I truly cannot stand this governing body . Ncaa bascially gave them a death penalty totally destrpyed this school and for some things that easily should have been NC. they truly screw certain schools and surely the lesser money makers.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
All they took from a school like that is like a death penalty . Schools like that already struggle for growth in sports . SMU has never been the same .A one-year postseason ban is not a death penalty...
SMU actually got a death penalty. This school got a one-year postseason ban.All they took from a school like that is like a death penalty . Schools like that already struggle for growth in sports . SMU has never been the same .
I don’t have any problem with UNC but having fake classes for athletes for 30 years and no penalties ? I think there was a battle and UNC won we should take a page from their book and fight the NCAA on anything.
I don't think the plan in 2016 was to self impose because Smrt said so. That clown was brought in to give an appearance of integrity to the investigation. Any decision making was supposed to be the sole responsibility of U of L management. We had a Prez under siege at the time who tried to make that decision himself.
Jurich wouldn't have self imposed had the decision been his. How do I know? What did he do when the NCAA put a show cause on Clint Hurtt? He thumbed his nose.
Jurich stood behind his operation and the people in it. And he would have fought that time as well had the decision been his. Since his termination, his message has been consistent in that regard. Those banners would still be hanging in Bailout Arena. The only people saying otherwise are clown show apologists...
Pitino was not found to have violated NCAA rules; in fact, the NCAA exonerated him. And Jurich was comfortable taking the word of Hurtt over that of the NCAA. These issues have nothing to do with self imposing--they're about decision making and acting.A lot to unpack here but Jurich’s handling on Clint Hurtt was a good predictor of how he would handle Pitino post-Katina. He was comfortable with the risk of having a violator of NCAA rules on coaching staffs. Hurtt worked out, Pitino didn’t. To equivocate the Hurtt situation with self-imposing in basketball is poor on your part...
K-rag got a $2 million buyout. The issue there was litigating a lower payout. And there was no evidence I ever heard that K-rag violated performance language in his contract. That's unlike Petrino's situation: ask @gocds....Just to add a little of contradictions to this you’ve been adamant that Jurich wouldn’t have paid Petrino the full buyout, but he did for Kragthorpe. So using that logic clearly he would’ve paid Petrino just the same as he did Krags...
Jurich backed Ramsey who was his boss. That doesn't mean he would have made the same decision--in this case, he would not. That's probably one of the biggest reasons that Doc made it clear that it was "my decision", ill fated as it was......As for the rest of this, you seem to enjoy ignoring contemporaneous statements by Jurich and then latch on to his after-the-fact musings. How convenient! To accept that viewpoint would then suggest that Jurich was too chicken-$hit to stand up to Ramsey and was fine throwing Lee and Lewis under the bus because he was scared. That’s not the Tom Jurich I know.
Pitino was not found to have violated NCAA rules; in fact, the NCAA exonerated him. And Jurich was comfortable taking the word of Hurtt over that of the NCAA. These issues have nothing to do with self imposing--they're about decision making and acting.
K-rag got a $2 million buyout. The issue there was litigating a lower payout. And there was no evidence I ever heard that K-rag violated performance language in his contract. That's unlike Petrino's situation: ask @gocds.
Jurich backed Ramsey who was his boss. That doesn't mean he would have made the same decision--in this case, he would not. That's probably one of the biggest reasons that Doc made it clear that it was "my decision", ill fated as it was...
Jurich backed Ramsey who was his boss. That doesn't mean he would have made the same decision--in this case, he would not. That's probably one of the biggest reasons that Doc made it clear that it was "my decision", ill fated as it was...
So what would have been Pitino's motivation to have lied about his attorney's counsel? And what would have been their motive to allow Pitino to lie publicly about that as well?......You seemed to really believe Pitino when he said he went against his lawyers advice in walking away from $40M. So I guess you believe his contemporaneous quote in this situation as well?
On Clint Hurtt...
Louisville AD supports assistant Clint Hurtt despite NCAA penalties
"...Jurich did not dispute the NCAA's allegations that Hurtt received and provided impermissible benefits to recruits while at Miami, choosing only to address the unethical conduct charge as a difference of opinion."
Unlike clowns and his former boss, Jurich never fell on an NCAA sword. He rightfully just gave the NCAA lip service.
And he has said in interviews since he "retired" that he would have fought the NCAA ruling that removed the banners. Clowns didn't care if the banners were removed which is why they're down...
That's just speculation on your part. It was widely reported that Pitino's chances at getting a new college gig were compromised by this lawsuit. Same story with all coaches and former employers......The only reason “dick” walked away was because he was legally behind the 8 ball and he couldn’t win...he finally made a good decision - walk away and you can maybe hold your head up because if you don’t walk away this “other stuff” will be revealed in court and I’ll continue the shame of my years at UofL and the ego kicked in...
I'm also not sure you recognize how successful attorneys operate......Of course his attorneys wanted him to “fight on” because that fattens their fees...
So what was the "difference of opinion"?The only thing hurtt got in trouble for was receiving money from nevin shapiro. He took the 1 season penalty. Why would be the point of Jurich fighting it? It was a speeding ticket in the grand scheme of things. Its nowhere near the level of penalty we were facing when we took a post season ban.
Saying what you would have done after the fact is great after the fact but when you took the job we willing took a post season ban.
So what would have been Pitino's motivation to have lied about his attorney's counsel? And what would have been their motive to allow Pitino to lie publicly about that as well?...
Good answer when you don’t have one...If you can’t understand the reasons Pitino might lie or exaggerate about his position and his counsels position then you aren’t nearly as savvy as you think.
Good answer when you don’t have one...
This thread is going to go 10+ pages and people who don't show up much are going to see it and say "WTF 10 pages on SFA?"
SMU actually got a death penalty. This school got a one-year postseason ban.
Too much butthurt in this space over Carolina.
hahahaha...the irony of this coming from the guy who has so much butthurt over Vince Tyra is magnificent. What a complete a$$ you are on here, and probably in all facets of life.
Deflections, not answers.Just as you struggle to admit when you have a losing argument, Rick also struggles to absorb and acknowledge anything that deflates his ego.
hahahaha...the irony of this coming from the guy who has so much butthurt over Vince Tyra is magnificent. What a complete a$$ you are on here, and probably in all facets of life.
Deflections, not answers.
^^^ Guy who responds to a "complete a$$." ^^^
And as a matter of fact, I've grown to love "Vince"...
Pitino didn’t say he had a “winning case.” He said he was acting in opposition to the advice of his counsel. And from their silence, they apparently agreed with that. Those are facts and logical inferences.Let me simplify. Rick’s ego prevented him from acknowledging that he had a losing case. So he created a narrative that allowed him to preserve some personal dignity. Your ego prevents you from acknowledging that you have multiple losing arguments in this thread.
Pitino didn’t say he had a “winning case.” He said he was acting in opposition to the advice of his counsel. And from their silence, they apparently agreed with that. Those are facts and logical inferences.
Everything else is your speculation and narrative. And since you raised the issue of Pitino’s credibility, apparently you think you have more than he does. Funny stuff...