What We the only ones with prior issues PROBATION and a coach that gave money.We have the most to lose
I don't know for sure that we were "on probation". And we sure as hell won't be the only school implicated in money changing hands, directly or indirectly...
You mean why two points of attack aren't more effective than one? Are you just playing dense?...
I sort of see your angle but I don't think that is what the Feds are doing. I think they are effectively done. They aren't interested in the schools, as they see the schools as victims and they don't seem interested in most of the coaches either or they would have done something to the UL coaches who were involved. That said, I'm not sure what could escalate the situation. It will create a conundrum for coaches though. They are required to cooperate with the NCAA but if the threat of prosecution is hanging over their heads, the NCAA won't be able to force them to talk.
I don’t think the feds want the NCAA interviewing anyone they are considering prosecuting. There is a Supreme Court case that says if an employer threatens an employee’s job if they don’t submit to an interview then the things said by the employee can’t be used against the employee in a subsequent criminal trial. The justification is that the threat to employment makes the statement involuntary and therefore inadmissible under the constitution. While university employees are not NCAA employees the NCAA can effectively keep them from being employed in college athletics if they don’t cooperate.
What you're arguing means the FBI doesn't believe there's anything more to be discovered about U of L. As far as institutional control, that's not bad news for us. And I've never seen any hard evidence (an effective date) that U of L was "on probation" when the latest infractions occurred.
Zipp, you're slipping. You've been drooling waiting for this.
I disregarded it; none of it means anything. All 40+ of Lite's five-stars are clean...
