The clock has begun ticking..

[nccardfan]

After filing their appeal on Wednesday, the committee on infractions (COI) has 30 days to respond to U of L. Our appeal is based on the penalties being too severe and the NCAA not taking into consideration our self imposed bans. The 4 players who are in question were never properly ruled ineligible and upon so would have been reinstated with proper restitution. One player has particular immunity??? Now it's back in the NCAA's court...

 

[HRTheCard]

I've done some digging trying to understand what UofL is doing.

So pretty much all UofL is appealing is the 12-13 season wins + FF + Championship and money.



UofL makes a solid argument that 1 player in 2015, once the news broke, UofL submitted reinstatement to the NCAA and the NCAA granted him eligibility. So UofL's argument is that had they known back in '12-13, they would have submitted reinstatement then for the players. He had to do community service hours and take an on-campus class in return for eligibility.

Another argument UofL makes is that "NCAA granted immunity to a player in exchange for info. Then determined player should be ineligible & based vacating records on that." That's like "Hey you are immune if you tell us the truth, the player tells the truth, and then the NCAA says okay we've come to agreement that you were ineligible. That makes a whole lot of sense.

I think UofL has a solid argument in the appeal. Do I think we win? Eh probably not. Seems like we are the example the NCAA wants to show. Rightfully so, but maybe not to the punishment extent that was given so who knows.

You have to think, UofL is saying, we will take the 13-15 vacated wins, return the money, take the $5,000 fine, scholly reduction, unofficial visit penalty requirements, self imposed scholly reduction, and a self imposed tournament ban, all in return to keep the 12-13 season + money, which includes the FF and the championship.

You decide if that's enough to keep 1 season.

 

[Knucklehank1]

The reinstatement of the player in '15 will ensure that this ends up in court if the appeals fail. Based on that I'm feeling much better about UofLs position. There has been no consistency in the actions of the NCAA. They set the precedent by accepting the monetary value the school assigned to the "benefits" this player received when they reinstated him after a few sanctions. Then the COI turned around and contradicted this ruling by saying the actions were so scurrilous that a value couldn't be assigned. The NCAA is a kangaroo court and this will be exposed in a real court.

 

[zipp]

The NCAA will say it's been consistent in meting out impermissible benefits penalties--ineligibility until reinstatement.

"Everyone in the electric chair gets 2,000 volts..."
​

U of L will claim that the EFFECT of those penalties can be vastly different, i.e., the results are NOT the same.

"If 2,000 volts aren't enough, you're a free man..."​

I'm biased of course, but I like U of L's side of that argument. Justice can't be arbitrary, and the NCAA will lose a court case saying it can be or that it can't control that...

​

 

[nccardfan]

I'm still thinking that this won't end up in court and it seems that we are trying to reach a compromise. If we thought we had a great case even if went to court then why not appeal everything? I doubt the NCAA wants to go to court and really we don't either if they let us keep the banner and FF. It's prestige. Even though we know we won it, we want to hang it proudly and we want to continue to say CRP won 2 NC at two different schools without a but... or asterisk.

 

[Morgantown Card]

After filing their appeal on Wednesday, the committee on infractions (COI) has 30 days to respond to U of L. Our appeal is based on the penalties being too severe and the NCAA not taking into consideration our self imposed bans. The 4 players who are in question were never properly ruled ineligible and upon so would have been reinstated with proper restitution. One player has particular immunity??? Now it's back in the NCAA's court...

U of L is also saying that the supposed "benefits" were negligible. I like it, and I know Zipp is down with that argument. To me, THAT is the strongest argument. Ain't no recruits coming to Louisville because of dem ugly, nasty, skanky, stank trick-@ss ho's. NONE of them.

 

[zipp]

The benefits had negligible value because they had negligible value. It was a unique timeframe where in hindsight you were GLAD you didn't land any blue-chip recruits.

And if the purported benefits were no incentive to land recruits, why would they have been an incentive to KEEP players on the team? That's the other base that needs to be covered.

I'm perfectly satisfied with U of L using this argument in court which is the forum where it will have relevance. (The NCAA doesn't care...)

 

[Mike'sMarbles]

The NCAA has already received the publicity of slapping UofL down. Going to court, they have very little more to gain and a lot to lose. Louisville is in the opposite situation.

I think our guys will sit down with the NCAA behind closed doors and say, "look this is going to court if you don't let up a little. You could end up losing all of your authority. Who knows what some judge may rule?"

And that's a real risk to the NCAA. What may look like an open and shut case to the NCAA could look quite different in a court room. You just never know what will happen when it goes to that level.

Nothing would surprise me at this point with all the twists and turns of this case, but I definitely won't be surprised if the NCAA comes back on, say, NFL opening weekend, and lets everyone know some of the penalties have been reduced. No one outside the UofL and UK fanbases will notice or care..

 

[Rockfly78]

The NCAA has already received the publicity of slapping UofL down. Going to court, they have very little more to gain and a lot to lose. Louisville is in the opposite situation.

I think our guys will sit down with the NCAA behind closed doors and say, "look this is going to court if you don't let up a little. You could end up losing all of your authority. Who knows what some judge may rule?"

And that's a real risk to the NCAA. What may look like an open and shut case to the NCAA could look quite different in a court room. You just never know what will happen when it goes to that level.

Nothing would surprise me at this point with all the twists and turns of this case, but I definitely won't be surprised if the NCAA comes back on, say, NFL opening weekend, and lets everyone know some of the penalties have been reduced. No one outside the UofL and UK fanbases will notice or care..

On the flip side, if they roll over for UL, every institution from that day on will expect the same. They also can't afford to open that door

 

[zipp]

On the flip side, if they roll over for UL, every institution from that day on will expect the same. They also can't afford to open that door

That's one perspective... The other is they can't afford to lose significantly.

That's why settlements happen when the stakes are high.

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

 

[Rockfly78]

That's one perspective... The other is they can't afford to lose significantly.

That's why settlements happen when the stakes are high.

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

The scenario where the NCAA and UL settle out of court for the banner/lesser punishments is not a realistic scenario.

 

[Morgantown Card]

Benefits. LOL.

"Man, Katina so fine. I gotta go to U of L so I can hit that some more."

 

[nccardfan]

The scenario where the NCAA and UL settle out of court for the banner/lesser punishments is not a realistic scenario.

It's not settling for anything. It's responding appropriately to uninformed and worthless allegations.

 

[ThroughBlue]

Benefits. LOL.

"Man, Katina so fine. I gotta go to U of L so I can hit that some more."

I think you are overlooking th fact the it was reported that the member(s) of th coaching staff pushed the players/recruits/kids into having sex with these girls. Had it just been a strip show i think you don't see the harsh penalties that you are seeing.

 

[Morgantown Card]

I think you are overlooking th fact the it was reported that the member(s) of th coaching staff pushed the players/recruits/kids into having sex with these girls. Had it just been a strip show i think you don't see the harsh penalties that you are seeing.

Oh, believe me, I'm not overlooking it. I won't defend what happened at all. Underage hookers for underage recruits, paid for by a coach in Andre McGee. Gross. I get it man. Whatever penalty we get, we get and I understand it. I'm just saying, if I'm filing an appeal, I'm saying that these were hardly benefits that sealed the deal as far as recruits going to UofL. In fact, the NCAA's own document states that recruits were turned away because of these nasty, ugly, skanky, trick-@ss ho's. It actually hurt recruiting, and I point to the recruiting classes post-ho's as another data point to prove this.

 

[Cue Card]

I think you are overlooking th fact the it was reported that the member(s) of th coaching staff pushed the players/recruits/kids into having sex with these girls. Had it just been a strip show i think you don't see the harsh penalties that you are seeing.

After seeing the pics of the girls in question, I am 100% convinced McGee HAD to push the players/recruits/kids to have sex with them.

Just saying.

 

[Morgantown Card]

After seeing the pics of the girls in question, I am 100% convinced McGee HAD to push the players/recruits/kids to have sex with them.

Just saying.

Agreed. These were NOT benefits. To anybody. Except for Katina and her army of ugly, nasty, skanky stank trick-@ss fangirl ho's who all got to live out a fantasy of being with a future celebrity.

 

[Cue Card]

Back on topic, it's my opinion UofL is attempting to compromise with the NCAA in order to keep the final 4 and national championship banner. We'll see if that tactic works. It might.

 

[Mike'sMarbles]

On the flip side, if they roll over for UL, every institution from that day on will expect the same. They also can't afford to open that door

I think they already opened it when they reduced Penn State's penalties. The trick is they issued their penalties when they had a tremendous amount of media attention, then reduced them when the media attention was almost non-existent.

I won't be surprised either way, but it definitely wouldn't surprise me to see them follow a similar path with us.

 

[zipp]

The scenario where the NCAA and UL settle out of court for the banner/lesser punishments is not a realistic scenario.

Nor is one where the NCAA throws caution to the wind and risks losing everything in a court judgment. As has been pointed out, U of L has very little to lose.

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

 

[zipp]

...if I'm filing an appeal, I'm saying that these were hardly benefits that sealed the deal as far as recruits going to UofL. In fact, the NCAA's own document states that recruits were turned away because of these nasty, ugly, skanky, trick-@ss ho's. It actually hurt recruiting, and I point to the recruiting classes post-ho's as another data point to prove this.

Precisely. Which is at the heart of an impermissible benefits case...value. U of L can pretty easily claim negligible value in court...

 

[Big_Blue_Skidoo]

The benefits had negligible value because they had negligible value. It was a unique timeframe where in hindsight you were GLAD you didn't land any blue-chip recruits.

And if the purported benefits were no incentive to land recruits, why would they have been an incentive to KEEP players on the team? That's the other base that needs to be covered.

I'm perfectly satisfied with U of L using this argument in court which is the forum where it will have relevance. (The NCAA doesn't care...)

Isn't it going to be hard to argue that it didn't help their recruiting when they went to a final four in 2012 and won the national championship in 2013? I know the recruiting classes weren't ranked that high by analysts, but obviously they got players that were good enough for a final four and NC.

 

[Rockfly78]

I think they already opened it when they reduced Penn State's penalties. The trick is they issued their penalties when they had a tremendous amount of media attention, then reduced them when the media attention was almost non-existent.

I won't be surprised either way, but it definitely wouldn't surprise me to see them follow a similar path with us.

Penn state was a very different situation. No student athletes were involved and there was no eligibility issues. They walked that one back because penn state didn't break any NCAA rules. This case may align more accurately with the Ohio state tattoo case or the Miami football case.

 

[ThroughBlue]

Oh, believe me, I'm not overlooking it. I won't defend what happened at all. Underage hookers for underage recruits, paid for by a coach in Andre McGee. Gross. I get it man. Whatever penalty we get, we get and I understand it. I'm just saying, if I'm filing an appeal, I'm saying that these were hardly benefits that sealed the deal as far as recruits going to UofL. In fact, the NCAA's own document states that recruits were turned away because of these nasty, ugly, skanky, trick-@ss ho's. It actually hurt recruiting, and I point to the recruiting classes post-ho's as another data point to prove this.

After seeing the pics of the girls in question, I am 100% convinced McGee HAD to push the players/recruits/kids to have sex with them.

Just saying.

Agree with both of you

 

[zipp]

Isn't it going to be hard to argue that it didn't help their recruiting when they went to a final four in 2012 and won the national championship in 2013? I know the recruiting classes weren't ranked that high by analysts, but obviously they got players that were good enough for a final four and NC.

Talent and the postseason are directly related at your school for sure.

But U of L should have no shortage of expert witnesses willing to say that U of L's recruiting classes in the subject years were nothing unusual against the backdrop of our typical classes. Maybe not as good...

 

[Morgantown Card]

Isn't it going to be hard to argue that it didn't help their recruiting when they went to a final four in 2012 and won the national championship in 2013? I know the recruiting classes weren't ranked that high by analysts, but obviously they got players that were good enough for a final four and NC.

One of the recruits told the NCAA that the girls "looked like they had diseases." So no, it didn't help recruiting at all. It hurt it. I am going to be a bit inappropriate here, but any of these guys who partook just wanted some place warm & wet to put it at that moment because it was in front of them. These guys could get better women walking around WalMart in their game gear.

So, NO, no benefits, no recruiting advantage, no help to recruiting. Louisville needs to use quotes in the NCAA's own report as a defense, it's all there.

 

[Rockfly78]

One of the recruits told the NCAA that the girls "looked like they had diseases." So no, it didn't help recruiting at all. It hurt it. I am going to be a bit inappropriate here, but any of these guys who partook just wanted some place warm & wet to put it at that moment because it was in front of them. These guys could get better women walking around WalMart in their game gear.

So, NO, no benefits, no recruiting advantage, no help to recruiting. Louisville needs to use quotes in the NCAA's own report as a defense, it's all there.

I see what you're saying and I tend to agree. But I don't think "but they were ugly" will play out.

 

[Wall2Wall]

One of the recruits told the NCAA that the girls "looked like they had diseases." So no, it didn't help recruiting at all. It hurt it. I am going to be a bit inappropriate here, but any of these guys who partook just wanted some place warm & wet to put it at that moment because it was in front of them. These guys could get better women walking around WalMart in their game gear.

So, NO, no benefits, no recruiting advantage, no help to recruiting. Louisville needs to use quotes in the NCAA's own report as a defense, it's all there.

If a recruit was given a car, got caught and said "I didn't really like the car anyway" it still wouldn't matter. It is something he received that he otherwise would not have had he not been a desirable recruit for the school.

 

[Morgantown Card]

If a recruit was given a car, got caught and said "I didn't really like the car anyway" it still wouldn't matter. It is something he received that he otherwise would not have had he not been a desirable recruit for the school.

I want to make this very clear - I am not defending what happened. It was repugnant. Whatever penalty the program gets, I totally understand it. What happened (underage hookers for underage recruits) was just gross and yes that word repugnant.

I am saying that if we're going to fight it, you address the value of the "benefits." A car has value, it is undeniable. You can go to kellybluebook.com and get the value. Not the same situation here. The amount per the NCAA was $5800. Divide $5800 across 4 years and that's $121 per month across like 15-20 recruits. The NCAA stated that recruits were turned off by what happened. Recruiting rankings per 247/Scout/Rivals went up after this thing stopped. Louisville leans went elsewhere after their visits. Ergo, no recruiting advantage was obtained by this horrible thing. That's the argument you make to the NCAA - any "benefits" were negligible, there was no recruiting advantage, and you use the NCAA's own words to argue this.

Every player on those 2012 and 2013 teams would have been there regardless of this ugly thing. Those players played the games and won those games. I don't want that taken away from those players and from me as a fan. I understand it if it is, but I don't want it. I think the above argument is the argument you make.

 

[Rockfly78]

I think it's a big mistake to downplay the value and benefit to the NCAA. They were Adamant in stating the value didn't matter. They also certainly do not care if it helped UL land recruits or if their recruiting ranking went up. The foul was in the attempt to lure talent.

I believe Louisville's best chance is to argue that the violations are not level 1 violations. There seems to be no prior prescident to hold them to so they may have a chance there. But the appeal is already in so it's all moot at this point.

 

[Morgantown Card]

I think it's a big mistake to downplay the value and benefit to the NCAA. They were Adamant in stating the value didn't matter. They also certainly do not care if it helped UL land recruits or if their recruiting ranking went up. The foul was in the attempt to lure talent.

I believe Louisville's best chance is to argue that the violations are not level 1 violations. There seems to be no prior prescident to hold them to so they may have a chance there. But the appeal is already in so it's all moot at this point.

Remember, the appeal is reviewed by a whole different group of people. They may listen to the argument of value/benefit/how much did this give UofL an advantage. The appeal does address value and so it will be considered by the appeals committee.

 

[Wall2Wall]

I want to make this very clear - I am not defending what happened. It was repugnant. Whatever penalty the program gets, I totally understand it. What happened (underage hookers for underage recruits) was just gross and yes that word repugnant.

I am saying that if we're going to fight it, you address the value of the "benefits." A car has value, it is undeniable. You can go to kellybluebook.com and get the value. Not the same situation here. The amount per the NCAA was $5800. Divide $5800 across 4 years and that's $121 per month across like 15-20 recruits. The NCAA stated that recruits were turned off by what happened. Recruiting rankings per 247/Scout/Rivals went up after this thing stopped. Louisville leans went elsewhere after their visits. Ergo, no recruiting advantage was obtained by this horrible thing. That's the argument you make to the NCAA - any "benefits" were negligible, there was no recruiting advantage, and you use the NCAA's own words to argue this.

Every player on those 2012 and 2013 teams would have been there regardless of this ugly thing. Those players played the games and won those games. I don't want that taken away from those players and from me as a fan. I understand it if it is, but I don't want it. I think the above argument is the argument you make.

I see your point. And I respect you as a fan for acknowledging the situation and the ugliness that has come with it. The breakdown you have really does show how minimal the financial advantage was toward potential recruits. But I recall a USC football player a few years back who was suspended for "accepting a ride to class in a golf cart". There was another ridiculous suspension at UNLV back in the late 90s for a player who bought a used mattress from an assistant coach and then transported the mattress to his apartment with a truck that didn't belong to him.

I get it, neither of these incidents involved vacating wins, but it does show how rigid the NCAA can be when they want to be. Can you really put a price on a ride to class in a golf cart? Or transporting a used mattress to a dorm? Given the salacious matters of McGee's "recruiting techniques" it's going to turn people off before they even take a look at the details. Underage escorts, underage recruits, sexual activity. That's a huge hole that the UofL basketball program has to dig out of before even getting a chance to make their argument.

 

[tluck28]

After filing their appeal on Wednesday, the committee on infractions (COI) has 30 days to respond to U of L. Our appeal is based on the penalties being too severe and the NCAA not taking into consideration our self imposed bans. The 4 players who are in question were never properly ruled ineligible and upon so would have been reinstated with proper restitution. One player has particular immunity??? Now it's back in the NCAA's court...

I have come to the conclusion that the banner is gone. I think that this is a formality by the athletic department to be able to say that they did all that they can do. I do also feel that it is rightful, the punishment that is. What happened in my opinion was pretty disgusting. Aside from Petrino and McDonnell, I wouldn't mind if we just cleaned house from top to bottom. I have not even worn my UofL shirts in a long long while now. Ill wait for football season to start I suppose. It just seems like it has been one thing after the other and it is getting tiresom.

 

[Cue Card]

I have come to the conclusion that the banner is gone. I think that this is a formality by the athletic department to be able to say that they did all that they can do. I do also feel that it is rightful, the punishment that is. What happened in my opinion was pretty disgusting. Aside from Petrino and McDonnell, I wouldn't mind if we just cleaned house from top to bottom. I have not even worn my UofL shirts in a long long while now. Ill wait for football season to start I suppose. It just seems like it has been one thing after the other and it is getting tiresom.

Everyone has a choice to make regarding this issue. You either stand fast and support the basketball program, or you don't. There aren't any other options.

What happened is disgusting. I 100% agree, but I've decided to forgive the situation while accepting whatever happens in order to stay on the UofL athletic department train.

I sincerely believe that steps have been taken to make sure something this disgusting never happens again. If seeing a cloth banner or two coming down is part of the outcome, then so be it. I'll still have MY banners, hats, shirts, pants, jersey, etc. etc. I would love to see someone TRY to come take them away from me. Not going to happen.

 

[Big_Blue_Skidoo]

Talent and the postseason are directly related at your school for sure.

But U of L should have no shortage of expert witnesses willing to say that U of L's recruiting classes in the subject years were nothing unusual against the backdrop of our typical classes. Maybe not as good...

But again that would be valuing the recruiting classes solely by their rankings and not by what they accomplished. Those players contributed to winning 10 out of 11 games in the NCAA tournament in 2012-2013 earning millions of dollars for the university. Just think it might be a difficult argument to make.

 

[zipp]

But again that would be valuing the recruiting classes solely by their rankings and not by what they accomplished. Those players contributed to winning 10 out of 11 games in the NCAA tournament in 2012-2013 earning millions of dollars for the university. Just think it might be a difficult argument to make.

Does that mean if you signed five-star kids illicitly and underperformed, no harm no foul? I don't think so....

 

[zipp]

I think it's a big mistake to downplay the value and benefit to the NCAA. They were Adamant in stating the value didn't matter. They also certainly do not care if it helped UL land recruits or if their recruiting ranking went up. The foul was in the attempt to lure talent...

IMO U of L is not making its arguments to the NCAA at this point...it's making them to a judge and jury. Everything U of L prepares as arguments will resurface in court. And there is little chance that the NCAA reverses itself.

A court will hear evidence about tangible value. Civil cases are always argued on the basis of damages, and there is always effort to quantify it. The NCAA won't have much success with a "we can do what we want" argument. And I HOPE they try to base it on being an independent/voluntary organization. I like my chances against anyone trying to argue he's above the law.

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

 

[zipp]

I'm going to put a little separation between myself and other U of L fans in this thread on the "repugnance" issue. That's a widely accepted label by all sides in this case, and it's obviously based in morals and ethics. Remember, there was no crime committed in the view of our local jurisdiction who refused to prosecute.

We've all heard the saying "you can't legislate morality." It's relevant to this situation where the corollary "you can't penalize based on morality" can be equally applied. Yet, that is exactly what the NCAA is attempting to do. They're looking at behavior they don't like and trying to discourage it.

If the NCAA stays narrowly within the impermissible benefits argument, they're gonna lose that eventually. There's too little tangible value--if any--and too much precedent in U of L's favor. And since they don't care about value, so they say, they're back in the morality camp under the pretense of impermissible benefits.

We live in a time where there's a lotta sensitivity to the issue of respect for women. And most of the people we hear talking have no choice but to embrace that. However, I'll wager that a lot of that talk is simply being politically correct. There's no label Jurich or Pitino can use but "repugnant".

None of us have probably used a hooker, none of us have probably played "strip party"--I do recall a game called "strip poker"--and few of us have maybe even seen a stripper. Few of us have probably had to counsel our children on this stuff. While most of us went to college, I doubt that many of us have stayed in a college dorm anytime recently. The same is probably true of NCAA officials sitting around a table.

Examples of people who did live in a college dorm recently were Luke Hancock, SVT, Russ, and Wichita. Those guys have all said that nothing unusual went on in Minardi. That's a comparison to what they've seen in other places with other students. And do I think all of those guys are lying while Jaquan Lyle and Antonio Blakeney were telling the truth? Nope. They saw everything as the background noise of students partying.

It's easy to sit in the vacuum of a message board with your old-white-guy glasses on and moralize. And I think a student would tell you that you're out-of-touch in that situation. It may be repugnant to YOU, but your son might see it routinely and gloss over it as a "college dorm". Would any of us participate?...Unlikely, nor in all likelihood would your son. But most of us here are old, white guys who don't take stock of what's happening on a college campus in 2017...

 

[Cue Card]

It's easy to sit in the vacuum of a message board with your old-white-guy glasses on and moralize.

This has nothing to do with race. It has everything to do with the lack of a moral compass. McGee lacked a moral compass. Obviously Pitino having sex in a public restaurant with a whore himself shows he lacks a moral compass. I lack a moral compass as a UofL fan and I simply accept that for what it is. Lots of people have chosen to bail. I choose not to. My age or race has nothing to do with it. I'm just me, warts and all. So is my university. So freaking what.

 

[Knucklehank1]

I think it's a big mistake to downplay the value and benefit to the NCAA. They were Adamant in stating the value didn't matter. They also certainly do not care if it helped UL land recruits or if their recruiting ranking went up. The foul was in the attempt to lure talent.

I believe Louisville's best chance is to argue that the violations are not level 1 violations. There seems to be no prior prescident to hold them to so they may have a chance there. But the appeal is already in so it's all moot at this point.

The NCAA already accepted the "value" argument when they reinstated Mango in 2015. The other players in 2013 would have been able to remedy this the same way. The most egregious allegations revolved around recruits that ultimately never went to UofL.