Floating a New Theory

[Senore2006]

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.

Ha ha, actually thanks for that. My brother and his wife are attorneys, lol. Your idiocy is finally understood in its majesty. (I'm screwing with you, lol).

I've been as honest as possible about my current take on the situation. As a UK fan, you have to monitor your own biases very seriously on our board. There are a billion fleas waiting to see your urgent need to see UofL fail at the things UK fans specialize in picking at.

Having said that, nor does anybody know Jack Schitt about anything in the entire universe of nothing. Speculating is all we have.

That is an extreme vulnerability. It's not comfy at all. We love our programs and the people in them. We have suffered a huge frigging injury - and we have only begun healing from the loss of an entire basketball season. What's worse, is that it is still ongoing. We watch games with sadness and regret, fearful of any number of negative ramifications for the player development as practices get easier and minutes awarded by personality rather than growth.

There's lots not to like right now, but UofL fans are handling the hell out of it. I may be as proud at our reaction than I have been in years.

 

[Senore2006]

By the way..... "Amusing yourself" was the correct answer.

 

[zipp]

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...

Then, let's change the word to "consequence" if the essence of the argument escapes you...

If the bullet misses the target, there is no consequence. If the act doesn't result in participation by the targeted player, there is no consequence. Players who were already on the team or didn't sign an LOI were of no consequence.

As before, whether the guy played paint-ball or stayed home didn't matter.

$48 per week for all of Minardi Hall...

 

[Shawn (uk7spd)]

Then, let's change the word to "consequence" if the essence of the argument escapes you...

If the bullet misses the target, there is no consequence. If the act doesn't result in participation by the targeted player, there is no consequence. Players who were already on the team or didn't sign an LOI were of no consequence.

As before, whether the guy played paint-ball or stayed home didn't matter.

$48 per week for all of Minardi Hall...

Wait, are you arguing that paying recruits is only a violation if the recruits end up coming to the school that paid them? And are you also arguing the allegations involving players that were already on the team are of "no consequence?"

And your "reasoning" also ignores the deterrence rationale for imposing sanctions. Punishments against schools (just like against people/corporations under the law) are not only about retribution, but they are equally about deterrence. In other words, the NCAA imposes sanctions, regardless of whether a bad act was successful, because they want to deter other programs from attempting such acts in the future.

 

[zipp]

Ha ha, actually thanks for that. My brother and his wife are attorneys, lol. Your idiocy is finally understood in its majesty. (I'm screwing with you, lol)...

Granted he's an LPT fan, but I'm not sure how much of a lawyer this guy is based on his reasoning in this thread.

And it always amuses me how LPT professionals like this guy and "JCfor3" (who's now MIA) have this much time in the middle of a regular workday to play on the internet. I guess it's just that perception thing that a slapd!ck lawyer wants us to consider.

"Elite program", my a$$...

 

[zipp]

Wait, are you arguing that paying recruits is only a violation if the recruits end up coming to the school that paid them? And are you also arguing the allegations involving players that were already on the team are of "no consequence?"

No, counselor, I'm saying that there are degrees of an offense...

If you hire hookers to land recruits and have LPT-scale recruiting classes, your liability is far greater than having kids go elsewhere. You sure didn't change the outcome of any ballgames in the latter instance.

Whether that's coded into the NCAA rules or not, those are facts. And it's very possibly the difference between a postseason ban or not.

"Elite program", my a$$...

 

[Shawn (uk7spd)]

No, counselor, I'm saying that there are degrees of an offense...

If you hire hookers to land recruits and have LPT-scale recruiting classes, you're at far greater liability than having kids go elsewhere. You sure didn't change the outcome of any ballgames.

Whether that's coded into the NCAA rules or not, those are facts. And it's very possibly the difference between a postseason ban or not...

I simply disagree. While the fact that a recruit actually matriculates raises the specter of other sanctions, such as vacating games for playing an ineligible player, there is no difference in the act itself. Again, setting aside the possible additional penalty of vacating games based on ineligibility, if you are seriously arguing that the NCAA would treat a school that paid a recruit and won his services differently than a school who paid the same recruit the same amount of money but did not win his services, then we disagree.

You are also still ignoring the allegations against players who were already on the team.

 

[JohnKBA]

Granted he's an LPT fan, but I'm not sure how much of a lawyer this guy is based on his reasoning in this thread.

And it always amuses me how LPT professionals like this guy and "JCfor3" (who's now MIA) have this much time in the middle of a regular workday to play on the internet. I guess it's just that perception thing that a slapd!ck lawyer wants to talk about.

"Elite program", my a$$...

I'd argue that "professionals" likely have more time than "others." Take a warehouse worker or UPS driver or bank teller or cashier - not a knock on those jobs at all - but those folks are much less likely to be able to break away from their occupation to post on a website than someone who spends a majority of their time in an office. When I'm not on the road or at an in person meeting in my facility, I can multitask pretty easily. Sitting through a 2 hour conference call can get boring pretty fast.

 

[Senore2006]

I simply disagree.

You are also still ignoring the allegations against players who were already on the team.

Finally we get to the reason for your interest. You find it very "compelling" that prior players may have benefited from the allegations in the scandal. In what sense exactly? You may use the book as a reference, especially inasmuch as you may be the only person who has read it in this forum right now.

If, say, McGee had paid for a birthday party, would that also be a violation?

You are very invested in a work of what by any criterion appears to be a bad book of fiction.

 

[Bobcat94]

Using Zipp's reasoning I guess Bruce Pearl didn't receive any penalties for the impermissible benefits the Ohio State point guard received on a recruiting trip since he in fact didn't sign with UT lol.

 

[Senore2006]

Granted he's an LPT fan, but I'm not sure how much of a lawyer this guy is based on his reasoning in this thread.

And it always amuses me how LPT professionals like this guy and "JCfor3" (who's now MIA) have this much time in the middle of a regular workday to play on the internet. I guess it's just that perception thing that a slapd!ck lawyer wants us to consider.

"Elite program", my a$$...

We all have our addictions. Some guys swear to God they are wearing bulletproof underwear when they walk through a raging fire. This one feels insulated by his sophistry, I fear.

He still seems very intent on leading us to his parameters of the discussion. Assumptions of guilt are pretty wide ranging, depending of fear, if you are a Cards fan or bloodlust, if you are a UK fan. These guys want to see the same pitchforks and cannibalization as the most fearful, powerless UofL fans want. They all meet merrily at the union of destruction, a blissful fantasy without a dime to its name at this stage.

 

[Shawn (uk7spd)]

Finally we get to the reason for your interest. You find it very "compelling" that prior players may have benefited from the allegations in the scandal. In what sense exactly? You may use the book as a reference, especially inasmuch as you may be the only person who has read it in this forum right now.

If, say, McGee had paid for a birthday party, would that also be a violation?

You are very invested in a work of what by any criterion appears to be a bad book of fiction.

First, I definitely did not read the book. Second, you think the book is still fiction? I mean, your school just imposed a pretty severe penalty on itself, and you think it did so based on a fiction? And, yes, under NCAA rules, paying for a birthday party would technically be a violation, albeit potentially de minimis. I don't think paying for strippers (and potentially prostitutes) would be considered de minimis.

 

[Senore2006]

No, I actually know it is fiction. How much of it applies depends on you taking it as a Rorschach Test telling us what parts you most wish were true.

 

[Shawn (uk7spd)]

No, I actually know it is fiction.

You can't "know" it is fiction. That is called speculation, which appears to be something you are vehemently against.

 

[Bobcat94]

No, I actually know it is fiction.

Come on now...

 

[Senore2006]

No, I actually know it is fiction. How much of it applies depends on you taking it as a Rorschach Test telling us what parts you most wish were true.

You can't "know" it is fiction. That is called speculation, which appears to be something you are vehemently against.

Whatever in God's name that means.

You sophistry angle just wore out. You are now using the same argument in a completely circular rationalization. I know it's fiction because she has verified it. Unfortunately, you don't have that underpinning in making your big hustle points. You have - OMG - speculation.

Imagine the horror!!

 

[Senore2006]

Come on now...

Apparently you guys missed that she is walking back allegations about sex.

Keep up, OK?

 

[Shawn (uk7spd)]

Whatever in God's name that means.

You sophistry angle just wore out. You are now using the same argument in a completely circular rationalization. I know it's fiction because she has verified it. Unfortunately, you don't have that underpinning in making your big hustle points. You have - OMG - speculation.

Imagine the horror!!

She has verified that the events detailed in the book are fiction? That is news to me.

 

[Senore2006]

She has verified that the events detailed in the book are fiction? That is news to me.

That's hard to believe. I thought you were up on all this stuff. You're just another disappointment.

 

[Shawn (uk7spd)]

That's hard to believe. I thought you were up on all this stuff. You're just another disappointment.

So I guess this is your nice way of saying that she has indeed confirmed that the events detailed in the book are fiction. Would you be so kind as to point us all in the direction of said confirmation? And while you are at it, you may want to point President Ramsey and AD Jurich in that same direction because they would presumably like to know that they banned Louisville based on a fiction.

 

[Jay Reimenschneider]

Would you be so kind as to ban yourself?

 

[zipp]

I simply disagree. While the fact that a recruit actually matriculates raises the specter of other sanctions, such as vacating games for playing an ineligible player, there is no difference in the act itself. Again, setting aside the possible additional penalty of vacating games based on ineligibility, if you are seriously arguing that the NCAA would treat a school that paid a recruit and won his services differently than a school who paid the same recruit the same amount of money but did not win his services, then we disagree.

You are also still ignoring the allegations against players who were already on the team.

Well, if we're talking about the behavior alone and the facts are what have been alleged/communicated, I'm willing to see U of L take a penalty commensurate with a $48/week "impermissible benefit" spread among who knows how many people--some of whom may not even be basketball players--at Minardi Hall.

And I'm ready to hear that the details of how that violation compares closely to other violations committed by NCAA member institituons that have received penalties. And if those penalties are postseason bans, so be it.

"Elite program", my a$$...

 

[zipp]

Using Zipp's reasoning I guess Bruce Pearl didn't receive any penalties for the impermissible benefits the Ohio State point guard received on a recruiting trip since he in fact didn't sign with UT lol.

"Any penalties" is an absolute, and I never said U of L didn't deserve any penalties. The punishment needs to fit the crime, a concept apparently lost on the average slapd!ck.

"Elite program", my a$$...

 

[zipp]

...And, yes, under NCAA rules, paying for a birthday party would technically be a violation, albeit potentially de minimis. I don't think paying for strippers (and potentially prostitutes) would be considered de minimis.

Lets' say at worst ten players were involved. I'd call a $48/week benefit, or about $5 per week per player, pretty damn close to de minimis. Feel free to try to convince me otherwise.

"Elite program", my a$$...

 

[zipp]

She has verified that the events detailed in the book are fiction? That is news to me.

Didn't she recant the age of her daughters involved in prostitution? I guess that means she only lies about certain things...

"Elite program", my a$$...

 

[zipp]

...And while you are at it, you may want to point President Ramsey and AD Jurich in that same direction because they would presumably like to know that they banned Louisville based on a fiction.

The basis of this debate is why Louisville was banned. At this point, anything is possible on that front, and there are certainly reasons to be suspicious.

This saga has turned completely from one about what happened to one about the way it's being managed. I'm not at all sure Jurich is behind the ban.

"Elite program", my a$$...

 

[OneEarWonder]

The basis of this debate is why Louisville was banned. At this point, anything is possible on that front, and there are certainly reasons to be suspicious.

This saga has turned completely from one about what happened to one about the way it's being managed. I'm not at all sure Jurich is behind the ban.

"Elite program", my a$$...

Asking "Why Louisville was banned" is like asking "Why do iPhones cost $800" ... in the end, it's because the decision makers felt it was the right price point. Where there violations? Apparently so. Do those violations merit a post season ban? Not in my opinion based on the information we have been given... but of course our opinions don't mean much.

I think Ramsey over reacted to save face and move past this. A PR move as much as anything else.

 

[Shawn (uk7spd)]

Asking "Why Louisville was banned" is like asking "Why do iPhones cost $800" ... in the end, it's because the decision makers felt it was the right price point. Where there violations? Apparently so. Do those violations merit a post season ban? Not in my opinion based on the information we have been given... but of course our opinions don't mean much.

I think Ramsey over reacted to save face and move past this. A PR move as much as anything else.

When you say that the violations do not warrant a post season ban in your opinion, what violations are you talking about? I realize nothing has been confirmed yet, as you acknowledged, so I am not talking about a debate regarding the truth of the allegations. I am just curious as to what violations are you assuming happened that you do not believe rise to the level of a post-season ban.

 

[OneEarWonder]

When you say that the violations do not warrant a post season ban in your opinion, what violations are you talking about? I realize nothing has been confirmed yet, as you acknowledged, so I am not talking about a debate regarding the truth of the allegations. I am just curious as to what violations are you assuming happened that you do not believe rise to the level of a post-season ban.

Impermissible benefits. It is a VERY broad category. My assumption is that there were parties with strippers paid for by McGee. Exactly how many or how much, I don't know. That being said, it is a recruiting violation. So reduction of visits, possibly a scholarship reduction or probation for a few years. Based on what has been communicated so far, it does not seem to warrant a post season ban, IMO.

Now, there may be more we don't know. But based on what is public knowledge, it just seems to be an overreach.

 

[Shawn (uk7spd)]

Impermissible benefits. It is a VERY broad category. My assumption is that there were parties with strippers paid for by McGee. Exactly how many or how much, I don't know. That being said, it is a recruiting violation. So reduction of visits, possibly a scholarship reduction or probation for a few years. Based on what has been communicated so far, it does not seem to warrant a post season ban, IMO.

Now, there may be more we don't know. But based on what is public knowledge, it just seems to be an overreach.

I understand your argument, but when you say "what has been communicated so far," are you talking about all of the allegations in the book? Because that covers more than simply recruiting violations. The parties allegedly involved several players as well. Or are you simply assuming that all they will be able to prove (or have proven to this point) is the involvement of the recruits? I have always assumed that the recruits and players go together because the parties were thrown for recruits with current players, so if there are impermissible benefits for recruits, that means there were necessarily impermissible benefits for players.

 

[zipp]

I understand your argument, but when you say "what has been communicated so far," are you talking about all of the allegations in the book? Because that covers more than simply recruiting violations. The parties allegedly involved several players as well. Or are you simply assuming that all they will be able to prove (or have proven to this point) is the involvement of the recruits? I have always assumed that the recruits and players go together because the parties were thrown for recruits with current players, so if there are impermissible benefits for recruits, that means there were necessarily impermissible benefits for players.

You need to familiarize yourself with the allegations. I've heard about far more players involved than recruits, and no recruits to my knowledge that inked with U of L.

I think your understanding about the purpose of the alleged parties is also backward. Most of the parties were staged, and if recruits happened to be in town, fine. Blakeney may be the only exception. McGee wanted to a be a big man with the existing team; he wasn't directly involved with recruiting.

And Ear is right...the information already out there is small potatoes as far as "benefits".

"Elite program", my a$$...

 

[Shawn (uk7spd)]

You need to familiarize yourself with the allegations. I've heard about far more players involved than recruits, and no recruits to my knowledge that inked with U of L.

I think your understanding about the purpose of the alleged parties is also backward. Most of the parties were staged, and if recruits happened to be in town, fine. Blakeney may be the only exception. McGee wanted to a be a big man with the existing team; he wasn't directly involved with recruiting.

And Ear is right...the information already out there is small potatoes as far as "benefits".

"Elite program", my a$$...

Ear seems to be saying the opposite. He is saying that this only involves recruiting violations.

Also, I am plenty familiar with the allegations. During her interview with KSR, Powell explicitly stated that each of the 22 parties was specifically organized in conjunction with a recruiting visit. Every single one. Nevertheless, I don't think there is much significance between the player/recruit distinction. Sure, I suppose it looks worse if the parties actually revolved around recruiting, as opposed to just giving the players some entertainment, but in the end the violations for impermissible benefits are the same (with the exception of player ineligibility issues, which would only affect players that actually came to Louisville).

 

[zipp]

Ear seems to be saying the opposite. He is saying that this only involves recruiting violations.

Also, I am plenty familiar with the allegations. During her interview with KSR, Powell explicitly stated that each of the 22 parties was specifically organized in conjunction with a recruiting visit. Every single one. Nevertheless, I don't think there is much significance between the player/recruit distinction. Sure, I suppose it looks worse if the parties actually revolved around recruiting, as opposed to just giving the players some entertainment, but in the end the violations for impermissible benefits are the same (with the exception of player ineligibility issues, which would only affect players that actually came to Louisville).

Ear's last post didn't say that--just that there would have been a recruiting violation. And I'll add "among other things". Just the Blakeney story would have qualified for a violation.

I haven't read her book or listened to her interviews, nor do I plan to. But I have read reports about very few recruits and mostly current players. I haven't seen the first recruit in any of the pictures published. If you're "plenty familiar" with the allegations, let's hear the names of the recruits.

Of course, the ho is gonna talk up recruits. There's a credible source. Again, let's hear the names.

"Elite program", my a$$...

 

[EasyCard]

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.

All paid activities regarding NCAA athletes must be similar to normal campus activities. I don't think the University believes strippers in dorms is a normal campus activity. Having strippers in a dorm is considered an Extra-benefit and is a violation under the NCAA.

 

[EasyCard]

Ear's last post didn't say that--just that there would have been a recruiting violation. And I'll add "among other things". Just the Blakeney story would have qualified for a violation.

I haven't read her book or listened to her interviews, nor do I plan to. But I have read reports about very few recruits and mostly current players. I haven't seen the first recruit in any of the pictures published. If you're "plenty familiar" with the allegations, let's hear the names of the recruits.

Of course, the ho is gonna talk up recruits. There's a credible source. Again, let's hear the names.

"Elite program", my a$$...

the names of the players will be kept confidential as much as possible considering FERP and possibility of victims being minors
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_...its-acknowledge-stripper-parties-minardi-hall

 

[CATFANFOLIFE87]

Ear's last post didn't say that--just that there would have been a recruiting violation. And I'll add "among other things". Just the Blakeney story would have qualified for a violation.

I haven't read her book or listened to her interviews, nor do I plan to. But I have read reports about very few recruits and mostly current players. I haven't seen the first recruit in any of the pictures published. If you're "plenty familiar" with the allegations, let's hear the names of the recruits.

Of course, the ho is gonna talk up recruits. There's a credible source. Again, let's hear the names.

"Elite program", my a$$...

The recruits' names weren't mentioned because she didn't know their names. Ja'quan Lyle and Antonio Blakeney were named because special arrangements were made for those two. In other incidents it was a room full of players instead of her in a room alone with one player. If you look at the dates in the book I'm sure you could correspond those to the recruits that were on campus those days

 

[Jay Reimenschneider]

When you say that the violations do not warrant a post season ban in your opinion, what violations are you talking about? I realize nothing has been confirmed yet, as you acknowledged, so I am not talking about a debate regarding the truth of the allegations. I am just curious as to what violations are you assuming happened that you do not believe rise to the level of a post-season ban.

Get a flipping life for Christ's sake! And go away. Good grief the obnoxiousness practically jumps off the page when you post.

 

[OneEarWonder]

Ear seems to be saying the opposite. He is saying that this only involves recruiting violations.

Also, I am plenty familiar with the allegations. During her interview with KSR, Powell explicitly stated that each of the 22 parties was specifically organized in conjunction with a recruiting visit. Every single one. Nevertheless, I don't think there is much significance between the player/recruit distinction. Sure, I suppose it looks worse if the parties actually revolved around recruiting, as opposed to just giving the players some entertainment, but in the end the violations for impermissible benefits are the same (with the exception of player ineligibility issues, which would only affect players that actually came to Louisville).

Ear's last post didn't say that--just that there would have been a recruiting violation. And I'll add "among other things". Just the Blakeney story would have qualified for a violation.

Correct Zipp. Shawn, I did not mean to imply ONLY recruiting violations. There were impermissible benefits (I think we can all agree on that) AND there were recruiting violations (based on what we know). The question becomes the extent and severity of those violations. Sure they LOOK bad.. but how bad were they really?

Did violations occur? YES. Should those violations merit punishment? YES. Is a post season ban a proper punishment? NO... at least not based on what we know so far.

However, it is water under the bridge. Ramsey & crew chose that medicine whether they needed it or not. Like when I let my kids choose their own punishment... if they choose more than I would, it still sticks.

 

[Bobcat94]

For the Life of me I don't believe that for the most part the fanbase and Rick Pitino himself say they haven't read the book of accusations that to potentially be devastating to their program.

 

[HedleyLamarr]

Universities are businesses. Ramsey made the least costly decision, as any good CEO would do. Hopefully, No blockbuster was found, and Smrt is dialed in to the NCAA enough to negotiate this cheapest possible resolution. I just hope that this is it....