Its more like different rules for different times. UK actually took the brunt of the punishment. Many schools had players doing the same thing and didn't get punished at all.Nevertheless. They were ineligible players who won three banners that still fly. Different rules for different schools. Exactly on point.
This whole UK scandal in the 50s discussion is a deflection from the topic of the thread.Nice deflection from your point. UK and CCNY won championships in that period with players who should not have been eligible. Clearly. The NCAA had no enforcement at the time. Players were caught by US attorney, took pleas, and were banned. The penalty UK took was imposed by the SEC, not the NCAA. Nevertheless, under the rules used now, enforced against Louisville, Kentucky would have three banners stripped. No question about it.
The fact is you kitties are scared to death that we will eventually get our banner back.This whole UK scandal in the 50s discussion is a deflection from the topic of the thread.
Yes that's true but it doesn't change today.Nice deflection from your point. UK and CCNY won championships in that period with players who should not have been eligible. Clearly. The NCAA had no enforcement at the time. Players were caught by US attorney, took pleas, and were banned. The penalty UK took was imposed by the SEC, not the NCAA. Nevertheless, under the rules used now, enforced against Louisville, Kentucky would have three banners stripped. No question about it.
Nope. None of those players were deemed ineligible. In your own words "won championships in that period with players who should not have been eligible", in other words, they were eligible. It was actually the NCAA that dished out the no basketball for one season punishment.Your UK buddy asked the question if anybody had ever had ineligible players without losing a title. I supplied a precise answer.
Not if new evidence comes out. That resets the clock. Why don't you think he's already telling his side of the story?Even when you're proven wrong you still refuse to admit it. In Kentucky, a misdemeanor has a 1 year statute of limitation, which means, AM can't be at risk.
Well of course a slapd!ck would make that argument. On principle, they're the same. Sucks for you in this debate...This whole UK scandal in the 50s discussion is a deflection from the topic of the thread.
Doesn’t suck for me. We have our titles. History is what it is bud. You and uncle Rico can’t jump on that time machine and go back to the 50s to make someone swipe our banners. Even if you could it would be overshadowed by the fact that Rico would have won state. He would have went pro and right now he’d be soakin it up in a hot tub With his soul mate.Well of course a slapd!ck would make that argument. On principle, they're the same. Sucks for you in this debate...
When you stop counting those banners, I'll lose interest in them too.Doesn’t suck for me. We have our titles. History is what it is bud. You and uncle Rico can’t jump on that time machine and go back to the 50s to make someone swipe our banners. Even if you could it would be overshadowed by the fact that Rico would have won state. He would have went pro and right now he’d be soakin it up in a hot tub With his soul mate.
You’re not getting anywhere with your standard flare. Every time this discussion pops up you love to bring up something from the 1950s that UK did. Nobody cares man.
No it doesnt. The only instance I'm aware of is felony charges when new DNA evidence is found, there is a special federal law for that. I'd love to see what you found.Not if new evidence comes out. That resets the clock. Why don't you think he's already telling his side of the story?
Stick to stuff you know more about (which I'll grant you ain't much...)
And now we come full circle, Luke was not ruled ineligible either. I understand why you’re arguing about the team’s perspective but this is about “wronged individuals,” which means innocent people were excessively punished.Nope. None of those players were deemed ineligible. In your own words "won championships in that period with players who should not have been eligible", in other words, they were eligible. It was actually the NCAA that dished out the no basketball for one season punishment.
Yes, people not involved were punished by extension I guess. But there is no way to split that baby. Either the school/team are punished or no one. I don't know how you could single out the guys not involved, either the games count or they don't. Thats the issue with the suit, it would require full reinstatement of vacated games and the title to make Luke and the others "whole". The NCAA can't do that or they'll have no power again over anyone. I don't believe a judge would have the authority to force a reinstatement. At any rate, we'll all see over the next few months.And now we come full circle, Luke was not ruled ineligible either. I understand why you’re arguing about the team’s perspective but this is about “wronged individuals,” which means innocent people were excessively punished.
Sure there is. If a guy paid $100 for a lap dance, make him pay $100 to the NCAA. Pay them interest for good measure. What basketball advantage did we gain that they can literally prove we got from that fiasco? AM and KP were the only ones who profited.Yes, people not involved were punished by extension I guess. But there is no way to split that baby. Either the school/team are punished or no one. I don't know how you could single out the guys not involved, either the games count or they don't. Thats the issue with the suit, it would require full reinstatement of vacated games and the title to make Luke and the others "whole". The NCAA can't do that or they'll have no power again over anyone. I don't believe a judge would have the authority to force a reinstatement. At any rate, we'll all see over the next few months.
Sure there is. If a guy paid $100 for a lap dance, make him pay $100 to the NCAA. Pay them interest for good measure. What basketball advantage did we gain that they can literally prove we got from that fiasco? AM and KP were the only ones who profited.
Oh impermissible benefits? You mean like what Bam, Knox, Richards and Diallo got?You don’t have to gain a basketball advantage. You only have to attempt to gain an advantage through the avenue of an impermissible benefit. Once a recruit and his family received these services The rule was deemed broken. By word of the rule the monetary value of the benefit is irrelevant. But honestly In my opinion if it were just lap dances we would not be having this discussion right now.
You can’t prove it was more than lap dances because that’s all hearsay. KP is not a credible source, I don’t care what books she has written. Not so sure she can even spell at this point.You don’t have to gain a basketball advantage. You only have to attempt to gain an advantage through the avenue of an impermissible benefit. Once a recruit and his family received these services The rule was deemed broken. By word of the rule the monetary value of the benefit is irrelevant. But honestly In my opinion if it were just lap dances we would not be having this discussion right now.
I’m not out to prove anything. I’m just giving you the facts. I agree it’s a tough deal.You can’t prove it was more than lap dances because that’s all hearsay. KP is not a credible source, I don’t care what books she has written. Not so sure she can even spell at this point.
Not if new evidence comes out. That resets the clock. Why don't you think he's already telling his side of the story?
Stick to stuff you know more about (which I'll grant you ain't much...)[/QUOT
H e
Oh impermissible benefits? You mean like what Bam, Knox, Richards and Diallo got?
If I remember correctly, UL already agreed that it all happened.You can’t prove it was more than lap dances because that’s all hearsay. KP is not a credible source, I don’t care what books she has written. Not so sure she can even spell at this point.
It was obvious that KP and her girls were there. But U of L didn’t confirm which one had sex or lap dance or whatever. Again that would be hearsay by KP and maybe Blakeney, who I also wouldn’t consider credible.If I remember correctly, UL already agreed that it all happened.
Well, I dont know what to say. Both UL and the NCAA interviewed lots of players who would have first hand knowledge. You can believe as you wish I guess.It was obvious that KP and her girls were there. But U of L didn’t confirm which one had sex or lap dance or whatever. Again that would be hearsay by KP and maybe Blakeney, who I also wouldn’t consider credible.
McGee never had charges brought. It would simply be newly discovered evidence.No it doesnt. The only instance I'm aware of is felony charges when new DNA evidence is found, there is a special federal law for that. I'd love to see what you found.
You are really a piece of work. You are ridiculously wrong and it's hilarious. Go on, impress me with more of your legal brilliance. I'd still love to see a link to that legal theory. You can find one, cant you zipp?McGee never had charges brought. It would simply be newly discovered evidence.
If there's no risk, why don't you think he's in the newspaper singing his version of what really happened? An Uber driver can certainly use the money...
And why doesn't McGee tell the world his story since he's legally in the clear? He's in the clear, right slapd!ck??..You are really a piece of work. You are ridiculously wrong and it's hilarious. Go on, impress me with more of your legal brilliance. I'd still love to see a link to that legal theory. You can find one, cant you zipp?
Patience. He will at some pointAnd why doesn't McGee tell the world his story since he's legally in the clear? He's in the clear, right slapd!ck??..
Why would he want to stir the pot?And why doesn't McGee tell the world his story since he's legally in the clear? He's in the clear, right slapd!ck??..
WTH does that mean? The "pot" is unstirred? Or is Uber paying McGee more than enough bread?Why would he want to stir the pot?
According to the other slapd!ck, there's no reason to wait legally.Patience. He will at some point
Lol, good grief. What it means is, why would AM want to talk about the sordid details. You are trying to conflate him not talking to being proof that if he did he could be prosecuted. Thats ridiculous and I've already proven it.WTH does that mean? The "pot" is unstirred? Or is Uber paying McGee more than enough bread?
Face it slappy, the facts don't fit your argument...
No, I'm using logic that an otherwise obscure guy who's no longer shackled with legal risk and under legal advice would want to speak for himself on a matter that put him in the center of national attention. And a guy who made six figures and who now drives an Uber for a living.Lol, good grief. What it means is, why would AM want to talk about the sordid details. You are trying to conflate him not talking to being proof that if he did he could be prosecuted. Thats ridiculous and I've already proven it.
At some point he’ll talk.According to the other slapd!ck, there's no reason to wait legally.
Maybe you guys can get together and flush McGee out. Kinda like going after a guy that installs roofing...
If you say so.No, I'm using logic that an otherwise obscure guy who's no longer shackled with legal risk and under legal advice would want to speak for himself on a matter that put him in the center of national attention. And a guy who made six figures and who now drives an Uber for a living.
To suggest otherwise is ridiculous...