's not U of L's responsibility to answer the question "what else can the NCAA do?"

    "Elite program," my a$$...
     
  22. lkc1234

    lkc1234 Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    Messages:
    1,040
    Likes Received:
    501
    Let me get this straight. Louisville players are not aware that coaches paying for prostitutes for them and under age recruits is an NCAA violation. Try to sell that to the NCAA. If one player committed a violation then all games they played in after that violation will be vacated. I guess the Louisville Foundation financial consultant didn't know he was stealing from local golf courses. He can just tell the police he didn't know it was a violation of the law so don't penalize me. What a cesspool. The players knew they committed a violation so they should have turned themselves in and applied for reinstatement. Sorry Zipp that banner is coming down.
     
    22 lkc1234, Aug 11, 2017
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2017
  23. Shawn (uk7spd)

    Shawn (uk7spd) Well-Known Member
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,322
    Likes Received:
    37,277
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    Sorry for bringing reason to the discussion, which I know you abhor.

    First, arguing that none of the ineligible players knew they were doing something wrong is laughable.

    Second, and regardless, this is also about the school, which unquestionably did something very wrong. Even if the players somehow didn't know (again, laughable), the school shouldn't be allowed to cheat by creating ineligible players with the providing of impermissible benefits and then use those players to win games. Pretty simple.
     
  24. zipp

    zipp Well-Known Member
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2001
    Messages:
    700
    Likes Received:
    34
    As I understand, the players and recruits didn't know anything about payments for services rendered. And I'm not sure whether they knew matters anyway. If U of L can demonstrate that comparable "crimes" are not punished comparably, it's one brick in the wall.

    The NCAA's (in)ability to penalize comparably is not U of L's responsibility. And if U of L can prove they were disadvantaged because of that, that banner's going nowhere.

    Not to mention, most lawsuits never see the light of day, i.e., get settled. You don't need to ask about one of those settlement terms. The mere FILING of this lawsuit reduces your banner odds significantly.

    "Elite program," my a$$...
     
  25. zipp

    zipp Well-Known Member
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2001
    Messages:
    700
    Likes Received:
    34
    Old white guys are gonna have a hard time getting the rest of the world to agree what's "wrong" in a college dorm. That alone is laughable.

    And you're lost with any argument about morals as yours is. You already heard U of L call the violation "reprehensible." So that admission is irrelevant to their argument.

    You and your pals can pi$$ and moan all you want about ethics and character. Those aren't issues of evidence. The NCAA made their bed calling this a case of impermissible benefits. That means it comes down to a value analysis and precedent. I think both of those along with due process are on U of L's side. We'll see.

    "Elite program," my a$$...
     
  26. trav55

    trav55 Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2005
    Messages:
    65
    Likes Received:
    44
    I can't believe I'm saying this, but you make some good points and i haven't heard anyone explain it that way. When you ask if they'll win the appeal, All they want is the penalties reduced. If they can point out the COI's inconsistencies then they may have a shot, even if small. I do think their mistake is by continuously mentioning the discrepancy with the dollar amount of the lap dances. Right or wrong, the coi and NCAA are looking at those instances as a moral issue and until uofl acknowledges those without trying to minimize them I believe the NCAA and all other committees are going to be pretty firm in their stance. Like i said, right or wrong, I don't think they're gonna budge.
     
  27. HRTheCard

    HRTheCard Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2016
    Messages:
    7,027
    Likes Received:
    5,491
    I think UofL helps themselves by naming, I believe 32 other ncaa precedents from different infractions and tries to show how unbalanced they are. And I think how inconsistent they are, and how they bend their own rules or don't totally follow what they have set as the "standard." Im pretty certain that all UofL is trying to ask for is a little withdrawal of being so harsh in their punishment, since UofL thinks that everything they've done to future teams on themselves, plus everything I mentioned, is enough for the NCAA to let us keep the banner.
     
  28. BigBlueFanGA

    BigBlueFanGA Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2005
    Messages:
    336
    Likes Received:
    182
    This isn't law and your example is not analogous at all. If student-athletes violate NCAA rules, the NCAA's hands are tied once the student-athletes eligibility runs out. The issue on reinstatement is notifying the NCAA before a student-athletes eligibility runs out. That is the responsibility of the school or the player, or both. It is not the NCAA's responsibility to discover the violation. Therefore, players who receive impermissible benefits are ineligible until a reinstatement process is successful, but that can't happen once eligibility has run out.

    Players should have self reported (no one will believe they didn't know this was a violation when an AD person was participating) or the program should have monitored players and personnel more closely (it is the program's responsibility to do so). If it wasn't this way, programs could violate some rules with impunity and if they ever get caught they could simply ask for retroactive reinstatement. The NCAA can't let that happen.

    UL has little chance in their appeal for that reason. A judge has no standing to meddle in private agreements that do not violate the law. For that reason and the opportunity for discovery and subpoena power, UL will not file suit. As I've told you before, no school has ever sued over sanctions and it won't start now.
     
    csrupp likes this.
  29. BigBlueFanGA

    BigBlueFanGA Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2005
    Messages:
    336
    Likes Received:
    182
    I don't understand what is harsh. Players are either eligible or they aren't. UL admits the violations occurred. What precedent allows the NCAA to make players eligible years after their eligibility has run out?
     
  30. BigBlueFanGA

    BigBlueFanGA Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2005
    Messages:
    336
    Likes Received:
    182
    Actually, you're incorrect. Behaving ethically is within the definition of the rules. Have you even read them?
     
  31. lkc1234

    lkc1234 Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    Messages:
    1,040
    Likes Received:
    501
    It is impossible for the NCAA to follow precedent when no other school in the history of college basketball has been found to provide prostitutes for under age recruits for 4 years. That is why the NCAA called these actions so egregious and that is why this will be a precedent setting case in itself. In fact the NCAA calling these violations egregious is the first time that word has been used in a response to NCAA violations by a school. That is why the NCAA must vacate these games and take that banner down. You can count on it Zipp that banner will be coming down and there is no chance Louisville will take this to court. They do not want all that dirty laundry to be aired in a public trial.
     
  32. Chimaera717

    Chimaera717 Well-Known Member
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2008
    Messages:
    1,749
    Likes Received:
    5,595
    Buying hookers for kids is not a very common issue - anywhere but UofL, at least. Every single argument Louisville makes is predicated upon the notion that you can equate these egregious, remarkable infractions with your normal, everyday infraction. The NCAA's already decided that's a bunch of bullshit (as have most rational NCAA basketball fans, I think).
     
    csrupp likes this.
  33. zipp

    zipp Well-Known Member
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2001
    Messages:
    700
    Likes Received:
    34
    That's where a "big blue" fan's logic is flawed (if it wasn't already agenda-driven...) The NCAA ties its own hands with its own system of penalizing. The RESULT of the penalty needs to be consistent, not the penalty itself. Does that need more explanation?

    And it may not be an issue of law yet, but that's exactly where this is headed IMO--a courtroom. Then we'll see if the NCAA's standard for an equitable form of justice here survives...
    No one has said no penalty was in order. But the only thing that makes this an issue is money allegedly changing hands. If players and prospects didn't know about that--and no one's concluding they did--what were they supposedly "reporting"?
    As I've already said, the NCAA appeal is just procedural. This will in all likelihood end up in court where the NCAA will have to justify its actions and results. The "meddle in private affairs" defense won't be used in large part because it's not true. And Penn State just had its penalties reduced going thru litigation. Lawyers tell you most cases get settled, and just filing suit significantly increases the odds that banner's going nowhere. Sorry.

    "Elite program," my a$$...
     
  34. zipp

    zipp Well-Known Member
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2001
    Messages:
    700
    Likes Received:
    34
    Well, I don't have them memorized, but anything on morals and ethics are irrelevant. Like I said, the NCAA made their bed with a charge of "impermissible benefits". Gonna be hard for them to change course now, and I'm not sure they even can procedurally. I know they can't expand their allegations or increase penalties without new evidence.

    "Elite program," my a$$...
     
  35. zipp

    zipp Well-Known Member
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2001
    Messages:
    700
    Likes Received:
    34
    There is zero chance this doesn't get litigated if the penalties aren't reduced. U of L has already distanced itself significantly from the NCAA's process. As I've said previously, unless the NCAA walks it back somewhat, this one's not ending anytime soon nor is that banner going anywhere. Slappies and U of L fans will just have to wait.

    "Elite program," my a$$...
     
  36. zipp

    zipp Well-Known Member
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2001
    Messages:
    700
    Likes Received:
    34
    The NCAA called it a case of impermissible benefits. They're gonna have a hard time in court--which is where this is headed--arguing that tangible value has no relevance at all. Esp. when the criminal court system has already said, in essence, that nothing happened.

    The NCAA may TRY to set precedent. I'll bet a trial court has a difficult time agreeing that, in history of the world, this is the first time such an issue has been tried. (And when it allegedly involves the world's oldest profession!)

    "Elite program," my a$$...
     
  37. BigBlueFanGA

    BigBlueFanGA Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2005
    Messages:
    336
    Likes Received:
    182
    Amazing. With all that is going on, you don't even bother to read the rules. I'll paste one for you. This is from NCAA.org.

    Violations that seriously undermine or threaten the integrity of the NCAA collegiate model as set forth in the Constitution and bylaws, including any violation that provides or is intended to provide a substantial or extensive recruiting, competitive or other advantage, or a substantial or extensive impermissible benefit

    Examples of violations

    Level I
    • Lack of institutional control.
    • Academic fraud.
    • Failure to cooperate in an NCAA enforcement investigation.
    • Individual unethical or dishonest conduct.
    • Head coach responsibility violation by a head coach resulting from an underlying Level I violation by an individual within the sport program.
    Notice is says "provides or or is intended to provide". No actual benefit is necessary and no monetary value is required.

    Do you understand this yet?
     
  38. BigBlueFanGA

    BigBlueFanGA Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2005
    Messages:
    336
    Likes Received:
    182
    Good God almighty. I'm beginning to think you're saying this on purpose knowing it isn't true. You can't possibly be this daft. The rules of the NCAA don't require value, they never did. Case after case has been decided with no monetary value applied. It is not a violation of law or NCAA rules. A judge will have no standing. Your geniuses at UL admitted in their appeal that the players were in fact ineligible, though they used the caveat "technically". That ruins your entire argument with taking this to court.

    I hope UL does take it to court though. Discovery and getting people on the witness stand is gonna make great tv.

    One more thing, punishment, even in court, is not uniform. Every case has mitigating factors. One murderer may get 15 years, the next may get life, but you think that since the punishment isn't somehow uniform that a judge will inject himself into a private matter and set aside the punishment? Thats laughable and makes you look both desperate and ignorant.

    But I'll do this for you. If UL gets to keep the banners, by appeal or by court ruling, I'll ask Steelers for a permaban. If you're wrong, you simply have to post on your board that you were in fact wrong. Deal?
     
    csrupp likes this.
  39. BigBlueFanGA

    BigBlueFanGA Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2005
    Messages:
    336
    Likes Received:
    182
    Penn State did not sue anyone and the Penn State sanctions were not within the rules of the NCAA, at all. That is why they were adjusted. Your school has already admitted to the violations and the fact that players were in fact ineligible. There is nothing left to litigate.
     
  40. mebeblue2

    mebeblue2 Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2009
    Messages:
    13,202
    Likes Received:
    3,593
    let me get this straight
    UL players and recruits were given money by a staff member to "tip" the strippers/prostitutes yet they had no clue they were violating NCAA rules

    yep the NCAA is going to buy that RollLaugh
     

Share This Page