What evidence do you have of this?
To be honest, I don't even know what you mean with this response...
Are you saying Cal says one thing in front of the microphone and does something different in private? I don't understand your logic here.
Where does Will Wade end up...
- Thread starter AuHoosier420
- Start date
To be honest, I don't even know what you mean with this response...
Are you saying Cal says one thing in front of the microphone and does something different in private? I don't understand your logic here.
OK. Again, based on what?
You would need to provide some specific examples of how Cal is two faced. What specifically are you referencing?
Lol. Self and the AD made it clear it was supposed to be a "clean" version. But man, if I paid for strippers and none of them stripped, I think I'd feel cheated.
Because they uncovered small payments to a guy who never played a game and another who played 8 mpg? With sworn testimony that Self and staff had no knowledge of any payments?
It's you who should be embarrassed to throw stones, big guy. I'm not the one who brings this stuff up.
Its everything. Cal thinks he is better than everyone else in the coaching ranks. Acts friendly when cameras were on but an asshole to everyone in private.
The only way this makes sense, is if he is Steven Pearl, or Bruce's mom. That’s the only way one csn make sense out of his takes.
Truth
I never said the NCAA made any sense. UK got the death penalty for a thousand bucks. Is what it is.
I boarded up all my windows, so I'm good to throw stones.
Do you have any video, or particular situation to reference here?
I absolutely hate John Calipari, I'm so glad he is gone and I don't have too many good things to say about him, but there's no way I can agree with what you are saying.
Dude got fat on fame and fortune and tried to make himself bigger than UK, but as a person, he is a guy I would go to bat for any day.
Pearl, I wouldn't trust that guy to tell the truth if his life depended on it.
My man. You have to give me something. You are just giving your opinion over and over.
How is Cal friendly when the cameras are on and then a jerk to everyone in private? Where is the evidence for this?
And it begs the question, if it is in private that he acts like a jerk, how the heck do you or anyone else know?
Below is an excerpt from an article on Pearl. He seems pretty two faced, if you ask me.
"Pearl secretly tape-recorded conversations with Thomas and turned those tapes over to the NCAA, which launched an 18-month investigation that ultimately revealed no wrongdoing by the Illini in the Thomas case. But they did scrape up a number of other charges and slapped the U of I with harsh sanctions.
Pearl went on to become a pariah in the coaching ranks for years because he broke the unofficial code of turning in a fellow coach. He finally moved from DII Southern Indiana to Wisconsin-Milwaukee and then to Tennessee, where his was fired after six seasons for (gasp) NCAA violations."
bringing up a 30 plus year old about a young assistant trying to make a namenin the game is something.
ibhave talked to enough coaches to know who is liked and not liked in the game. No one likes cal at all
Pearl went on to become a pariah in the coaching ranks for years because he broke the unofficial code of turning in a fellow coach.
The fact that there was an "unofficial code" and Pearl became a pariah should tell people something.
It was understood/expected that players would be paid under the table. The "cheating scandals" weren't what caused coaches to lose respect for each other. It was the rats that lost respect.
The fact that there was an "unofficial code" and Pearl became a pariah should tell people something.
It was understood/expected that players would be paid under the table. The "cheating scandals" weren't what caused coaches to lose respect for each other. It was the rats that lost respect.
The point wasn't about how long ago it happened. It is that I provided evidence. And I don't even think Pearl is two faced, for the record. I think he has made several mistakes in life, just like you, and me, and Cal. I'm not gonna sit here and call him a bunch of names and throw out claims with no support.
You have provided absolutely nothing. If this were a court case, your claim would be dismissed in two seconds.
I would be careful about making claims when you don't have any evidence.
I am not trying to prove anything in a court of law counselor. I onow what the coaching community thinks of Cal
I never thought I would ever see the day that an Bruce Pearl fan would ever attack the character of any other coach in the business.
This is next level hypocrisy.
Rick Pitino went balls deep in a chick on a table in a public restaurant and stole university funds, but even he looks at Pearl with disgust in his eyes.
This is next level hypocrisy.
Rick Pitino went balls deep in a chick on a table in a public restaurant and stole university funds, but even he looks at Pearl with disgust in his eyes.
Haha, never said you were. It was used as an example to demonstrate how severely your claim is lacking evidence. Nothing more, nothing less.
Just as a caveat, KU did suspend Self, IIRC. I don't think KU believed Self had no knowledge of what was going on, otherwise they wouldn't have suspended him, in my opinion.
With that being said, I have no idea what KU said publicly about Self's involvement and what they believed it was, I just know they suspended him.
Just an observation.
That was a gesture to speed things up, because the process had drawn out for years and continued to hurt recruiting. No one from KU admitted to violations. The process drew out due to lack of proof, which is why the charges were eventually dropped to minor offenses.
Mike Brey was quoted saying that Self had done nothing that the other coaches weren't doing.
Last edited:
I don't know, man.
If I am Bill Self, and I am adamant that I did nothing wrong, and the university is adamant I did nothing wrong, no way am I taking a suspension. No way. Nor, in my opinion, would the university suspend a head coach that they publicly say did nothing wrong.
Doesn't add up.
Sure it adds up. Self-impose a minor penalty to hopefully avoid a major one.
I’m guessing you’ve heard of innocent people taking plea deals. Happens all the time.
A better question is…what would be their motivation for “admitting” guilt? Wouldn’t make any sense unless they had something to potentially gain.
That's fine if you think it adds up. I disagree.
Again, I am not taking a suspension if I did nothing wrong. Doesn't make sense to me.
Also, you may want to look up the legal definition of a plea deal, and what accepting a plea deal means. It is still an admission of guilt, you are just doing so to avoid trial and lessen the punishment. It in no way, shape, or form implies innocence, whatsoever.
Again, innocent people accept plea deals all the time. Trials and juries, like the NCAA/IARP, are unpredictable.
I’m not sure why it doesn’t make sense to you to accept a slap on the wrist to avoid potentially harsher consequences (plus hasten the process).
And a short, early-season suspension and loss of a few scholarships was definitely a slap on the wrist.
You said in your prior post that innocent people accept plea deals. The implication is that Bill Self/KU is innocent.
You then used the analogy of said plea deal; however, a plea deal is an admission of guilt. It is just done to try and lessen the severity of punishment. Therefore, in your analogy, Bill Self and KU accepted a "plea deal", namely to suspend him four games, with some other stipulations as well. However, my point is that by taking the plea deal, it is still an admission of guilt. That definitionally is what a plea deal is in the legal world.
If you accept a plea deal, inherently, you have admitted guilt. So you therefore cannot say Self/KU are innocent, when inherently a plea deal comes with a mandatory admission of guilt.
Let’s see what “Grok” has to say about this…
A plea deal itself is not inherently an admission of guilt, but it often involves one. Let’s break it down.
In a legal context, a plea deal (or plea bargain) is an agreement between a prosecutor and a defendant where the defendant agrees to plead a certain way—usually guilty or no contest (nolo contendere)—in exchange for some concession, like a reduced sentence, dropped charges, or a lesser offense. When a defendant takes a plea deal and pleads guilty, yes, that’s explicitly admitting guilt to the agreed-upon charge. However, if they plead “no contest,” they’re not technically admitting guilt—they’re just agreeing not to fight the charges, and the court treats it as if they’re guilty for sentencing purposes without a formal admission.
That said, not all plea deals require pleading guilty or no contest. In rare cases, like an Alford plea (named after North Carolina v. Alford, 1970), a defendant can maintain their innocence while acknowledging the prosecution has enough evidence to convict them. It’s still a plea deal, but it’s not a straightforward admission of guilt—more of a pragmatic surrender. Courts accept it as a guilty plea, though, and it carries the same weight in terms of conviction.
Why do people take plea deals? Sometimes it’s because they’re guilty and want a lighter punishment. Other times, it’s because the risk of trial—cost, time, or a harsher sentence if convicted—outweighs the benefits of fighting, even if they’re innocent. Data’s fuzzy, but studies (like from the Bureau of Justice Statistics) suggest over 90% of U.S. criminal cases end in plea deals rather than trials, which shows how common this is.
So, to your question: a plea deal can involve an admission of guilt, but it’s not a universal rule.
A plea deal itself is not inherently an admission of guilt, but it often involves one. Let’s break it down.
In a legal context, a plea deal (or plea bargain) is an agreement between a prosecutor and a defendant where the defendant agrees to plead a certain way—usually guilty or no contest (nolo contendere)—in exchange for some concession, like a reduced sentence, dropped charges, or a lesser offense. When a defendant takes a plea deal and pleads guilty, yes, that’s explicitly admitting guilt to the agreed-upon charge. However, if they plead “no contest,” they’re not technically admitting guilt—they’re just agreeing not to fight the charges, and the court treats it as if they’re guilty for sentencing purposes without a formal admission.
That said, not all plea deals require pleading guilty or no contest. In rare cases, like an Alford plea (named after North Carolina v. Alford, 1970), a defendant can maintain their innocence while acknowledging the prosecution has enough evidence to convict them. It’s still a plea deal, but it’s not a straightforward admission of guilt—more of a pragmatic surrender. Courts accept it as a guilty plea, though, and it carries the same weight in terms of conviction.
Why do people take plea deals? Sometimes it’s because they’re guilty and want a lighter punishment. Other times, it’s because the risk of trial—cost, time, or a harsher sentence if convicted—outweighs the benefits of fighting, even if they’re innocent. Data’s fuzzy, but studies (like from the Bureau of Justice Statistics) suggest over 90% of U.S. criminal cases end in plea deals rather than trials, which shows how common this is.
So, to your question: a plea deal can involve an admission of guilt, but it’s not a universal rule.
KU/Self essentially plead no contest. They didn’t plead guilty.
The other aspect of this is…even if they had admitted guilt, what were they admitting to? Self was never charged with making or arranging payments, and sworn testimony said he wasn’t aware of any payments. They could’ve been admitting to a minor infraction, which would be consistent with their minor self-imposed penalty.
I haven’t even commented on whether I think Self was innocent or not. I assume he knew what Adidas was doing, but I assume that about all these coaches. I don’t view any of them as “innocent.”
The bottom line is if someone’s going to give his own players and coaches every benefit of the doubt (even when they flaunted stacks of Benjamins online and were tied to agents and documented payment plans), then don’t expect anyone else to bury their own without proof. The height of hypocrisy.
The other aspect of this is…even if they had admitted guilt, what were they admitting to? Self was never charged with making or arranging payments, and sworn testimony said he wasn’t aware of any payments. They could’ve been admitting to a minor infraction, which would be consistent with their minor self-imposed penalty.
I haven’t even commented on whether I think Self was innocent or not. I assume he knew what Adidas was doing, but I assume that about all these coaches. I don’t view any of them as “innocent.”
The bottom line is if someone’s going to give his own players and coaches every benefit of the doubt (even when they flaunted stacks of Benjamins online and were tied to agents and documented payment plans), then don’t expect anyone else to bury their own without proof. The height of hypocrisy.
Good read. That is correct. And I did not differentiate between guilt and no contest.
However, anyone entering such a plea should understand that a no contest plea has the same legal effect in a criminal court as a plea of guilty.
Definitely wasn't expecting to have a conversation on law on this board, but that is what makes this board what it is, haha.
Not sure if this was directed to me, but like I said in an earlier post, not wading into the conversation about cheating programs.
Yeah, no contest is treated the same by the court, and most people will assume guilt. My point was that it’s not necessarily an admission…just an agreement to not fight the charges.
If I were innocent of charges and given the choice between probation and the possibility of jail time after a long, stressful trial, option A would look pretty good to me.
Similar threads
