Zion/Nike

[IUfanBorden]

It's pretty damn close.

The NCAA has shown that in some cases they will look for a reason to clear a kid and in some cases they look for reasons to send a message. They play favorites and nobody can deny that.

Disagree with it being close..We are talking about validating a test score vs taking money..One requires little cooperation, the other requires 100% cooperation. Rose/Memphis refusing to cooperate was stupid. It gave the NCAA reason . It also showed the test was probably invalid. In other words, that situation was an example of when you should cooperate. With Zion, there's no reason to . It's more similar to the Thomas case. If no one talks, there's no proof.

 

[Bert Higginbotha]

Get over it Bert. No one thought Lance would be an NBA player. He was the 5 th starter on a team that over achieved. He hustled and played D. The supposed jewelry transaction took place when he was home over Christmas. No booster or anyone affiliated with Duke was buying him jewelry if they had a brain.
If you know something different, please share.

The debt was instantly paid off as soon as the law suit was filed. His family sure as hell did not pay it off.

Someone at Duke paid it off to keep the title in tact. Sorry.

 

[Bert Higginbotha]

The NCAA did look into it. Thomas and the jeweler both refused to cooperate. Not much they can do when nobody is willing to talk.

The NCAA did not want to do anything.

The NCAA is not a court system but an organization that has rules. The rules don't apply to Duke and a few other schools.

 

[kyjeff1]

Disagree with it being close..We are talking about validating a test score vs taking money..One requires little cooperation, the other requires 100% cooperation. Rose/Memphis refusing to cooperate was stupid. It gave the NCAA reason . It also showed the test was probably invalid. In other words, that situation was an example of when you should cooperate. With Zion, there's no reason to . It's more similar to the Thomas case. If no one talks, there's no proof.

Lance Thomas refused to talk, but that didn't give the NCAA reason. He looked awfully guilty to me.

And it is close, the alleged crimes are different, but the fact that the defendant in each case refused to talk, is apples to apples. The NCAA took the Elmer Fudd approach in the Thomas case, but acted completely different in the Memphis case and dropped the hammer.

 

[Bert Higginbotha]

Lance Thomas refused to talk, but that didn't give the NCAA reason. He looked awfully guilty to me.

And it is close, the alleged crimes are different, but the fact that the defendant in each case refused to talk, is apples to apples. The NCAA took the Elmer Fudd approach in the Thomas case, but acted completely different in the Memphis case and dropped the hammer.

Who would loan a college kids $70,000 or so dollars on a jewelry purchase? So one gave the assurance that it would be paid.

The case can not be viewed as anything but pay to play.

 

[Afamu]

The debt was instantly paid off as soon as the law suit was filed. His family sure as hell did not pay it off.

Someone at Duke paid it off to keep the title in tact. Sorry.

Any proof? And he was out of school when it was paid off.

 

[Afamu]

Who would loan a college kids $70,000 or so dollars on a jewelry purchase? So one gave the assurance that it would be paid.

The case can not be viewed as anything but pay to play.

Again, if you can prove this, go right ahead. Until then, it is your opinion that goes along with your dislike of Duke.

 

[Afamu]

Who would loan a college kids $70,000 or so dollars on a jewelry purchase? So one gave the assurance that it would be paid.

The case can not be viewed as anything but pay to play.

Ask the store owner.

 

[Bert Higginbotha]

Ask the store owner.

He was paid off to keep his mouth closed.

 

[Afamu]

He was paid off to keep his mouth closed.

Damn, Bert, you have all the info. Have you shared with the NCAA or the police?

 

[Bert Higginbotha]

Damn, Bert, you have all the info. Have you shared with the NCAA or the police?

The NCAA does not enforce laws Afamu, they enforce rules. Thomas did nothing illegal, just did something against the NCAA rules by taking pay to play.

My college room mate ended up making twenty plus million dollars a year by the time his two boy started college. Both went to private high schools and colleges. They never got $100,000 combined in their 8 years of college to spend on shit like jewelry and they went to Mass. colleges where were more expensive than Duke.

In fact I have never know a college kids with $100,000 worth of jewelry. So how could a middle class kid going to Duke on a basketball scholarship decide he would buy that much jewelry without some source of funds?

What did he put down? $30,000 up front and borrowed from the Jewelry store the remainder, which was what about $70,000. So my big first question is where did he get the original down payment? I have never know a college kid, even from a rich family, walking around town with $30,000.

But I am a poor old boy from the sticks of Kentucky and I don't know how rich New York folks act. But I do know how they get a lot of money.

Three of my high school team mates played college basketball and they were as broke as me during college. And yes one played at Kentucky, one at Western Kentucky and one at Oklahoma State. They still don't own $100,000 worth of jewelry and all three had good careers. One was an engineer, one a lawyer and one a real estate guy.

I am sure that you understand most of us guys that did not go to Duke can not understand or appreciate a college kid buying $100,000 worth of jewelry.

 

[Villian07]

Hell Bert, Hagans was flashing 20-30k on the Internet last year during the season. His shoebox money I think he called it. And idk where he got it, really don’t care, bc nothings gonna come of it. Just like the zion stuff and the Thomas stuff, the ncaa isn’t goin after their cash cows.

And you can’t compare across generations as far as spending habits of kids, of course ppl ur age didn’t wear 50k jewelry or ice, but kids today that is very popular.

All the good kids get paid. Everywhere. If Nike is willing to pay for them to stay on their Nike AAU team and circuit, then I’m sure they would do the same to get them to a Nike school. And Adidas has already been caught doing it. And there’s nothing Even remotely new about it except it’s growth to even mid major programs.

 

[Afamu]

The NCAA does not enforce laws Afamu, they enforce rules. Thomas did nothing illegal, just did something against the NCAA rules by taking pay to play.

My college room mate ended up making twenty plus million dollars a year by the time his two boy started college. Both went to private high schools and colleges. They never got $100,000 combined in their 8 years of college to spend on shit like jewelry and they went to Mass. colleges where were more expensive than Duke.

In fact I have never know a college kids with $100,000 worth of jewelry. So how could a middle class kid going to Duke on a basketball scholarship decide he would buy that much jewelry without some source of funds?

What did he put down? $30,000 up front and borrowed from the Jewelry store the remainder, which was what about $70,000. So my big first question is where did he get the original down payment? I have never know a college kid, even from a rich family, walking around town with $30,000.

But I am a poor old boy from the sticks of Kentucky and I don't know how rich New York folks act. But I do know how they get a lot of money.

Three of my high school team mates played college basketball and they were as broke as me during college. And yes one played at Kentucky, one at Western Kentucky and one at Oklahoma State. They still don't own $100,000 worth of jewelry and all three had good careers. One was an engineer, one a lawyer and one a real estate guy.

I am sure that you understand most of us guys that did not go to Duke can not understand or appreciate a college kid buying $100,000 worth of jewelry.

Again, your opinion. Which is fine. Just no facts.

 

[Bert Higginbotha]

Again, your opinion. Which is fine. Just no facts.

Yes I have the fact that Thomas bought tens of thousands of dollars worth of jewelry while on Duke's basketball team without any source of income. That is one massive fact. No opinion, just fact.

 

[Bert Higginbotha]

Hell Bert, Hagans was flashing 20-30k on the Internet last year during the season. His shoebox money I think he called it. And idk where he got it, really don’t care, bc nothings gonna come of it. Just like the zion stuff and the Thomas stuff, the ncaa isn’t goin after their cash cows.

And you can’t compare across generations as far as spending habits of kids, of course ppl ur age didn’t wear 50k jewelry or ice, but kids today that is very popular.

All the good kids get paid. Everywhere. If Nike is willing to pay for them to stay on their Nike AAU team and circuit, then I’m sure they would do the same to get them to a Nike school. And Adidas has already been caught doing it. And there’s nothing Even remotely new about it except it’s growth to even mid major programs.

You have to forgive me but I don't believe that all get paid.

Sorry, I don't know of a kid that wears $50,000 worth of jewelry.

 

[Afamu]

Yes I have the fact that Thomas bought tens of thousands of dollars worth of jewelry while on Duke's basketball team without any source of income. That is one massive fact. No opinion, just fact.

Private transaction. A business owner is allowed to do business in his establishment by his own choosing.

Apply some logic here. Why would a business owner or a booster provide 100k worth of jewelry to a kid that would go undrafted? Please answer that one.

 

[IUfanBorden]

Lance Thomas refused to talk, but that didn't give the NCAA reason. He looked awfully guilty to me.

And it is close, the alleged crimes are different, but the fact that the defendant in each case refused to talk, is apples to apples. The NCAA took the Elmer Fudd approach in the Thomas case, but acted completely different in the Memphis case and dropped the hammer.

I'll just agree to disagree. Lance wouldn't talk..Jeweler wouldn't talk...No evidence...Case closed.
Rose not talking is different. His scored was invalidated...The NCAA wanted to talk to him...He said, "nope". Score stayed invalidated.

Its apparent both had something to hide. Difference is, with Thomas, HE and the Jeweler were the evidence...With Rose, the evidence was an invalidated test score. In other words, one had tangible evidence---the other did not.

 

[mebeblue2]

I'll just agree to disagree. Lance wouldn't talk..Jeweler wouldn't talk...No evidence...Case closed.
Rose not talking is different. His scored was invalidated...The NCAA wanted to talk to him...He said, "nope". Score stayed invalidated.

Its apparent both had something to hide. Difference is, with Thomas, HE and the Jeweler were the evidence...With Rose, the evidence was an invalidated test score. In other words, one had tangible evidence---the other did not.

one thing you have not mentioned is the fact that Rose did indeed speak with the NCAA twice before they asked a third time
at that point he was already in the NBA and was probably tired of dealing with the NCAA
you could view Rose's case as a case of double jeopardy
he had been found innocent twice and then convicted
i wonder if they will use the Rose example on UNC

 

[AWilli6995]

one thing you have not mentioned is the fact that Rose did indeed speak with the NCAA twice before they asked a third time
at that point he was already in the NBA and was probably tired of dealing with the NCAA
you could view Rose's case as a case of double jeopardy
he had been found innocent twice and then convicted
i wonder if they will use the Rose example on UNC

 

[Kevin Bryan]

you could view Rose's case as a case of double jeopardy.
he had been found innocent twice and then convicted

Isn't that triple jeopardy?

Also a good movie, when Ashley Judd was still hot and before she became a raging psycho ****.

 

[IUfanBorden]

one thing you have not mentioned is the fact that Rose did indeed speak with the NCAA twice before they asked a third time
at that point he was already in the NBA and was probably tired of dealing with the NCAA
you could view Rose's case as a case of double jeopardy
he had been found innocent twice and then convicted
i wonder if they will use the Rose example on UNC

The problem arised when the test score was invalidated, and Rose did not cooperate....

The report released Tuesday says that school officials have encouraged the player -- whose name was blacked out -- to cooperate with the NCAA investigation but that his "consistent response" is that he took the test and already answered the same questions in 2007.

This was BEFORE the test score was invalidated... Then, ..................

The report also says the school had no proof the SAT was fraudulent until notified by the Educational Testing Service that the player's score had been canceled. That letter came May 5, 2008, after Rose's only season at Memphis.

When asked directly about the tests he was reported to have taken, the report says, the player responded that he took each of them himself. The player "did not pursue any of the opportunities made available to him by ETS to attempt to validate his scores..

See, there is the problem----He didn't cooperate to validate the scores. His cooperation in 2007 wasn't to validate anything---Just a simple question of---"Did you take the test"? Rose said yes...Then a year, plus later, the score was invalidated. The NCAA again reached out. But this time it was in an effort to let Rose speak, and give his reason on why the score should be valid.

He refused to cooperate. Score stayed invalid.

Yes Rose spoke to the NCAA----Twice. But those conversations were not about the validation of his scores. At that time, they were only in question, and his scores were valid....

 

[Bert Higginbotha]

I'll just agree to disagree. Lance wouldn't talk..Jeweler wouldn't talk...No evidence...Case closed.
Rose not talking is different. His scored was invalidated...The NCAA wanted to talk to him...He said, "nope". Score stayed invalidated.

Its apparent both had something to hide. Difference is, with Thomas, HE and the Jeweler were the evidence...With Rose, the evidence was an invalidated test score. In other words, one had tangible evidence---the other did not.

Bordfen, the NCAA applies rules not law.

Geeze.

With Rose his test scores are private. The SAT did not protect his privacy.

 

[ExitFlagger]

man you are dense
it was a joke, just going along with his post

maybe next time just for you i will clearly state i was joking since you have a hard time with many things

 

[IUfanBorden]

Bordfen, the NCAA applies rules not law.

Geeze.

With Rose his test scores are private. The SAT did not protect his privacy.

I did not realize his scores were ever made public......I just remember the scores being questioned.....

Geeze, Bert....

 

[mebeblue2]

you should keep those home movies of yourself off the message boards

 

[ExitFlagger]

you should keep those home movies of yourself off the message boards

Well, shit...ya got me...

 

[Scotty00]

Disagree with it being close..We are talking about validating a test score vs taking money..One requires little cooperation, the other requires 100% cooperation. Rose/Memphis refusing to cooperate was stupid. It gave the NCAA reason . It also showed the test was probably invalid. In other words, that situation was an example of when you should cooperate. With Zion, there's no reason to . It's more similar to the Thomas case. If no one talks, there's no proof.

If Zion or no one talks wouldn’t that be the same thing as not cooperating? You know, like what Memphis did!

 

[IUfanBorden]

If Zion or no one talks wouldn’t that be the same thing as not cooperating? You know, like what Memphis did!

Yes, it would be exactly the same----As in the same as not cooperating. But the circumstances are not. There is ZERO evidence that Zion took a dime. So unless he says he did----there is nothing. But with Rose, there was evidence....They(NCAA) didn't need Rose to cooperate, to gain evidence. They were asking him to cooperate, to validate scores that had been invalidated. He didn't wanna. So the NCAA moved on. Kept the test as invalid, and handed out penalties...

Just a big difference in the two cases.

 

[Scotty00]

Yes, it would be exactly the same----As in the same as not cooperating. But the circumstances are not. There is ZERO evidence that Zion took a dime. So unless he says he did----there is nothing. But with Rose, there was evidence....They(NCAA) didn't need Rose to cooperate, to gain evidence. They were asking him to cooperate, to validate scores that had been invalidated. He didn't wanna. So the NCAA moved on. Kept the test as invalid, and handed out penalties...

Just a big difference in the two cases.

Actually that’s not correct! Dig around and I’m sure you can find it but I’m pretty sure they had a handwriting expert to look at the Rose test and maybe an older one and the expert said he couldn’t 100% say that it wasn’t Roses handwriting! So even though they punished Memphis and Rose, I’m pretty sure they never stated that it wasn’t his writing on the test.

 

[IUfanBorden]

Actually that’s not correct! Dig around and I’m sure you can find it but I’m pretty sure they had a handwriting expert to look at the Rose test and maybe an older one and the expert said he couldn’t 100% say that it wasn’t Roses handwriting! So even though they punished Memphis and Rose, I’m pretty sure they never stated that it wasn’t his writing on the test.

Which is exactly why they wanted to talk to Rose.

The player "did not pursue any of the opportunities made available to him by ETS to attempt to validate his scores..

He chose not to, i.e. not cooperate. Since he chose this avenue, though. Thus pretty much sealing his fate---And his scores.

 

[uncfan in ky]

https://m.memphisflyer.com/CityBeat/archives/2009/08/27/what-derrick-rose-knows

Rose knows what his own handwriting looks like. He knows he could easily disprove or prove the findings of forensic document examiner Lee Ann Harmless in a September 2008 report that concludes he probably had someone else take the SAT.

Its so much fun proving the same poster wrong over & over again.

 

[WojoRising]

Don’t you just love a good joke

 

[Scotty00]

https://m.memphisflyer.com/CityBeat/archives/2009/08/27/what-derrick-rose-knows

Rose knows what his own handwriting looks like. He knows he could easily disprove or prove the findings of forensic document examiner Lee Ann Harmless in a September 2008 report that concludes he probably had someone else take the SAT.

Its so much fun proving the same poster wrong over & over again.

It’s so much fun? Did you really say “it’s so much fun”? Let’s go paint some happy little clouds and some happy little trees, i bets that’s so much fun too sugar tits!

That link is no good! The people who wrote it could go back and edit it to say whatever they want it to say.

 

[Villian07]

Yes I have the fact that Hagans had tens of thousands of dollars In a shoebox while on UKs basketball team without any source of income. That is one massive fact. No opinion, just fact.

I guess as long as you stay away from jewelry everything is ok???

 

[Villian07]

It’s so much fun? Did you really say “it’s so much fun”? Let’s go paint some happy little clouds and some happy little trees, i bets that’s so much fun too sugar tits!

That link is no good! The people who wrote it could go back and edit it to say whatever they want it to say.

At some point your gonna have to let your love of Wikipedia die down. It can’t be used as a reliable source, period. Not for research papers in school, not for anything “credible”

The entirety of the internet doesn’t work like Wikipedia. I know along time ago Wikipedia was used like an internet encyclopedia, to find out info about damn near anything, but again that info (regardless if fact or fiction) can’t be used as a credible resource bc anyone can alter/add to it.

It’s a little different to say no link can be trusted bc the author can change it. That link he provided had a journalist/author, who listed his name. It wasn’t anonymous. And if journalists write up a bunch of lies about someone or some entity they can be sued for slander by said person/entity.

People that alter Wikipedia pages cannot, bc one, its anonymous and two the site itself was built on the premise of anonymous people writing about things they are informed on. But unfortunately that leaves the door open for anyone with a keyboard to change whatever they want on there, whether it’s true or not without worrying about there being any consequences for putting out false information.

 

[uncfan in ky]

At some point your gonna have to let your love of Wikipedia die down. It can’t be used as a reliable source, period. Not for research papers in school, not for anything “credible”

The entirety of the internet doesn’t work like Wikipedia. I know along time ago Wikipedia was used like an internet encyclopedia, to find out info about damn near anything, but again that info (regardless if fact or fiction) can’t be used as a credible resource bc anyone can alter/add to it.

It’s a little different to say no link can be trusted bc the author can change it. That link he provided had a journalist/author, who listed his name. It wasn’t anonymous. And if journalists write up a bunch of lies about someone or some entity they can be sued for slander by said person/entity.

People that alter Wikipedia pages cannot, bc one, its anonymous and two the site itself was built on the premise of anonymous people writing about things they are informed on. But unfortunately that leaves the door open for anyone with a keyboard to change whatever they want on there, whether it’s true or not without worrying about there being any consequences for putting out false information.

He doesn’t understand common sense at all, you might have to use a coloring book to get your point across.

 

[uncfan in ky]

It’s so much fun? Did you really say “it’s so much fun”? Let’s go paint some happy little clouds and some happy little trees, i bets that’s so much fun too sugar tits!

That link is no good! The people who wrote it could go back and edit it to say whatever they want it to say.

Coming from someone that uses more emojis than a 13 year old girl.

 

[Ipartiedwithhopgood]

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id...-answer-questions-oath-improper-benefits-duke

What happens next?

 

[Scotty00]

Coming from someone that uses more emojis than a 13 year old girl.

13 year old girl? Wait...you don’t have an imaginary 13 year old girlfriend do you ???

 

[Scotty00]

At some point your gonna have to let your love of Wikipedia die down. It can’t be used as a reliable source, period. Not for research papers in school, not for anything “credible”

The entirety of the internet doesn’t work like Wikipedia. I know along time ago Wikipedia was used like an internet encyclopedia, to find out info about damn near anything, but again that info (regardless if fact or fiction) can’t be used as a credible resource bc anyone can alter/add to it.

It’s a little different to say no link can be trusted bc the author can change it. That link he provided had a journalist/author, who listed his name. It wasn’t anonymous. And if journalists write up a bunch of lies about someone or some entity they can be sued for slander by said person/entity.

People that alter Wikipedia pages cannot, bc one, its anonymous and two the site itself was built on the premise of anonymous people writing about things they are informed on. But unfortunately that leaves the door open for anyone with a keyboard to change whatever they want on there, whether it’s true or not without worrying about there being any consequences for putting out false information.

If you don’t get that what I posted was just me thumping sugar tits in the ear then you prolly should just not reply! Sorry you typed all of that but I didn’t read it all.