Other Schools Tried to Convince UK Player to Transfer
- Thread starter Random UK Fan
- Start date
OMG, let me know when you're done licking the windows on that short bus you’re riding in.
Is it not the fault of UK fans that the NCAA dropped all investigations against Duke, UNC and KU.
In the last ten years Duke and UNC should lose a minimum of three titles.
My question was... did UK get put on probation while Rupp & Hall were coaching UK?
It’s a simple yes or no question.
If you really think that then you must agree that Kentucky's entire program's accomplishments in the late 1940's and early 1950's should be called into question as well.
Rupp was the head coach at Kentucky during the point shaving scandal of 1951. On October 20, 1951, former Kentucky players Alex Groza, Bill Spivey, Ralph Beard, and Dale Barnstable were arrested for taking bribes from gamblers to shave points during the National Invitation Tournament game against the Loyola Ramblers in the 1948–49 season.[13] This game occurred during the same year that Kentucky won their second straight NCAA title under Rupp.[14] Rupp and the university were criticized by the presiding judge, Saul Streit, for creating an atmosphere for the violations to occur and for "failing in his duty to observe the amateur rules, to build character, and to protect the morals and health of his charges".[15] Rupp denied any knowledge of the point shaving and no evidence was ever brought against him to show he was connected to the incident in any way.[16]
At the conclusion of this scandal, a subsequent NCAA investigation found that Kentucky had committed several rule violations, including giving illegal spending money to players on several occasions, and also allowing some ineligible athletes to compete.[16] As a result, the Southeastern Conference voted to ban Kentucky from competing for a year and the NCAA requested all other basketball-playing members not to schedule Kentucky, with eventually none doing so (this is now known as the "death penalty").[17] Because of these actions, Kentucky was forced to cancel the entire 1952–53 basketball season. Years later, Walter Byers, the first executive director of the NCAA, unofficially referred to this punishment as the first de facto NCAA death penalty, despite the current rule first coming into effect in 1985, thus the NCAA having no such enforcement power previous to that.[18][19] Echoing Mr. Byers' view, the NCAA's official stance is very much the same, as they also state in hindsight, "In effect, it was the Association's first "death penalty," though its enforcement was binding only through constitutional language that required members to compete against only those schools that were compliant with NCAA rules. Despite fears that it would resist, Kentucky accepted the penalty and, in turn, gave the NCAA credibility to enforce its rules.
At the conclusion of this scandal, a subsequent NCAA investigation found that Kentucky had committed several rule violations, including giving illegal spending money to players on several occasions, and also allowing some ineligible athletes to compete.[16] As a result, the Southeastern Conference voted to ban Kentucky from competing for a year and the NCAA requested all other basketball-playing members not to schedule Kentucky, with eventually none doing so (this is now known as the "death penalty").[17] Because of these actions, Kentucky was forced to cancel the entire 1952–53 basketball season. Years later, Walter Byers, the first executive director of the NCAA, unofficially referred to this punishment as the first de facto NCAA death penalty, despite the current rule first coming into effect in 1985, thus the NCAA having no such enforcement power previous to that.[18][19] Echoing Mr. Byers' view, the NCAA's official stance is very much the same, as they also state in hindsight, "In effect, it was the Association's first "death penalty," though its enforcement was binding only through constitutional language that required members to compete against only those schools that were compliant with NCAA rules. Despite fears that it would resist, Kentucky accepted the penalty and, in turn, gave the NCAA credibility to enforce its rules.
Yeah, but he wasn’t doing a great job. At least not up to par. If, say, Tubby had been caught in the same scandal in his last years at Kentucky, he’d have been canned in a minute.
Other coaches survived their infractions.
No, no it's not a simple yes or no question. You can't just change the discussion like you can change photos of your "wife"… wink wink.
The original statement was "Calipari had 2 final fours vacated", to which I said, "no he didn't, Memphos and UMass had final fours vacated, but Calipari was cleared".
So you tell me Mr. Teo, what the heck does UK getting probation on the Rupp and Hall years have to do with that?
We're talking about coaches.
...and? The guy dominated on the court. Still has records that will never be broken. any hurt feelings is on the weak. Also, point shaving.
yeah, we gained a lot by shaving points.
I guess it would depend on what the infraction was.
Keep in mind, Tubby was never fired from UK, he left. I don't know why anyone would think UK would just can Tubby so quickly if he got hit with a minor infraction. He was well respected by the administration and depending on the year, UK fans. His mediocre achievements got old
The man is throwing Duke and North Carolina under the bus and he called out my school as well. I think it's only fair to ask him if he feels the same way about Kentucky.
YOU said when UK got caught breaking the rules, they fired the coach.
I asked if they fired Rupp & Hall also.
To be fair, KU leads all of NCAA schools with the most major infractions.
I'm aware. It's been brought up numerous times. It is a way for some to feel more comfortable about their own program because when you compare their violations to some of the other schools you see that the difference is similar to getting caught stealing candy bars vs. getting caught stealing cars.
I like the way you angle and dismiss cheating. Major Infractions is the terminology which applies here.
I have a hard time deciding between pitino and Cal tbh.
I think pitino is one of the best defensive minds the game has ever seen. And I and many UK fans often lament that had he not left for the Celtics we’d have already caught and passed UCLA. A few years back I would have went with Cal but his last 4+ seasons have left much to be desired.
they both took 3 different programs to the final four. Pitino is the only coach in history win a title for two different programs. But I’d argue taking umass and Memphis to a final four is more impressive than providence and UL.
Pitino left UL a mess though. His ego was out of control and eventually it cost him his career and his legacy. Does that happen if he stays at UK? If during his hypothetical dynasty at UK, he feels threatened by another program at some point, does he resort to the same tactics? How much of it was him, and how much the people he worked for? Tom Jurich and UL leadership had no apprehension towards a win at all costs approach. I don’t think that happens under Barnhart at UK. But maybe I’m still giving pitino the person too much credit.
So as far as who is actually better at running a college basketball program...gun to my head id probably go with pitino and buy in to the idea that none of that stuff ever happens if he stays at UK.
I think pitino is one of the best defensive minds the game has ever seen. And I and many UK fans often lament that had he not left for the Celtics we’d have already caught and passed UCLA. A few years back I would have went with Cal but his last 4+ seasons have left much to be desired.
they both took 3 different programs to the final four. Pitino is the only coach in history win a title for two different programs. But I’d argue taking umass and Memphis to a final four is more impressive than providence and UL.
Pitino left UL a mess though. His ego was out of control and eventually it cost him his career and his legacy. Does that happen if he stays at UK? If during his hypothetical dynasty at UK, he feels threatened by another program at some point, does he resort to the same tactics? How much of it was him, and how much the people he worked for? Tom Jurich and UL leadership had no apprehension towards a win at all costs approach. I don’t think that happens under Barnhart at UK. But maybe I’m still giving pitino the person too much credit.
So as far as who is actually better at running a college basketball program...gun to my head id probably go with pitino and buy in to the idea that none of that stuff ever happens if he stays at UK.
They gained a lot by giving money to players and letting ineligible players play in games. I think it's fair to question what they did every year in that era. It doesn't make Rupp a bad coach. I still think he accomplished all of those titles. We just have to consider that he won them the wrong way though. That's all.The guy dominated on the court. Still has records that will never be broken. any hurt feelings is on the weak. Also, point shaving.
He played for 2 titles and made 4 Final Fours. He also won more games than anybody else in those 15 years. He was pretty damn good. It's tough to win the tournament. You know that.
Pitino is one of the best coaches in college history. If that's your bar then there are like 2 coaches in the game today that clear it .
Incredible coach, terrible person and cheater.
Sure. But let's look at the violations in the most recent "major infractions" hit they got in 2006.
Darnell Jackson was given around $5,000 over the course of like 2 years by his mentor. This occurred before he was a basketball recruit and in the earliest incidents before he even played organized basketball. The man who gave him and his family money was a friend of the family in OKC and was a KU alumni/booster. The NCAA had to take action and I agree with them. But it's hardly a major foul here.
Roy Williams would buy graduation gifts for his players who had already graduated college. They had no more eligibility. Just him saying thank you and congratulations as a friend. Some other boosters did this as well, which I think is pretty sketchy, but the fact of the matter is these were gifts given to them after they could no longer play and in most cases it was to guys who were going on to start careers in things that had nothing to do with basketball.
Now do these look like "major infractions" to you that are in the same category as buying recruits when they are picking between your school and another? Or in the same category as playing ineligible players? Because to me it's like comparing the felony of carrying an ounce of pot with the felony of dealing heroin. They're both felonies however one has a much stiffer penalty and rightfully so.
Kansas has not gotten the major punishments that Kentucky has gotten even with them having more "major infractions".
vacated games are the ncaas equivalent of the Jedi mind trick. I’m unsurprised it works on you.
You don';t think it's a big deal to spend less on a recruit than 5k (which seems fine now if they pay it back or sit out a few games), or a big deal to "we'll pay you after you graduate"?
Kentucky fans:
Do you notice how the termites come out of the wood work?
Do you notice how the termites come out of the wood work?
Darnell Jackson sat out games which I had no issue with. But his family started getting help from that booster when he was in 8th grade and had never played organized basketball. His life was a mess and he was on his way to being a criminal before this guy stepped in. It was pretty well documented at that time and Jackson credits him for helping to turn his life around.
The graduation gifts were said to be less than $50 per guy. It wasn't a "come here and I'll hook you up with some Dre beats in 4 years" type situation, Lol.
i do. I’ve said it numerous times In numerous threads.
Similar threads
