Floating a New Theory

[OlhamCardinal]

It seems to me the common theory among fans is that Ramsey/Jurich self-imposed the post season ban based upon some "bombshell" information that came to light on or around Feb. 4. Fans are upset that the information has not (could not) be shared and that Ramsey/Jurich sort of sold out the team as an appeasement to the NCAA yet most of us expect (fear) there are more penalties still to come. Then, today it is reported that committee member Dr. Ricky Jones is saying that the "new information" upon which the post season ban was based was, in fact, nothing new at all. This inflames the fan base even more and makes it look like some sort of Ramsey driven conspiracy.

I think we had all assumed this "new information" was something very bad. Let me float the theory that perhaps, just the opposite is true. If we take Dr. Jones' statement as accurate perhaps the investigation by Chuck Smrt and others has reached the point where it could confirm what we already know and there is nothing more to it than just this: Andre McGee was a rogue agent, acting alone and no other University involvement was found or suspected. Now, based upon this "new non-information" could we assume that Ramsey/Jurich with Smrt's expert input felt that a one year post season ban would be the very worst penalty the NCAA would impart. They then decided to go ahead and get the ban done this year so that the school, team, recruits and fans have to deal with this for the remaining 9 games this year and not the 30+ games next year. Of course this would also explain the extreme silence about the new evidence. The University cannot come out and say it's really not so bad and we are serving the only ban that will be imposed without sticking their thumb in the eye of the NCAA and risk greater penalties down the road. Not suggesting this is the case but I do think it makes some sense.

 

[nccardfan]

Don't take Dr. Jones as being 100% accurate. He didn't attend the meeting due to prior commitment so he doesn't know what was disclosed at the meeting.

 

[fredburgcard]

I disagree with the premise that McGee acting alone is not a serious matter.

Even if McGee acted alone we are talking about a major NCAA violation. The head of basketball operations was paying for strippers to entertain recruits and players on university property. How was McGee able to do this for several years with no one going to anyone in authority? The fact that the university didn't find out and didn't stop it demonstrates a failure to set up adequate safeguards, a basic compliance responsibility.

If this had been a one-time incident I agree that a one-year post-season ban would be excessive. I think that even if the NCAA only finds that McGee was acting alone UofL likely still faces significant additional penalties - including a suspension for Pitino, recruiting limits and a loss of scholarships similar to what SMU got. I'm hopeful that it won't include any additional post season bans or any stripping of wins. I think Smrt, who has significant experience with what the NCAA does in such cases, likely advised that by falling on the sword this year UofL could avoid a multi-year suspension and a loss of the 2013 championship. In the end Ramsey and Jurich decided to follow that advise. Time will tell if that is the right course of action.

 

[nccardfan]

Considering that Smrt was even brought in I guess I am nieve to believe that between Smrt, Jurich and Ramsey, they made a predicated move and not a hastily knee jerk reaction. I also believed they weighed the ramifications of a self ban in light of harsher penalties.

 

[Rollem Cards]

I think the OP is correct.

Take our medicine now, bow to the NCAA.

End of story.

 

[cuzimacardfan]

Don't take Dr. Jones as being 100% accurate. He didn't attend the meeting due to prior commitment so he doesn't know what was disclosed at the meeting.

I keep hearing people say this but how hard is it for him to ask one of the other people in the meeting "did they find anything new?" Or "what was said?"

Being part of the committee, it would be appropriate for him to receive the information. If there was any glaring new information it wouldn't be difficult for someone to just tell him.

It's not like the information gets locked in some airtight box never to get out after the meeting.

 

[BPGhost]

Considering that Smrt was even brought in I guess I am nieve to believe that between Smrt, Jurich and Ramsey, they made a predicated move and not a hastily knee jerk reaction. I also believed they weighed the ramifications of a self ban in light of harsher penalties.

Exactly. It's the whole reason that you bring in a Chuck Smrt to begin with and, why he gets $300 per hour for his work. The guy headed up NCAA enforcement for years and knows, or is able to more accurately predict what the NCAA will do than anyone not currently on the NCAA's staff.

You don't bring that guy in to ignore his counsel.

 

[nccardfan]

Cuzima,

Then why hasn't the one major piece of info that implies we needed to take a postseason ban been leaked out yet? This was not a basketball committee and there was no vote. They presented the information and between Smrt's recommendation, Jurich gave his advise to Ramsey and he made the ANNOUNCEMENT, not the decision.

 

[CardsFirst]

Cuzima,

Then why hasn't the one major piece of info that implies we needed to take a postseason ban been leaked out yet? This was not a basketball committee and there was no vote. They presented the information and between Smrt's recommendation, Jurich gave his advise to Ramsey and he made the ANNOUNCEMENT, not the decision.

What vote. Ramsey selected a committee to investigate not make a decision. They could advise he and Jurich but the final decision still remains with Ramsey.

 

[Zinadine]

I keep hearing people say this but how hard is it for him to ask one of the other people in the meeting "did they find anything new?" Or "what was said?"

Being part of the committee, it would be appropriate for him to receive the information. If there was any glaring new information it wouldn't be difficult for someone to just tell him.

It's not like the information gets locked in some airtight box never to get out after the meeting.

He addressed that issue and said that he spoke to another committee member who attended the last meeting and confirmed that there was nothing g new presented.

 

[Senore2006]

I agree with the OP 100%. This is precisely what is going on. McGee did enough damage to warrant a penalty. That being the case, Ramsey took the counsel of Smrt and, I imagine by inference, that of the NCAA and self-imposed. If this is indeed the case, we just took care of business like a boss. No one did wrong, no one acted prematurely, there were no mistakes made - in other words, pretty much what we are used to at the top here at UofL.

I am more interested in the deeper levels of investigation. Part of me wonders if the NCAA didn't tire of this early on, when they realized the lightweight sinning going on at such a homely, amateur level.

Couple that with the recent revelations of Kenny Klein's in interviewing the publisher who admitted the writers - the publisher - invented the infamous "ledger" so leaned on by the OTL expose's arsewipe."Proof!!"", lmao. The publishers looked Klein in the face and said "Oh, we made the ledger. That woman can't put two words together."

I am interested in who lured Katina into acting like an author and the madam she now swears she was not. We have seen many dots produced at these levels, and we have enjoyed doing a bit of connecting, as a purely raggedy set of investigator fans.

I think there is a lid to pop to find the true can of worms. That, my friends, will be the truth which will set us free.

 

[zipp]

I disagree with the premise that McGee acting alone is not a serious matter.

Even if McGee acted alone we are talking about a major NCAA violation. The head of basketball operations was paying for strippers to entertain recruits and players on university property. How was McGee able to do this for several years with no one going to anyone in authority? The fact that the university didn't find out and didn't stop it demonstrates a failure to set up adequate safeguards, a basic compliance responsibility.

If this had been a one-time incident I agree that a one-year post-season ban would be excessive. I think that even if the NCAA only finds that McGee was acting alone UofL likely still faces significant additional penalties - including a suspension for Pitino, recruiting limits and a loss of scholarships similar to what SMU got. I'm hopeful that it won't include any additional post season bans or any stripping of wins. I think Smrt, who has significant experience with what the NCAA does in such cases, likely advised that by falling on the sword this year UofL could avoid a multi-year suspension and a loss of the 2013 championship. In the end Ramsey and Jurich decided to follow that advise. Time will tell if that is the right course of action.

100% disagree. And I don't think you know what an appropriate penalty is because I don't think you've studied past NCAA violations extensively and their penalties. You don't know how many events at Minardi there were over what period of time, nor how much money changed hands. Even if it was to the degree that the ho said it was--$10,000 over four years--I doubt seriously that prior NCAA experience will show that this penalty is commensurate to that violation. You don't know what players were involved, and you don't know the key fact, whether players came here BECAUSE of an impermissible benefit. Too much stuff you don't know to have your degree of confidence.

If you replay Ramsey's remarks from a couple weeks ago, he does not use the word "significant" or "major" very often. I think his first utterance was simply "NCAA violation", and I don't think it was plural "violations". If this is eventually found to be a gross over-reaction to what we have already been told occurred, Ramsey will probably pay the ultimate price. And he should...

 

[johnnyflcat4life]

I would say everything is speculation at this point. There are only a few people who actually know the facts at this point. My only question to the UL fanbase about the McGee situation would be this. If he did indeed act alone, how were these parties continuing to happen when Blakeney was visiting? Someone else has to be involved because he couldn't physically be there to set this up alone.

 

[CardsFirst]

I would say everything is speculation at this point. There are only a few people who actually know the facts at this point. My only question to the UL fanbase about the McGee situation would be this. If he did indeed act alone, how were these parties continuing to happen when Blakeney was visiting? Someone else has to be involved because he couldn't physically be there to set this up alone.

We don't care what ? you have or your thoughts go back to your board.

 

[LouisvilleKid79]

I disagree with the premise that McGee acting alone is not a serious matter.

Even if McGee acted alone we are talking about a major NCAA violation. The head of basketball operations was paying for strippers to entertain recruits and players on university property. How was McGee able to do this for several years with no one going to anyone in authority? The fact that the university didn't find out and didn't stop it demonstrates a failure to set up adequate safeguards, a basic compliance responsibility.

If this had been a one-time incident I agree that a one-year post-season ban would be excessive. I think that even if the NCAA only finds that McGee was acting alone UofL likely still faces significant additional penalties - including a suspension for Pitino, recruiting limits and a loss of scholarships similar to what SMU got. I'm hopeful that it won't include any additional post season bans or any stripping of wins. I think Smrt, who has significant experience with what the NCAA does in such cases, likely advised that by falling on the sword this year UofL could avoid a multi-year suspension and a loss of the 2013 championship. In the end Ramsey and Jurich decided to follow that advise. Time will tell if that is the right course of action.

Agree. These are serious allegations that had to be acted on if most of what we have "heard" is true or an investigation has revealed most of it to be true. I think the truth is that the University including Jurich and Pitino have known for some time that something happened, but they did not know to what extent. Several recruits and former players have stated that the "gist" of what has been alleged happened.

Sex. Money. Recruits. Players. Dorms. Prostitutes. Staff involved. This is not a good look.

Too risky to let this play out and risk running this program and the university completely into the ground.

 

[cardsrchamps]

I would say everything is speculation at this point. There are only a few people who actually know the facts at this point. My only question to the UL fanbase about the McGee situation would be this. If he did indeed act alone, how were these parties continuing to happen when Blakeney was visiting? Someone else has to be involved because he couldn't physically be there to set this up alone.

Go back to the LPT board and discuss it.

 

[kozmas]

Somebody broke it down once based on information the ho gave in her book. If you take the number of parties that she said she had and the time frame in which it happened it added up to one party every month. I think some people are really over exaggerating and thinking that they were having parties every Friday and Saturday night which wasn't the case.

 

[fredburgcard]

100% disagree. And I don't think you know what an appropriate penalty is because I don't think you've studied past NCAA violations extensively and their penalties. You don't know how many events at Minardi there were over what period of time, nor how much money changed hands. Even if it was to the degree that the ho said it was--$10,000 over four years--I doubt seriously that prior NCAA experience will show that this penalty is commensurate to that violation. You don't know what players were involved, and you don't know the key fact, whether players came here BECAUSE of an impermissible benefit. Too much stuff you don't know to have your degree of confidence.

If you replay Ramsey's remarks from a couple weeks ago, he does not use the word "significant" or "major" very often. I think his first utterance was simply "NCAA violation", and I don't think it was plural "violations". If this is eventually found to be a gross over-reaction to what we have already been told occurred, Ramsey will probably pay the ultimate price. And he should...

OK fair enough. I didn't look at any other cases. So I went to the NCAA website and read their releases at the time sanctions were imposed on SMU and Syracuse.

Syracuse:

The NCAA found that programs at Syracuse, during the period 2001-12, engaged in NCAA violations. Specifically it found the men's bball program engaged in academic misconduct during the 05, 06, 07, 11 and 12 seasons; that it failed to properly implement its own drug testing program and that is allowed a booster to pay several thousand dollars to two bball players for volunteer work at a youth center. The academic misconduct involved a tutor falsely certifying that a player completed hours for an internship for which he got course credit, and the Director of Bball Operations and a receptionist performing course work for players.

Syracuse self-imposed a one-year post season ban last season in anticipation of NCAA sanctions. Smart move on their part as they were not going to play more than a game or two in the ACC and NIT tourneys anyway. In addition the NCAA vacated all bball wins for all of the involved seasons; took back all funds Syracuse received for participating in the Big East, and NCAA tournaments during those seasons; put the program on probation for 5 years; took away 3 scholarships a year for 4 years; and imposed a 9 game suspension on Boeheim. The release acknowledged there was no indication Boeheim was aware of what was going on but that he had failed to promote compliance and monitor his staff.

SMU:

The NCAA found that SMU engaged in academic fraud when a bball staffer arranged for an academically ineligible recruit to register for an on-line course and then took the course for him. The head coach (Brown) found out about this in 14 but didn't initially report it. The staffer initially lied about the misconduct and Brown initially lied during his interview but immediately corrected the lie during the interview.

SMU was given a one-year post season ban this year which is significant because SMU would likely be a high seed in this year's NCAA tournament and is currently at the top of the AAC. The NCAA vacated all wins in which the involved player participated and SMU has to return all post-season revenue received for the seasons that player played. SMU had previously self-imposed a one year loss of two scholarships. This was increased to a three year loss of three scholarships a year. SMU was put on probation for 3 years; Brown was suspended for 30% of one season; and recruiting restrictions were imposed.

As zipp noted none of us have any idea right now what the NCAA will find happened at UofL. I assume even the NCAA doesn't yet know because they haven't completed their investigation. My point in my earlier post was that even what most of us would believe is a best case scenario is a serious NCAA violation. If the head of basketball operations at UofL paid money to provide strippers to entertain recruits and players at a university facility that is an impermissible benefit. Players who receive impermissible benefits are usually ruled ineligible or are suspended for a period of time. I looked and I could not find anything on the NCAA website that indicates the NCAA must find that the impermissible benefit led the player to do anything. All that apparently has to be shown is that there be an impermissible benefit. Unless this was a one-time event, and what I've read to date doesn't lead me to conclude that's the case, the school and Pitino are likely to be found at fault for failing to set up adequate safeguards to prevent it, stop it and then report it.

If what Pitino said last week is true Jurich made the recommendation to Ramsey to self-impose the post season ban this year. I don't see why Pitino would lie about that. I don't see why Jurich would have made this recommendation to Ramsey unless he had a pretty good belief that Louisville was looking at some pretty severe penalties based upon what UofL's investigation has already found happened. Note that both Syracuse and SMU had to vacate wins where players who had received impermissible benefits played. I suspect some players who played on the 12 and 13 teams might be found to have attended one of these shows. If that is the case the NCAA could vacate the wins in those seasons and we all know what that means. I don't equate watching strippers to be the same level of benefit as having someone else do course work that makes a player academically eligible to play. UofL can now make the argument that by self-imposing a ban this year when it has a very good team it has already taken a significant hit and that vacating wins (as was imposed on SMU and Syracuse) is not necessary here. While I don't have a lot of respect for Ramsey I do respect Jurich's apparent judgement that UofL is better off biting the bullet now rather than wait for the NCAA to act.

 

[nccardfan]

Good work Fred! One thing I picked up on is that SMU also chose to propose a one year loss of scholarships, which U of L did not propose? So does that have any indication of the possible severity of infractions and did U of L think the ban was enough?

 

[cardfaninmemphis]

Fredburgcard, I think you make an important point.

Watching strippers is certainly not model behavior, but it is not against the law, and I don't think the NCAA has any rules about it. Prostitution, if it did occur, is a misdemeanor offense, and I don't know what the NCAA's rules on it, if any, are.
The NCAA does have rules about lying in an investigation, the use of illegal drugs, using academically ineligible players, people other than an athlete taking classes for or doing the work for that athlete, fixing grades, as well as improper benefits. Unless I am missing something, the only NCAA rule that might have been broken by UofL would be improper benefits, i.e. an assistant coach paying for people's entertainment, people being recruits or players.

 

[Bobcat94]

Question I have for those in the know. If all these absurd accusations are found to be true and some of the players that was a big part of the NCAA championship a couple years ago are found to be involved what does the NCAA do then. There has never been a championship taken away and I honestly can't see them doing that now but what would happen?

 

[Shawn (uk7spd)]

100% disagree. And I don't think you know what an appropriate penalty is because I don't think you've studied past NCAA violations extensively and their penalties. You don't know how many events at Minardi there were over what period of time, nor how much money changed hands. Even if it was to the degree that the ho said it was--$10,000 over four years--I doubt seriously that prior NCAA experience will show that this penalty is commensurate to that violation. You don't know what players were involved, and you don't know the key fact, whether players came here BECAUSE of an impermissible benefit. Too much stuff you don't know to have your degree of confidence.

If you replay Ramsey's remarks from a couple weeks ago, he does not use the word "significant" or "major" very often. I think his first utterance was simply "NCAA violation", and I don't think it was plural "violations". If this is eventually found to be a gross over-reaction to what we have already been told occurred, Ramsey will probably pay the ultimate price. And he should...

Out of curiosity, why do you think the "key fact" is whether players came to Louisville because of the impermissible benefits? I don't think that has any bearing, or at least very little, on whether there were violations and the severity of those violations. That would be like saying that we paid players, but other schools paid more and the kids went there, and thus we should not be penalized at all or as much. Moreover, this appears to involve recruits AND players already on the team. Finally, both recruits that have been discussed publicly (Blakeney and Lyle) committed immediately after their visits but de-committed shortly thereafter, and one of them indicated that they committed for "the wrong reasons" (and that was long before the scandal broke).

As an aside, your post also seems to minimize the perception problem here. This won't be a straight "let's look at precedent for impermissible benefit dollar amounts." Louisville's head of basketball operations paid for strippers/hookers for current players and recruits over several years. There is little if any precedent for that and it looks, from a public perception standpoint, far worse than a kid taking money from an agent, one tutor taking an online class for a kid, a kid allegedly cheating on a college entrance exam, a kid taking a few thousand dollars from AAU folks before college, etc. In terms of optics, this is about as bad as it gets, with the exception of UNC (who should get hit exponentially harder but likely won't).

 

[fredburgcard]

Fredburgcard, I think you make an important point.

Watching strippers is certainly not model behavior, but it is not against the law, and I don't think the NCAA has any rules about it. Prostitution, if it did occur, is a misdemeanor offense, and I don't know what the NCAA's rules on it, if any, are.
The NCAA does have rules about lying in an investigation, the use of illegal drugs, using academically ineligible players, people other than an athlete taking classes for or doing the work for that athlete, fixing grades, as well as improper benefits. Unless I am missing something, the only NCAA rule that might have been broken by UofL would be improper benefits, i.e. an assistant coach paying for people's entertainment, people being recruits or players.

It's not illegal to trade athletic memorabilia for a tattoo but Ohio State football players did it and the school was penalized by the NCAA. There are specific NCAA rules on what a school can provide to a scholarship athlete and to a recruit. Anything beyond that is an impermissible benefit as I understand the rules.

 

[fredburgcard]

Out of curiosity, why do you think the "key fact" is whether players came to Louisville because of the impermissible benefits? I don't think that has any bearing, or at least very little, on whether there were violations and the severity of those violations. That would be like saying that we paid players, but other schools paid more and the kids went there, and thus we should not be penalized at all or as much. Moreover, this appears to involve recruits AND players already on the team. Finally, both recruits that have been discussed publicly (Blakeney and Lyle) committed immediately after their visits but de-committed shortly thereafter, and one of them indicated that they committed for "the wrong reasons" (and that was long before the scandal broke).

As an aside, your post also seems to minimize the perception problem here. This won't be a straight "let's look at precedent for impermissible benefit dollar amounts." Louisville's head of basketball operations paid for strippers/hookers for current players and recruits over several years. There is little if any precedent for that and it looks, from a public perception standpoint, far worse than a kid taking money from an agent, one tutor taking an online class for a kid, a kid allegedly cheating on a college entrance exam, a kid taking a few thousand dollars from AAU folks before college, etc. In terms of optics, this is about as bad as it gets, with the exception of UNC (who should get hit exponentially harder but likely won't).

That's absurd but understandable from a UK fan. First I'm not aware of any proof that prostitution actually occurred. Even the whore who wrote the book is now backing off that claim (maybe to save her own skin). Syracuse's head of basketball operations was also involved along with other staffers. What happened at SMU and Syracuse resulted in players who would not otherwise have been eligible being eligible to play so I completely reject the idea that what happened at UofL was "far worse" than what happened at Syracuse and SMU. My argument is that it was serious and it apparently went on for a period of time which the NCAA will certainly consider in imposing penalties.

 

[Shawn (uk7spd)]

That's absurd but understandable from a UK fan. First I'm not aware of any proof that prostitution actually occurred. Even the whore who wrote the book is now backing off that claim (maybe to save her own skin). Syracuse's head of basketball operations was also involved along with other staffers. What happened at SMU and Syracuse resulted in players who would not otherwise have been eligible being eligible to play so I completely reject the idea that what happened at UofL was "far worse" than what happened at Syracuse and SMU. My argument is that it was serious and it apparently went on for a period of time which the NCAA will certainly consider in imposing penalties.

A few quick responses:

(1) I clearly said it was worse from a "perception" standpoint. You can attempt to argue otherwise, but the media coverage alone would suggest otherwise.

(2) From reading the interview with Brown on ESPN yesterday regarding the SMU ban, it sounds like the player in question did not even need the online course to be eligible.

(3) You can attempt to argue that there was no "prostitution," but that seems highly unlikely and I am not even sure the NCAA will feel the need to draw the line. Even if they do, the Blakeney situation is probably enough to transform this stuff from "merely" paying for strippers to something more.

 

[fredburgcard]

(1) I clearly said it was worse from a "perception" standpoint. You can attempt to argue otherwise, but the media coverage alone would suggest otherwise.

I don't think even the NCAA will impose harsher sanctions on a school based on the "perception" of rival fans.

(2) From reading the interview with Brown on ESPN yesterday regarding the SMU ban, it sounds like the player in question did not even need the online course to be eligible.

Go read the NCAA report. They used the term "ineligible" in referring to the player.

(3) You can attempt to argue that there was no "prostitution," but that seems highly unlikely and I am not even sure the NCAA will feel the need to draw the line. Even if they do, the Blakeney situation is probably enough to transform this stuff from "merely" paying for strippers to something more.

That's nothing more than speculation at this time.

 

[Senore2006]

A few quick responses:

(1) I clearly said it was worse from a "perception" standpoint. You can attempt to argue otherwise, but the media coverage alone would suggest otherwise.

(2) From reading the interview with Brown on ESPN yesterday regarding the SMU ban, it sounds like the player in question did not even need the online course to be eligible.

(3) You can attempt to argue that there was no "prostitution," but that seems highly unlikely and I am not even sure the NCAA will feel the need to draw the line. Even if they do, the Blakeney situation is probably enough to transform this stuff from "merely" paying for strippers to something more.

What an absurd thing to say, lol. You find it hard to believe no prostitution took place? really? Do you know what prostitution is?

You leap into an area with both feet which UofL fans are totally willing to aknowledge may have happened, but who also know it is best to wait and see what the results are. That doesn't stop you, does it? Do you have any idea how rude that is, lol?

The fact is, even the ho is backing off her claims now. 11 girls have sued her for misrepresentation.

I suggest a cleanup on "Aisle UK" may be in order when it comes to speculating on NCAA penalties and the scandal in general. Granted, they certainly know scandals and NCAA probations and penalties better than we do, but we are the experts of what we think, thank you very much. The presumptuousness of telling us what is going on is so out of the envelope it would be hilarious if so "sincerely" approached by any other fan base.

My advice is to piss off and select objective matters to discuss.

 

[zipp]

Somebody broke it down once based on information the ho gave in her book. If you take the number of parties that she said she had and the time frame in which it happened it added up to one party every month. I think some people are really over exaggerating and thinking that they were having parties every Friday and Saturday night which wasn't the case.

Mathematically, it worked out to $48 a week. If that's all there is, we're taking an NCAA postseason ban for McGee buying Minardi Hall a platinum satellite dish subscription. Add adult movies to that if you need something salacious...

 

[zipp]

...As zipp noted none of us have any idea right now what the NCAA will find happened at UofL. I assume even the NCAA doesn't yet know because they haven't completed their investigation. My point in my earlier post was that even what most of us would believe is a best case scenario is a serious NCAA violation. If the head of basketball operations at UofL paid money to provide strippers to entertain recruits and players at a university facility that is an impermissible benefit. Players who receive impermissible benefits are usually ruled ineligible or are suspended for a period of time...Unless this was a one-time event, and what I've read to date doesn't lead me to conclude that's the case, the school and Pitino are likely to be found at fault for failing to set up adequate safeguards to prevent it, stop it and then report it...

Appreciate you doing some research. You note academic fraud in both examples, which is a school playing otherwise ineligible players.

You recall the paint-ball admission fee issue from a year ago where some U of L players had the $7 fee paid by someone without authorization. That was an impermissible benefit as well. And it was meaningless with no penalty. Fortunately, it wasn't admission to an adult movie theater, and a book wasn't written about it.

The point is that the punishment has to fit the crime, a principle we all respect. The professor/committee member this week hinted what the crime is, and we know the penalty. If that info is accurate, we probably fell on a sword to keep the NCAA happy and get this behind us ASAP...

 

[Shawn (uk7spd)]

What an absurd thing to say, lol. You find it hard to believe no prostitution took place? really? Do you know what prostitution is?

You leap into an area with both feet which UofL fans are totally willing to aknowledge may have happened, but who also know it is best to wait and see what the results are. That doesn't stop you, does it? Do you have any idea how rude that is, lol?

The fact is, even the ho is backing off her claims now. 11 girls have sued her for misrepresentation.

I suggest a cleanup on "Aisle UK" may be in order when it comes to speculating on NCAA penalties and the scandal in general. Granted, they certainly know scandals and NCAA probations and penalties better than we do, but we are the experts of what we think, thank you very much. The presumptuousness of telling us what is going on is so out of the envelope it would be hilarious if so "sincerely" approached by any other fan base.

My advice is to piss off and select objective matters to discuss.

So I am "rude" and "out of the envelope" for assuming there was prostitution -- which is a safe assumption in at least one circumstance (Blakeney) -- even though you concede that it "may have happened?" You say UofL fans want to wait to see what really happened, but that didn't stop most on here from concluding that this was mostly or completely fabricated, until the school said otherwise with the ban. The bottom line is that everyone on here is speculating. That is 90% of what a message board is. Louisville fans "speculate" every day that UK has committed or is committing violations, despite no evidence.

 

[Senore2006]

So I am "rude" and "out of the envelope" for assuming there was prostitution -- which is a safe assumption in at least one circumstance (Blakeney) -- even though you concede that it "may have happened?" You say UofL fans want to wait to see what really happened, but that didn't stop most on here from concluding that this was mostly or completely fabricated, until the school said otherwise with the ban. The bottom line is that everyone on here is speculating. That is 90% of what a message board is. Louisville fans "speculate" every day that UK has committed or is committing violations, despite no evidence.

The first honest thing you have said.

So how do you view your relationship with UofL fans concerning the scandal? Do you somehow believe they are not pursuing the truth enough, is that it?

Are you trying to keep our eye on the ball? Or are you amusing yourself?

I vote for the last one.

 

[Shawn (uk7spd)]

(1) I clearly said it was worse from a "perception" standpoint. You can attempt to argue otherwise, but the media coverage alone would suggest otherwise.

I don't think even the NCAA will impose harsher sanctions on a school based on the "perception" of rival fans.

I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this point. Given how arbitrary the NCAA often is, I think it is very reasonable to assume it will act based in part on public perception. That is the way the world works in many cases, fair or not. Look at the Penn State case. They didn't even break any technical NCAA rules and it may not even have fallen under the NCAA's jurisdiction (see UNC's attempted argument), yet because the perception was so terrible, they hit the school about as hard as they possibly could. And, no, I am not comparing the Penn State case to the Louisville in terms of substance, so don't jump all over me for that. I am simply saying that perception is often reality.

 

[Shawn (uk7spd)]

The first honest thing you have said.

So how do you view your relationship with UofL fans concerning the scandal? Do you somehow believe they are not pursuing the truth enough, is that it?

Are you trying to keep our eye on the ball? Or are you amusing yourself?

I vote for the last one.

I simply enjoy debate/discussion and policy. I am an attorney. It is what I do. I get that this is a difficult time for UofL fans, but it is only sports in the end. It means nothing in the grand scheme.

 

[cardfaninmemphis]

It's not illegal to trade athletic memorabilia for a tattoo but Ohio State football players did it and the school was penalized by the NCAA. There are specific NCAA rules on what a school can provide to a scholarship athlete and to a recruit. Anything beyond that is an impermissible benefit as I understand the rules.

IIRC, the Ohio State issue was that the athletes were not supposed to use the memorabilia in trade to obtain something. At that point, the memorabilia was treated for its cash value, and the cash value used to obtain something. In effect, the school gave the athletes cash.
Not saying it was right or wrong, it was the NCAA's call.

 

[wilkie01]

I think we are in good hands with Ramsey and Jurich. They are better equipped to resolve this problem than the average Joe fan is.

 

[zipp]

Out of curiosity, why do you think the "key fact" is whether players came to Louisville because of the impermissible benefits? I don't think that has any bearing, or at least very little, on whether there were violations and the severity of those violations. That would be like saying that we paid players, but other schools paid more and the kids went there, and thus we should not be penalized at all or as much...

Because there's a difference in penalty between, for example, murder and attempted murder. I'd even make a reasonable argument that repeated attempts without success to take advantage of it as an impermissible benefit by definition means it's not. The word "benefit" means something is gained.

...As an aside, your post also seems to minimize the perception problem here. This won't be a straight "let's look at precedent for impermissible benefit dollar amounts." Louisville's head of basketball operations paid for strippers/hookers for current players and recruits over several years. There is little if any precedent for that and it looks, from a public perception standpoint, far worse than a kid taking money from an agent, one tutor taking an online class for a kid, a kid allegedly cheating on a college entrance exam, a kid taking a few thousand dollars from AAU folks before college, etc. In terms of optics, this is about as bad as it gets, with the exception of UNC (who should get hit exponentially harder but likely won't).

Any matter that gets adjudicated relies on some form of precedent, whether the exact precedent exists or not. To say we've never run into this before, so let's (a) let 'em off or (b) mete out the death penalty or (c) do what feels right are all ridiculous ways of handling it. You look at various factors that are relevant in terms of a violation or crime...

 

[JohnKBA]

Homer has something to say to Chuck Smrt - just trying to inject some humor is all. I thought it was funny.

 

[zipp]

I think we are in good hands with Ramsey and Jurich...

I agree with half of that. And I'm completely uncertain on the outcome based on which guy "made the decision"...

 

[Senore2006]

I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this point. Given how arbitrary the NCAA often is, I think it is very reasonable to assume it will act based in part on public perception. That is the way the world works in many cases, fair or not. Look at the Penn State case. They didn't even break any technical NCAA rules and it may not even have fallen under the NCAA's jurisdiction (see UNC's attempted argument), yet because the perception was so terrible, they hit the school about as hard as they possibly could. And, no, I am not comparing the Penn State case to the Louisville in terms of substance, so don't jump all over me for that. I am simply saying that perception is often reality.

There are all sorts of potential reasons for the NCAA to want this entire thing to be settled quickly. Most of us believe they sent out the request upon which we acted.

The actual reasons for the NCAA wanting off the clock on this one is 2 fold: 1.) the ease of establishing the parameters of it all, on the downside of girls taking clothes off for recruits and of eventual sex, whether paid for or not - or even tangential........ It's done. It was easy to wrap up. It wasn't that bad. It was just incredibly stupid and surprising inasmuch as it has gone so viral

2.) The actors behind the book's publication, from the grooming of Katina as a client to the probably rampant use of salaciousness as a viral side dish in the writing itself - the infamous ledger so depended upon as ultimately convicting material in the OTL "expose'" - all this toxic organizational linkage connects right smack into the roots of Basketball in Indianapolis.

I think when Rick promises he "will be vindicated", that he was understating the case. I'm not sure how hardball the University would make it - plus, of course, there is the Grand Jury to consider. I doubt that is going away until justice gets some hearing, rightly or wrongly as far as the justice system is concerned. I don't even know what I hope for, lol.

But I have to believe it's over anyway. We made a pre-emptive choice and one I doubt very seriously came from anywhere but HQ.

But it is quite a pageant.

 

[Shawn (uk7spd)]

Because there's a difference in penalty between, for example, murder and attempted murder. I'd even make a reasonable argument that repeated attempts without success to take advantage of it as impermissible benefit by definition means it's not. The word "benefit" means something is gained.

I think you are viewing this from an incorrect and opposite perspective. The "impermissible benefit" is what accrued to the recruit/player, not to the school. Heck, many (perhaps most) times "impermissible benefit" cases do not even involve the school. For example, players taking money from agents, runners, AAU team, etc. In those cases, the penalties typically involved only vacating games, etc. (e.g., the Camby case at UMass) because the school was not involved. When the school was involved, as appears to be the case with Louisville, then there can obviously be additional penalties to the program (and not just the individual player(s)), but those penalties do not turn on whether the schools provision of impermissible benefits worked to the benefit of the school. Again, do you think the NCAA would say that a school who was outbid for a player deserves less punishment than the winning school? This isn't attempt murder vs. murder. The school succeeded in providing impermissible benefits. Whether and to what extent it helped the school, I would argue is of largely no consequence.

Also, as I noted above, the current allegations involved a lot of players on the team (not just recruits), so that would throw the "what benefit did the school gain" issue out the window. Assuming that it did happen, that is straight impermissible benefits, no different than a school giving a current player a few hundred bucks to buy a necklace, setting side the perception difference that exists here.