ADVERTISEMENT

The Banner is gone.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Eligibility is supposed to be about the the value of impermissible benefits, and this is much more than that according to the NCAA. You're in the Sandusky realm with that reasoning regardless of what a slappy wants to admit. THAT'S where the similarities start.

"Elite program," my a$$...
I think you may be confusing value with cost. We know or think we know what was spent to hire the hos. What you won't see is the NCAA try to place a value on a "lay" or "dance". That would be a precedent. What they're saying is that it led to an impermissible benefit, which the penalty is being ruled ineligible. Again if the case is made that Harrell, Russ and Rozier participated, then it is hard to claim that they didn't receive a benefit that they wouldn't have got somewhere else.
 
I think you may be confusing value with cost. We know or think we know what was spent to hire the hos. What you won't see is the NCAA try to place a value on a "lay" or "dance". That would be a precedent...
Value = cost, and that is the precedent, many times over. The NCAA always puts a dollar sign on the benefit, and that provides direction on the penalty. It's not a light switch where someone gives you a free stick of gum--bang!--you're ineligible.

THAT is what the NCAA abandoned with this case. They said "to hell with the value, we don't like it at ANY price." And that is what they will have to defend when U of L files suit...
 
Value = cost, and that is the precedent, many times over. The NCAA always puts a dollar sign on the benefit, and that provides direction on the penalty. It's not a light switch where someone gives you a free stick of gum--bang!--you're ineligible.

THAT is what the NCAA abandoned with this case. They said "to hell with the value, we don't like it at ANY price." And that is what they will have to defend when U of L files suit...
The NCAA will use this opportunity to set precedent so this never happens again. They have the freedom to do that because they are a private entity who governs within. As long as they haven't broken their own rules I just don't see how a court would rule against them.
 
Last edited:
Value = cost, and that is the precedent, many times over. The NCAA always puts a dollar sign on the benefit, and that provides direction on the penalty. It's not a light switch where someone gives you a free stick of gum--bang!--you're ineligible.

THAT is what the NCAA abandoned with this case. They said "to hell with the value, we don't like it at ANY price." And that is what they will have to defend when U of L files suit...
When Rex chapman decided to market himself with a poster, he was cited by the NCAA not because the cost benefit was going to be substantial but because he was going to get a impermissible benefit. Then the NCAA put a monetary value on the benefit and he was able to pay back the cost. While I agree that is the only way to determine retribution or compensation but because the players have already played, the NCAA doesn't want to go back. That's sets a precedent for cheat now, get caught later and then pay your way out of it.
 
When Rex chapman decided to market himself with a poster, he was cited by the NCAA not because the cost benefit was going to be substantial but because he was going to get a impermissible benefit. Then the NCAA put a monetary value on the benefit and he was able to pay back the cost. While I agree that is the only way to determine retribution or compensation but because the players have already played, the NCAA doesn't want to go back. That's sets a precedent for cheat now, get caught later and then pay your way out of it.
I think you need to research the history of these kinds of cases... There are examples where the benefit was unknowingly received, repaid, and eligibility restored. U of L has already argued that point about this case...
 
The NCAA will use this opportunity to set precedent so this never happens again. They have the freedom to do that because they are a private entity who governs within. As long as they haven't broken their own rules I just don't see how a court would rule against them.
That sounds a lot like legislating on the fly. Again, the NCAA has to follow its own rules. If there's any evidence they're being arbitrary and not respecting their rules and past practices, they will have problems in court.

"Private entity" is not a sufficient defense. My HOA is in court all of the time, and that is never a valid argument.

A typical slappy and a U of L fan are not going to see eye-to-eye on that, so further debate is pointless.

"Elite program," my a$$...
 
I think you need to research the history of these kinds of cases... There are examples where the benefit was unknowingly received, repaid, and eligibility restored. U of L has already argued that point about this case...
Yes while the player or players still had eligibility left to regain. Doesn't apply to Russ, Harrell or Rozier.
 
Yes while the player or players still had eligibility left to regain. Doesn't apply to Russ, Harrell or Rozier.
As U of L said, that's because they were denied that opportunity. Not because anyone refused or ignored it...
 
As U of L said, that's because they were denied that opportunity. Not because anyone refused or ignored it...
"Their" opportunity was to come out and say "something's not right here?" Does this happen at all colleges? "You think we could get in trouble for this?"
 
"Their" opportunity was to come out and say "something's not right here?" Does this happen at all colleges? "You think we could get in trouble for this?"
How does that happen when only McGee knew about it?...
 
How does that happen when only McGee knew about it?...
I know you're an educated guy. McGee pulled this off himself and was able to keep it quiet for at least 3 years? That in itself gives creedance that it was kept secret. But how without some resources? And if McGee had that much power when he wasn't even a coach raises issues on so many levels. Try to keep the banner but leave the dirt on the partially dug grave.
 
I know you're an educated guy. McGee pulled this off himself and was able to keep it quiet for at least 3 years? That in itself gives creedance that it was kept secret. But how without some resources? And if McGee had that much power when he wasn't even a coach raises issues on so many levels. Try to keep the banner but leave the dirt on the partially dug grave.
I don't have to be educated to understand what the NCAA concluded... That McGee operated alone. It's the primary reason why Pitino wasn't significantly penalized.

You may believe otherwise, and that's fine. Just like the NCAA may believe that a harsher penalty was justified. The problem in court is that what anyone believes is irrelevant if it can't be supported by evidence...
 
I don't have to be educated to understand what the NCAA concluded... That McGee operated alone. It's the primary reason why Pitino wasn't significantly penalized.

You may believe otherwise, and that's fine. Just like the NCAA may believe that a harsher penalty was justified. The problem in court is that what anyone believes is irrelevant if it can't be supported by evidence...
Aren't you skipping a step? I believe the onus is on U of L to prove the NCAA was wrong in their findings. U if L is the one asked to provide evidence.
 
What exactly could Louisville prove to reduce the punishment? Serious question. What angle do you think they will be pushing?
 
What exactly could Louisville prove to reduce the punishment? Serious question. What angle do you think they will be pushing?
To me the only way to reduce the punishment, i.e. games forfeited and banner lost, is to dispute the players being ruled ineligible. Whether it comes down to a "he said, she said" with little or no factual basis or just a technicality and the university "offers" retribution, plus insurance and guarantees in place that this is not allowed to happen. Don't just say it but have a plan in place that will make it impossible for something like this to occur at a student dorm are the only chances we have IMHO. If we continue with the "we didn't know" rhetoric and will take you to court will only make things uglier and drawn out.
 
To me the only way to reduce the punishment, i.e. games forfeited and banner lost, is to dispute the players being ruled ineligible. Whether it comes down to a "he said, she said" with little or no factual basis or just a technicality and the university "offers" retribution, plus insurance and guarantees in place that this is not allowed to happen. Don't just say it but have a plan in place that will make it impossible for something like this to occur at a student dorm are the only chances we have IMHO. If we continue with the "we didn't know" rhetoric and will take you to court will only make things uglier and drawn out.
Happen to agree. Accountability is the issue here. The NCAA wants the university athletic department to be held accountable. The ULAD (mainly Pitino who the ULAD is 100% backing) is trying to deflect all the blame at Andre McGee without accepting their own accountability.

What could have been done differently? That's easy to answer in hindsight. Pitino never should have left a young man who just finished his own college career to be in charge of younger men (and in some cases, boys) during recruiting visits. I understand the thought process of giving more responsibility to a young man as he grows, but obviously McGee was way too immature to handle the level of responsibility that was assigned to him and Pitino failed his own program by not knowing McGee's lack of morals, ethics, and maturity as a man.
 
What exactly could Louisville prove to reduce the punishment? Serious question. What angle do you think they will be pushing?

Well, if it is an extra-benefit case, why couldn’t we argue that there was no benefit? Maybe our guys could sign statements that they didn’t really like it that well, and that they have had better for free. Maybe any recruits involved would even say that the experience was a detriment, rather than a benefit.
 
Well, if it is an extra-benefit case, why couldn’t we argue that there was no benefit? Maybe our guys could sign statements that they didn’t really like it that well, and that they have had better for free. Maybe any recruits involved would even say that the experience was a detriment, rather than a benefit.
I'm sure you're being funny but I'll go along. It's not extra it's impermissible meaning they don't have to like it or not. Means they shouldn't have got it. Now how do you give it back? How much does that cost?
 
I'm sure you're being funny but I'll go along. It's not extra it's impermissible meaning they don't have to like it or not. Means they shouldn't have got it. Now how do you give it back? How much does that cost?

My mistake. I thought it had to be an extra-benefit, because it surely couldn’t be impermissible if every SEC school does practically the same thing every football recruiting season. The only difference is that SEC schools manipulate their own young female students into providing the service – a much more honorable arrangement wouldn’t you say?
 
  • Like
Reactions: WhatMeWorry
My mistake. I thought it had to be an extra-benefit, because it surely couldn’t be impermissible if every SEC school does practically the same thing every football recruiting season. The only difference is that SEC schools manipulate their own young female students into providing the service – a much more honorable arrangement wouldn’t you say?
How do you know this?
 
My mistake. I thought it had to be an extra-benefit, because it surely couldn’t be impermissible if every SEC school does practically the same thing every football recruiting season. The only difference is that SEC schools manipulate their own young female students into providing the service – a much more honorable arrangement wouldn’t you say?
How do you know this?
This is what occurred at UT. They were coercing coeds in some way as I recall. The coach before Lane kifin I believe or Pearl. Can't remember the complete details. I'm sure you could goggle it.
 
This is what occurred at UT. They were coercing coeds in some way as I recall. The coach before Lane kifin I believe or Pearl. Can't remember the complete details. I'm sure you could goggle it.
It was kiffin. He had utilized hostesses to show recruits around and they came to some high school games. If I recall, they didn't get in any trouble over this and there was no indication that they were manipulated or paid.
 
Aren't you skipping a step? I believe the onus is on U of L to prove the NCAA was wrong in their findings. U if L is the one asked to provide evidence.
No. I don't think U of L has a big issue with the findings. It's about the penalty.
To me the only way to reduce the punishment, i.e. games forfeited and banner lost, is to dispute the players being ruled ineligible...
I don't think so. It's the stick-of-gum example. "Eligibility" isn't a light switch on or off regardless of the dollar amount. There are too many historical examples where the amount of alleged benefit is relevant. That's the NCAA's problem.

"Elite program," my a$$...
 
Last edited:
What exactly could Louisville prove to reduce the punishment? Serious question. What angle do you think they will be pushing?
That the NCAA broke with precedent, acted arbitrarily, and/or denied U of L due process. All of which IMO will be respected as issues by a court of law if any can be proven.

Being a "voluntary organization" doesn't let the NCAA escape legit allegations that it isn't administering its own form of justice fairly.

"Elite program," my a$$...
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThroughBlue
Well, if it is an extra-benefit case, why couldn’t we argue that there was no benefit? Maybe our guys could sign statements that they didn’t really like it that well, and that they have had better for free. Maybe any recruits involved would even say that the experience was a detriment, rather than a benefit.
You joke about that, but don't think that's a point that will be lost on U of L's lawyers. The mere fact that our recruiting was WORSE while McGee was in the picture is a valid argument as to the value of that "benefit".

It won't matter too much in a civil court how much value "repugnant" is to the NCAA, not when value can be directly measured and compared to past cases of impermissible benefits.

"Elite program," my a$$...
 
I'm sure you're being funny but I'll go along. It's not extra it's impermissible meaning they don't have to like it or not. Means they shouldn't have got it. Now how do you give it back? How much does that cost?
Well, what's the meaning of the word "benefit"?

"Elite program," my a$$...
 
It was kiffin. He had utilized hostesses to show recruits around and they came to some high school games. If I recall, they didn't get in any trouble over this and there was no indication that they were manipulated or paid.
Great. More evidence for the prosecution.

"Elite program," my a$$...
 
Well, what's the meaning of the word "benefit"?

"Elite program," my a$$...
This one's easy. You don't see the swim team or other student athletes getting lap dances and strip shows. And contrary to what you think 18 year olds are going to participate no matter what you think the hos look like. It's called human nature.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cwcat
How do you know this?
He's not lying. He might be a bit close minded by just saying the SEC, but generally speaking this does happen all over the country. Young ladies who have a ton of school spirit will 'volunteer' to spread their spirit (among other things) in the sole attempt to sway a decision from the recruit which will help support the program they're offering to assist. It happens. Don't be naive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shadow force
He's not lying. He might be a bit close minded by just saying the SEC, but generally speaking this does happen all over the country. Young ladies who have a ton of school spirit will 'volunteer' to spread their spirit (among other things) in the sole attempt to sway a decision from the recruit which will help support the program they're offering to assist. It happens. Don't be naive.
I'm not naive at all. I know of the practice. You are right, it does happen everywhere not just the SEC. But to say the women are manipulated to hang out with the players is a pretty serious accusation.
 
This is what occurred at UT. They were coercing coeds in some way as I recall. The coach before Lane kifin I believe or Pearl. Can't remember the complete details. I'm sure you could goggle it.
It was kiffin. He had utilized hostesses to show recruits around and they came to some high school games. If I recall, they didn't get in any trouble over this and there was no indication that they were manipulated or paid.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.spor...e-closer-ncaa-book/192g7iy80w9sl1sjr06jjs76qk

Lacey Pearl Earp and another person actually wrote a book. One of the chapters discusses the UT football hostess program and the do whatever it takes attitude to get recruits. She was nicknamed the closer. She said that she was asked to take out Bryce Brown and Kiffin gave her 40.00 to spend. Once they sent her to SC and according to the article that was a violation. She did state she never got physical but was requested to flirt and tease the recruits. I guess all of that's ok with the NCAA. We are being punished for the fact minors we're given hookers. Plain and simple. We gained nothing; it's an NCAA image thing.
 
This one's easy. You don't see the swim team or other student athletes getting lap dances and strip shows. And contrary to what you think 18 year olds are going to participate no matter what you think the hos look like. It's called human nature.
If the basketball team brings recruits in on Wednesdays and no one else does, that doesn't mean Wednesday is an impermissible benefit. Maybe no one else gets it because no one WANTS it. Ya think?? No, we had an idiot thinking it was a good thing.

And "thinking" is mostly irrelevant if there is harder evidence to consider... Inferior recruiting while this was going on tells the story. Little or no value.
 
If the basketball team brings recruits in on Wednesdays and no one else does, that doesn't mean Wednesday is an impermissible benefit. Maybe no one else gets it because no one WANTS it. Ya think?? No, we had an idiot thinking it was a good thing.

And "thinking" is mostly irrelevant if there is harder evidence to consider... Inferior recruiting while this was going on tells the story. Little or no value.
But value was never mentioned by the NCAA, ethics and the attempt to improve recruiting is all that is required. The bylaws don't require a successful benefit to the school.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kyjeff1
But value was never mentioned by the NCAA, ethics and the attempt to improve recruiting is all that is required. The bylaws don't require a successful benefit to the school.
The problem for the NCAA is they're trying to penalize under the guise of an impermissible benefits case. And all NCAA impermissible benefits cases--at least prior to this one--distill in large part down to value. The NCAA will have to prove why this one was different.

They'll also have to accomplish that in a civil court setting where value is a key consideration of/for wrongdoing and penalty. As with most lawsuits, this one probably gets settled. And there's zero chance U of L settles where the banner is removed.

"Elite program," my a$$...
 
The problem for the NCAA is they're trying to penalize under the guise of an impermissible benefits case. And all NCAA impermissible benefits cases--at least prior to this one--distill in large part down to value. The NCAA will have to prove why this one was different.

They'll also have to accomplish that in a civil court setting where value is a key consideration of/for wrongdoing and penalty. As with most lawsuits, this one probably gets settled. And there's zero chance U of L settles where the banner is removed.

"Elite program," my a$$...
But then they're inviting every other institution to sue. Memphis will sue, so on and so forth. I'd say that scenario is very unlikely. Talk about unprecedented. Could you imagine seeing the news scroll on espn? "The NCAA and Louisville settles out of court."
 
But then they're inviting every other institution to sue. Memphis will sue, so on and so forth. I'd say that scenario is very unlikely. Talk about unprecedented. Could you imagine seeing the news scroll on espn? "The NCAA and Louisville settles out of court."
If that's the worry, I think Penn State just accomplished it.

"Elite program," my a$$...
 
The problem for the NCAA is they're trying to penalize under the guise of an impermissible benefits case. And all NCAA impermissible benefits cases--at least prior to this one--distill in large part down to value. The NCAA will have to prove why this one was different.

They'll also have to accomplish that in a civil court setting where value is a key consideration of/for wrongdoing and penalty. As with most lawsuits, this one probably gets settled. And there's zero chance U of L settles where the banner is removed.

"Elite program," my a$$...
No school has ever during successfully sued the NCAA over sanctions. Penn St. did not sue the NCAA.
 
The problem for the NCAA is they're trying to penalize under the guise of an impermissible benefits case. And all NCAA impermissible benefits cases--at least prior to this one--distill in large part down to value. The NCAA will have to prove why this one was different.

They'll also have to accomplish that in a civil court setting where value is a key consideration of/for wrongdoing and penalty. As with most lawsuits, this one probably gets settled. And there's zero chance U of L settles where the banner is removed.

"Elite program," my a$$...
Notre Dame is the latest and easiest example of impermissible benefits that held no monetary value yet resulted in ineligible players.

I don't understand your position in the second paragraph. Are you saying a judge is going to insist on ruling regarding value even though NCAA bylaws and precedent don't require value?
 
A lot of talk about Value, here. The NCAA has clearly stated they don't give a damn about the value of these parties.

We just have to hope the appeals committee puts more emphasis on the monetary value of the case rather than the shock value.

The NCAA isn't bound by precedent. They have written themselves an out in the bylaws, essentially saying "we will follow precedent unless we deem the situation is advanced enough for guidelines to be broken, at which point we are allowed to break precedent. "

And the NCAA isn't a separate entity. It is a coalition of institutions, obviously, including UofL. These institutions agree to the bylaws upon becoming a member. This why taking the issue to court is futile.

Judge: "NCAA, in your bylaws, are you legally allowed to break precedent and basically do what you want?"

NCAA: "Yes."

Judge: "UofL, did you consent to these bylaws and agree to operate within its parameters upon becoming a member institution?"

UofL: "Yes"

**Case closed**

I think we're completely dependant on the appeals committee overturning the decision of the COI, which I don't think they'll do.

We'll see...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: cwcat and kyjeff1
Status
Not open for further replies.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT