Prepare for more fallout if Bowen is declared eligible...

[zipp]

...at USCjr. I don't believe for a minute that he didn't know about money changing hands even if he didn't receive any of it. HE was the one enrolling in U of L, and how did that suddenly make sense to him with no knowledge of the money? It's illogical.

BUT if that argument holds water for the NCAA, it means a couple of things...

First is that we fired a high-level coach and AD over a matter that the NCAA says "not knowing" matters. It's hypocrisy on the NCAA's part when they say a coach must know. But it's true that with membership, we have in essence agreed to their rules. That doesn't mean we have to make hire-and-fire decisions based on the nonsense that the NCAA uses as common sense. If Bowen who was at the center of the controversy can get off by not knowing, how does it make any sense that the head coach involved is responsible for knowing? Again, NCAA lunacy doesn't prescribe OUR lunacy.

And it would undermine U of L's legal position in firing Jurich and Pitino. Both could reasonably argue that Bowen may have been eligible had he remained at U of L, and that they were terminated over nothing that was relevant. I doubt seriously that the NCAA makes any hypothetical statement, i.e., Bowen's eligible at USCjr but would have been ineligible at U of L.

If you supported the firings of Pitino and/or Jurich and want to see U of L prevail in the aftermath with these two guys, you don't wanna see Bowen suiting up anywhere in college basketball...

 

[will1976]

...at USCjr. I don't believe for a minute that he didn't know about money changing hands even if he didn't receive any of it. HE was the one enrolling in U of L, and how did that suddenly make sense to him with no knowledge of the money? It's illogical.

BUT if that argument holds water for the NCAA, it means a couple of things...

First is that we fired a high-level coach and AD over a matter that the NCAA says "not knowing" matters. It's hypocrisy on the NCAA's part when they say a coach must know. But it's true that with membership, we have in essence agreed to their rules. That doesn't mean we have to make hire-and-fire decisions based on the nonsense that the NCAA uses as common sense. If Bowen who was at the center of the controversy can get off by not knowing, how does it make any sense that the coach involved is responsible? Again, NCAA lunacy doesn't prescribe OUR lunacy.

And it would undermine U of L's legal position in firing Jurich and Pitino. Both could reasonably argue that Bowen may have been eligible had he remained at U of L, and that they were terminated over nothing that was relevant. I doubt seriously that the NCAA makes any hypothetical statement, i.e., Bowen's eligible at USCjr but would have been ineligible at U of L.

If you supported the firings of Pitino and/or Jurich and want to see U of L prevail in the aftermath with these guys, you don't wanna see Bowen suiting up anywhere in college basketball...

SOUR GRAPES

 

[HRTheCard]

If Pitino never got fired, Bowen would still never step foot on the court for UofL.

 

[REDFISTFURY3]

Rick was fired because YES one or two of his handpicked coaches. Who knows at this moment actually involved other than Fair. Was caught red handed being dirty. So Rick unfortunately is a guilty by association. Plus these AD's and coaches evidently agrred to this new rule of pausilble deniabilty if i',m not mistaken. Actually from a NCAA standpont you want Bowen to play gives U of L more strong ammo when the sanctions come down from this. To say hey NCAA you allowed him to play so show were the school is at fault all perps are long gone. Bottom line it's big lose regardless for our BB program anyway you look at.

Tom is guilty by associatiopn package deal with Rick . Really never agrreed he shoud've been let go.His is more on the political side.

 

[zipp]

Rick was fired because YES one or two of his handpicked coaches. Who knows at this moment actually involved other than Fair. Was caught red handed being dirty. So Rick unfortunately is a guilty by association. Plus these AD's and coaches evidently agrred to this new rule of pausilble deniabilty if i',m not mistaken. Actually from a NCAA standpont you want Bowen to play gives U of L more strong ammo when the sanctions come down from this. To say hey NCAA you allowed him to play so show were the school is at fault all perps are long gone. Bottom line it's big lose regardless for our BB program anyway you look at.

Tom is guilty by associatiopn package deal with Rick . Really never agrreed he shoud've been let go.His is more on the political side.

That (highlighted) is the only upside...NCAA sanctions going forward. How can U of L be criticized too much if the kid can still play?

BUT Bowen playing ANYWHERE is the same issue for U of L as if he were eligible to play here. ...Which is BTW why he was ruled ineligible by U of L; the clowns would have been shooting themselves in the foot. Ain't much of a 'crime' when no one gets harmed. And again, what the NCAA says and administers has little bearing on laws and contracts UNLESS those contracts state very clear responsibility for NCAA infractions WRT to the parties to that contract.

The bottom line is you don't want anything good to happen for any of the FBI players if you want U of L to escape liability for Pitino and Jurich. They'll use that against U of L--they were fired because of that...

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

...at USCjr. I don't believe for a minute that he didn't know about money changing hands even if he didn't receive any of it. HE was the one enrolling in U of L, and how did that suddenly make sense to him with no knowledge of the money? It's illogical.

BUT if that argument holds water for the NCAA, it means a couple of things...

First is that we fired a high-level coach and AD over a matter that the NCAA says "not knowing" matters. It's hypocrisy on the NCAA's part when they say a coach must know. But it's true that with membership, we have in essence agreed to their rules. That doesn't mean we have to make hire-and-fire decisions based on the nonsense that the NCAA uses as common sense. If Bowen who was at the center of the controversy can get off by not knowing, how does it make any sense that the head coach involved is responsible for knowing? Again, NCAA lunacy doesn't prescribe OUR lunacy.

And it would undermine U of L's legal position in firing Jurich and Pitino. Both could reasonably argue that Bowen may have been eligible had he remained at U of L, and that they were terminated over nothing that was relevant. I doubt seriously that the NCAA makes any hypothetical statement, i.e., Bowen's eligible at USCjr but would have been ineligible at U of L.

If you supported the firings of Pitino and/or Jurich and want to see U of L prevail in the aftermath with these two guys, you don't wanna see Bowen suiting up anywhere in college basketball...

Hmm, so you think its hypocrisy for the NCAA to say a coach must know. Thats interesting. As for Bowen, whether he knew about it or not isn't relevant and hasn't been since Cam Newton. By taking money, his father acted as an agent on Bowens behalf. If Bowen is ruled eligible, yes, UL got screwed and so did every member of the NCAA.

 

[zipp]

Hmm, so you think its hypocrisy for the NCAA to say a coach must know. Thats interesting...

As a slapd!ck, you're naturally taking my quote out of context...

It's utter hypocrisy for the NCAA to say the head coach must know while the recruit involved must not know. THAT would have to be the ruling to make Bowen eligible anywhere.

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

 

[Rockfly78]

...at USCjr. I don't believe for a minute that he didn't know about money changing hands even if he didn't receive any of it. HE was the one enrolling in U of L, and how did that suddenly make sense to him with no knowledge of the money? It's illogical.

BUT if that argument holds water for the NCAA, it means a couple of things...

First is that we fired a high-level coach and AD over a matter that the NCAA says "not knowing" matters. It's hypocrisy on the NCAA's part when they say a coach must know. But it's true that with membership, we have in essence agreed to their rules. That doesn't mean we have to make hire-and-fire decisions based on the nonsense that the NCAA uses as common sense. If Bowen who was at the center of the controversy can get off by not knowing, how does it make any sense that the head coach involved is responsible for knowing? Again, NCAA lunacy doesn't prescribe OUR lunacy.

And it would undermine U of L's legal position in firing Jurich and Pitino. Both could reasonably argue that Bowen may have been eligible had he remained at U of L, and that they were terminated over nothing that was relevant. I doubt seriously that the NCAA makes any hypothetical statement, i.e., Bowen's eligible at USCjr but would have been ineligible at U of L.

If you supported the firings of Pitino and/or Jurich and want to see U of L prevail in the aftermath with these two guys, you don't wanna see Bowen suiting up anywhere in college basketball...

Holy crap I actually agree with Z!! That said, this will be moot because that kid ain’t playing a second of college ball.

 

[nccardfan]

What you are all missing is that Bowen was not eligible to play at U of L because representatives of U of L were going to pay either Bowen or his dad to “play” at U of L, not any school. As far as we know The gamecocks have not offered benefits to Bowen, therefore USC should not be at risk, IM0.

 

[CardsFirst]

I think the way the rule was re written after Cam Newton it will ultimately make Bowen ineligible. But if not it should. I agree with Zipp that there is no way Bowen didn’t know. And everyone in and or attached to this mess should be punished.

Basically if coaches can’t use the “I didn’t know” neither should the player.

 

[nccardfan]

I think the way the rule was re written after Cam Newton it will ultimately make Bowen ineligible. But if not it should. I agree with Zipp that there is no way Bowen didn’t know. And everyone in and or attached to this mess should be punished.

Basically if coaches can’t use the “I didn’t know” neither should the player.

Obviously it is a different story if there is proof that Bowen actually received any money. That should be easy to trace. No money, no benefit. The coaches are in violation by making the offer (which you have to believe they would follow through).

Who do the police arrest in a prostitution scam? They get the client when they actually make an offer to the police officer posing as a prostitute.

 

[HRTheCard]

What you are all missing is that Bowen was not eligible to play at U of L because representatives of U of L were going to pay either Bowen or his dad to “play” at U of L, not any school. As far as we know The gamecocks have not offered benefits to Bowen, therefore USC should not be at risk, IM0.

Well, Gatto provided the money. The assistants and stuff were technically just middlemen. Gatto couldve done this with any school.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

As a slapd!ck, you're naturally taking my quote out of context...

It's utter hypocrisy for the NCAA to say the head coach must know while the recruit involved must not know. THAT would have to be the ruling to make Bowen eligible anywhere.

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

Even more interesting. Move those goal posts Zipp. Anyway, Bowen need not know about the money to be in violation.

12.02.1 Agent. [A] An agent is any individual who, directly or indirectly: (Adopted: 1/14/12) (a) Represents or attempts to represent an individual for the purpose of marketing his or her athletics ability or reputation for financial gain; or (b) Seeks to obtain any type of financial gain or benefit from securing a prospective student-athlete’s enrollment at an educational institution or from a student-athlete’s potential earnings as a professional athlete. 12.02.1.1 Application. [A] An agent may include, but is not limited to, a certified contract advisor, financial advisor, marketing representative, brand manager or anyone who is employed or associated with such persons. (Adopted: 1/14/12)

Since some money was given to Bowens father, I don't see how he could ever be eligible anywhere. It would create chaos for you guys if he was ruled eligible.


Here is an excerpt from the NYT stating Bowen's father did receive most of the first 25K. If so, by bylaw 12, Bowen can't possibly be eligible.

"On July 11, an undercover F.B.I. agent drove from New York City to Sood’s office in Princeton, N.J., and gave him $25,000 in cash on Dawkins’s behalf, according to the complaint. A couple of days later, Sood met with Bowen’s father and gave him most of the money, with Dawkins saying he would take care of the rest."

 

[CardsFirst]

I think the way the rule was re written after Cam Newton it will ultimately make Bowen ineligible. But if not it should. I agree with Zipp that there is no way Bowen didn’t know. And everyone in and or attached to this mess should be punished.

Basically if coaches can’t use the “I didn’t know” neither should the player.

Obviously it is a different story if there is proof that Bowen actually received any money. That should be easy to trace. No money, no benefit. The coaches are in violation by making the offer (which you have to believe they would follow through).

Who do the police arrest in a prostitution scam? They get the client when they actually make an offer to the police officer posing as a prostitute.

From what I understand is that the father received a payment of 20,000. So the father is responsible for the son. Good enough for me. Guilt by association since the father is the guardian.

 

[MikeMcCammon]

There is literally zero chance Bowen did not know his dad was shopping him around and subsequently got money. He should never be eligible to play in the NCAA. Having said that, I think he should apply at North Carolina where the NCAA might be able to figure out a creative way to make him eligible provided he switches over to Nike.

 

[nccardfan]

From what I understand is that the father received a payment of 20,000. So the father is responsible for the son. Good enough for me. Guilt by association since the father is the guardian.

If this was common knowledge, there’s no way the NCAA would have clear him to play at U of L and no way in hell, any institution would take a risk on him. There has to be more to the story.

 

[CardsFirst]

From what I understand is that the father received a payment of 20,000. So the father is responsible for the son. Good enough for me. Guilt by association since the father is the guardian.

If this was common knowledge, there’s no way the NCAA would have clear him to play at U of L and no way in hell, any institution would take a risk on him. There has to be more to the story.

The $20,000 is common knowledge it was on the news the other day. I should have been more clear.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

If this was common knowledge, there’s no way the NCAA would have clear him to play at U of L and no way in hell, any institution would take a risk on him. There has to be more to the story.

It falls in line with what I posted from the NYT.

 

[billoliver40]

Sounds like some folks are trying to find if the Can Newton Family loophole was closed. I believe it has been.
Of course, I thought North Carolina would be punished.