As one example, U of L continued to play a guy this year--VJ King--who was implicated in pay for play. That wasn't a decision made by Jurich and Pitino...
UofL receives NCAA's verbal Notice of Inquiry
- Thread starter Steelers2012
- Start date
Then who made the decision and how is anyone at UL criminally liable for it? You're just dancing like you always do Zipp. In the case i cited, SCOTUS said they aren't delaying a case because of a risk of someones exposure. I'm still a bit confused though. There is no criminal case against anyone at UL. There is also almost zero chance that there would EVER be a criminal case against anyone at UL. Do you really think the NCAA has to stop its investigation because of a barely possible risk? That conclusion isn't supported by any precedent I can find. Perhaps you can enlighten me.
Why are you so concerned? Why does this matter to you? You, yourself said you only care about posts when Ky is involved. Is Ky involved in this?
The thing that worries me the most is that 75% of our decision making at Louisville will be made by sUcK graduates.
No I didnt, I've said multiple times that y'all are a rival and I find the goings on interesting.
I dont think that matters in the slightest. If they put me in charge of the decision making, it would be my responsibility to do whatever is in the best interest of UL and that's exactly what I'd do.
You don't understand the FBI's strategy. It is potentially illegal if VJ King was rendered ineligible and U of L played him. Anyone involved in that type of activity has culpability.
PEOPLE made deals and decisions, not the entity. The PEOPLE who worked on behalf of that entity. Any of these people with knowledge of what went on have exposure.
Explain for me exactly what in this investigation has "precedence"? Maybe you can help the Feds.
We love you handicapping things for us. But we don't need any slapd!ck "dancing" contest judges...
Last edited:
I guess we will find out I don't trust sUcK fans to do anything right when it comes to Louisville. Remember these prowl were hand picked by Bevin and he hasn't done us any favors.
You're way out in left field, again.You don't understand the FBI's strategy. It is potentially illegal if playing VJ King made U of L ineligible. Anyone involved in that type of activity has culpability.
PEOPLE made deals and decisions, not the entity. The PEOPLE who worked on behalf of that entity. Any of these people with knowledge of what went on have exposure.
Explain for me exactly what in this investigation has "precedence"? Maybe you can help the Feds.
We love you handicapping things for us. But we don't need any slapd!ck "dancing" contest judges...
According to Bill Stone, a past trustee this is precisely what the university should do. Playing nice got us nothing while others dug in and prevailed. Drag it out for as long as possible and with all the other Nike stuff going on, who knows how many universities the NCAA will have issues with.
You can read the entire article written by Tim Sullivan on line in the CJ.
You Ky fans lead sad, sad, lives. #obsession
I can’t image going to Rupp Rafters and posting something or participating. What a pathetic life they must have.
IMHO UofL’s best tactic is to profess ignorance of any misconduct by any current employee. It should not conduct its own investigation because there is no investigation it can conduct. It has no ability to question non-employees. Nobody involved is still here.
The NCAA will find violations. The rent payment to Bowen’s father by one assistant and the involvement of another assistant in Adidas planning to pay another recruit to attend UofL are clear violations.
After the findings the school should go into a full court defense. Argue the feds claimed the school was a victim in the Adidas payments and it’s unfair to punish a victim. Argue the only proof of s payment to Bowen’s father by an assistant is the testimony of the father. He and the assistant likely won’t cooperate in an NCAA investigation so its unfair to punish UofL when it has no opportunity to confront either party. Argue the school got rid of both the involved coaches and those responsible for them being at UofL. Point to all of the steps taken to ensure this doesn’t happen again.
Most importantly privately make clear to the NCAA that UofL won’t roll over and play dead like it did last year. It will assert,in court if necessary, that the school is being made the scapegoat for practices that were common for years by schools and that the NCAA turned a blind eye to the misconduct because it brought millions of dollars into its coffers at the expense of fair competition and the involved athletes. Let the NCAA know that UofL is fully prepared to use discovery in a civil case to explore the NCAA complicity in the practices uncovered by the feds. In short do just what UNC did. Hope the NCAA doesn’t want that fight.
Then hope the NCAA backs down or is content to impose a relatively minor punishment.
The NCAA will find violations. The rent payment to Bowen’s father by one assistant and the involvement of another assistant in Adidas planning to pay another recruit to attend UofL are clear violations.
After the findings the school should go into a full court defense. Argue the feds claimed the school was a victim in the Adidas payments and it’s unfair to punish a victim. Argue the only proof of s payment to Bowen’s father by an assistant is the testimony of the father. He and the assistant likely won’t cooperate in an NCAA investigation so its unfair to punish UofL when it has no opportunity to confront either party. Argue the school got rid of both the involved coaches and those responsible for them being at UofL. Point to all of the steps taken to ensure this doesn’t happen again.
Most importantly privately make clear to the NCAA that UofL won’t roll over and play dead like it did last year. It will assert,in court if necessary, that the school is being made the scapegoat for practices that were common for years by schools and that the NCAA turned a blind eye to the misconduct because it brought millions of dollars into its coffers at the expense of fair competition and the involved athletes. Let the NCAA know that UofL is fully prepared to use discovery in a civil case to explore the NCAA complicity in the practices uncovered by the feds. In short do just what UNC did. Hope the NCAA doesn’t want that fight.
Then hope the NCAA backs down or is content to impose a relatively minor punishment.
Some of the arguments in this thread are getting more and more bizarre as this goes along... Show me one instance where an institution or an individual was prosecuted for playing a player who should have been ineligible.
I’ll give you a high score for thinking outside the box. Like, waaaaay outside the box.You don't understand the FBI's strategy. It is potentially illegal if playing VJ King made U of L ineligible. Anyone involved in that type of activity has culpability.
PEOPLE made deals and decisions, not the entity. The PEOPLE who worked on behalf of that entity. Any of these people with knowledge of what went on have exposure.
Explain for me exactly what in this investigation has "precedence"? Maybe you can help the Feds.
We love you handicapping things for us. But we don't need any slapd!ck "dancing" contest judges...
Said a slappy on a U of L message board...
The people who work for the institution, e.g., coaches, are being prosecuted. What if an AD knew?
When you say "show me an instance," are you talking about this investigation? This one is just getting started.
If you're talking about other NCAA situations, show me one that involved federal crimes...
You couldn't if you wanted. You would be banned for your screen name alone.
Not a normal rival position. You guys take the cake for a sick, backward fan base. Your reputation as one of the worst is definitely well earned.
As it stands right now with the information available 3 things stand out as potential violations
1) Bowen recruitment, I am not sure where the violation is here. The FBI testimony pretty much cleared Louisville, no one knew. It will be interesting to see the NCAA position on this one.
2) Johnson alledgely giving money, 1,300, to his dad. Last I checked Johnson is still on staff at LaSalle. He is not talking and he obviously has sold LaSalle that didn't happen. Louisville isn't going to be able to prove it and I doubt the NCAA will be able to prove it. I doubt Bowen Sr is talking the NCAA.
3) Fair is aware of the scheme on tape, but nothing ever happened with Lousivlle or the player. He is guilty of not reporting the potential violation to the University. He was terminated. This is also going to be very interesting to see how the NCAA handles this situation. There are a bunch of people on tape so is everyone committing violation by just talking about a plan even though the plan was never executed or proven to be executed?
The last thing is the NCAA has no one to talk to, maybe Johnson but he is going to deny payment. Everyone at Louisville is gone which is exactly the correct way to handle.
And I continue to maintain that the "on probation" issue is a lazy narrative. That's the only other overhang--that we were a repeat violator, so the penalties will be harsher.
It's lazy because the people saying it never come with facts. And it's a narrative because there may indeed be no facts. It's a fact that when Bowen committed to U of L, the NCAA penalties for the McGee fiasco had not been announced. It's also a fact that when Kenny Johnson allegedly paid Bowen, Sr., the appeal of those penalties had not been finalized and the actual penalties levied. e.g., fines and banners.
Those are the facts that will determine whether U of L was on probation or not. Not what someone wants to lazily or intentionally claim...
It's lazy because the people saying it never come with facts. And it's a narrative because there may indeed be no facts. It's a fact that when Bowen committed to U of L, the NCAA penalties for the McGee fiasco had not been announced. It's also a fact that when Kenny Johnson allegedly paid Bowen, Sr., the appeal of those penalties had not been finalized and the actual penalties levied. e.g., fines and banners.
Those are the facts that will determine whether U of L was on probation or not. Not what someone wants to lazily or intentionally claim...
On the flipside, the NCAA is IMO in pursuit of relevancy at this juncture. The federal government has been acting in the face of the NCAA's negligence, and they will be anxious to restore their image and relevance.
Going after U of L and other institutions involved in the FBI's investigation will be the NCAA's first big opportunity...
Going after U of L and other institutions involved in the FBI's investigation will be the NCAA's first big opportunity...
I think you may have the timing wrong with the Johnson deal. As I recall it happened two weeks after the University got word and it would count as a repeat offender. Hope your correct but it’s also a different issue then the Hooker Gate and I’m betting whether or not the timings right or wrong the NCAA will see it as an additional violation making us a repeat violator. Hope your right.
This is how I remember it as well. Also I think Johnson was on tape saying to the undercover agent “we are on probation so we have to be careful” or something along those lines. So whatever timing discrepancies would be wiped out with this admission of guilt.
I think Louisville gave itself the best shot possible when they cleaned house. This may very well be the saving grace in the eyes of the ncaa. I’m sure there will be penalties but that act atonement will go a long way in determining how severe they will be.
Agreed. I don't think a technical loophole exists here and Johnsons statement makes it worse. That said, I don't wish a lot more sanctions from this. They have done about all they can do to get rid of the guilty parties. At this point, yes, the program has to get some type of punishment but it will be carried out on players, coaches and administrators who had nothing to do with it.
The Johnson payments were allegedly made shortly after Bowen arrived on campus, late 2017. The appeal wasn't finalized until early 2018.
You're not a repeat "offender" until the offense has been decided. That's what the appeal is about. If the appeal was granted, you didn't commit the offense and then not commit it. That's why the penalties weren't levied until the appeal was decided, just like you didn't take banners down when the NCAA first announced its findings.
All of this sounds like semantics, but there are big consequences as to interpretation. Johnson and Fair knew about the environment which made their actions even more egregious in U of L's eyes. But technically speaking, we were not on NCAA probation until February 2018. And that's lazy narratives notwithstanding...
As usual, slapd!cks have their info wrong. Johnson isn't "on tape" saying anything; it was Jordan Fair.
It also doesn't matter technically what someone THINKS they're guilty of. It may say something about their character, but that's all. Because Fair thought U of L was on probation doesn't make U of L on probation. In this case, that's an intentional (slapd!ck) narrative...
I think you are incorrect on how appeals work. The date in question is probably June 15, 2017. An appeal does not change a "conviction date". The question will become, did UL commit a major violation in the time period of October 17th, 2016 and October 16th, 2021 along with a requirement that "the second violation occurred within five years of the starting date of the penalty assessed in the first case". That is your 5 year window for repeat violator status. Everyone will have to see what the NCAA claims. I guess it's possible the NCAA would use the appeal decision date as the starting date, which would shield you, but that would go against normal court proceedings.
Last edited:
If I’m Johnson I deny it’s me. And it was the father saying he had him on tape will see if it exists. Had it not been for Johnson we probably come out of this with little damage. That was as bad as it gets
The litmus test is when were penalties levied. In court, the sentence normally runs simultaneous to an appeal. Not in this instance. U of L had what was, in essence, a stay of judgment. The banners did not come down and fines weren't paid until the appeal was decided. That is when the probation started...
I edited my post a bit but that is the question. I don't know which date they use, its a bit vague, but criminal courts do use the original conviction date.
LINK
From the NCAA's repeat-violator rule:
"...The second violation occurred within five years of the starting date of the penalty assessed in the first case..."
Again, penalties weren't imposed until February 2018. Or those banners would have been down during the appeal. The NCAA through its (in-)action has determined when the probation started...
From the NCAA's repeat-violator rule:
"...The second violation occurred within five years of the starting date of the penalty assessed in the first case..."
Again, penalties weren't imposed until February 2018. Or those banners would have been down during the appeal. The NCAA through its (in-)action has determined when the probation started...
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
LOUISVILLE AT GTECH GAME THREAD- 3:45PM THE CW
- Latest: KozmasAgain
-
-