Respectfully disagree. Unless new information is brought to light, I think U of L will "accept" whatever comes out from appeals process. It's time to move on and put this behind us moving forward.
Why are we still supporting rick and tom
- Thread starter ActionJackson502
- Start date
I'm still in favor of fighting it. I think the penalties are out of proportion to what occurred. If UofL thinks they can get justice in the court system that they can't get in the NCAA's system, I'm in favor of them going for it, even if it takes years.
Bottom line for me, college sports are dirty and I don't believe that the NCAA's punishments have any effect as a deterrent or in cleaning up the dirt.
I might be if I was certain that we would "win". There's a reason why McGee has been silent and I don't want him coming out saying that he thought he was working on the direction of the coaching staff. We all think we would come out better but what happens if get another year ban or worse, death penalty? I'm hoping we get to keep the banner and some of the games vacated reduced, other than that I want to move on and not look back.
I agree with you. My first instinct would be to fight like hell to keep that banner and final four. But if you can't win in the appeal I just don't know what good can come out of a court room. McGee is the wild card. If put on the stand who knows what he might say. That makes it a huge risk. If he brings new info to light the NCAA could re open the investigation. They have done that before.
Serious question, has anyone ever went to court with the NCAA in hopes of lightening their punishment? I'm trying to recall the Miami and penn st cases.
A penalty can't be increased, only reduced. There is no risk of that.
As far as McGee, I think U of L has a pretty good idea at this point what he's gonna say (or not). What he THOUGHT he was doing on whose behalf is probably irrelevant. I don't know why McGee would be called to testify anyway if the allegations aren't being challenged. The issue is the type of violation and the penalty, not if or whether anything occurred...
As far as McGee, I think U of L has a pretty good idea at this point what he's gonna say (or not). What he THOUGHT he was doing on whose behalf is probably irrelevant. I don't know why McGee would be called to testify anyway if the allegations aren't being challenged. The issue is the type of violation and the penalty, not if or whether anything occurred...
McGee can't be "called" and forced to testify. The NCAA doesn't have the legal power to make him talk. If so, they would have done it already. The only way we'll hear from McGee is if there is some civil action and he is subpoenaed. Even in that happens he'll be fully lawyered up and pleading the 5th to most questions
Right, and UL also cannot be punished further in the appeals process. I'm not a legal expert so I wasn't sure what's possible if this makes it to the courts somehow. I am never a fan of sports issues tying up time, money and resources in court. But I've seen all sorts of silliness get dragged before a judge.
I am still curious about a couple things. Has any entity ever taken the NCAA to court in order to lessen penalties? Also, has the NCAA re opened an investigation after it handed down punishment? I know that the NCAA started the UNC academic case back up after they initially ruled that it was finished. This could be a factor if UL decides to go the judicial route. I'd say the appeal is pretty safe and they should go all in on that.
The risk isn't all with UofL. The NCAA has some at stake too. The PR hit just from having a member institution drag them into court. Also, what if UofL wins? It sets a precedent and roadmap for other schools to follow.
McGee can be subpoenaed to testify in a court proceeding which is the context I thought we were transitioning to here. His lawyer couldn't prevent that or limit his testimony unless McGee still faced the real threat of being charged with a crime, which I think is past. He couldn't, for example, try to invoke his 5th Amendment privileges any longer. The grand jury took care of that...
I think this thread may have gotten off track. My comments were based on the notion that if U of L doesn't get satisfaction (banner retained and # of vacated games are reduced) they will seek restitution by suing the NCAA. Once and if they go that route then it is a totally different ballgame as to what we are suing for and why. So far we have pretty much admitted to everything happening as it has been stated. We are only questioning the severity of the finding. However as it has been pointed out not all the facts have been presented and in the NCAA proceedings, they don't have to be to make a finding. Now going to court is another matter. Even if McGee doesn't testify, blakeney, Russ smith, Harrell, rozier - all their previous statements will be brought out and I just don't think it will be to our benefit.
Not sure how a "clean house/Rick & Tom" thread can get anymore off track from the OP, but...
My understanding is that evidence isn't being called into question. For sure that's true in the NCAA appeal. What former players, coaches, and recruits have said isn't at issue because U of L isn't questioning that with the NCAA.
As far as a lawsuit, everything is in play in my non-legal opinion although "experts" have told me that U of L's prior admissions with the NCAA would stand. I don't know that I believe that if everything was contexted as leading to an out-of-court settlement. But if U of L isn't prosecuting the NCAA's allegation of wrongdoing, i.e, it's just about the fairness of the penalty, again, the evidence won't be reheard. The suit would be about the power and authority of the NCAA, whether it acted arbitrarily, and whether precedents (other NCAA infraction cases) show anything in U of L's favor.
And all of that is many months or years out...
My understanding is that evidence isn't being called into question. For sure that's true in the NCAA appeal. What former players, coaches, and recruits have said isn't at issue because U of L isn't questioning that with the NCAA.
As far as a lawsuit, everything is in play in my non-legal opinion although "experts" have told me that U of L's prior admissions with the NCAA would stand. I don't know that I believe that if everything was contexted as leading to an out-of-court settlement. But if U of L isn't prosecuting the NCAA's allegation of wrongdoing, i.e, it's just about the fairness of the penalty, again, the evidence won't be reheard. The suit would be about the power and authority of the NCAA, whether it acted arbitrarily, and whether precedents (other NCAA infraction cases) show anything in U of L's favor.
And all of that is many months or years out...
I don't know man. Underage hookers for underage recruits (and their buddies & dads), paid for by an assistant coach? And this happened 15 times? I hope UofL wins the appeal and the wins are kept but I can't say I blame the NCAA if they reject it. The appeal needs to really focus on the common sense fact that no recruiting advantage was gained with these ugly, nasty, skanky stank trick-@ss ho's.
Last edited by a moderator:
Morgan, we don't know each other... But that first part sounds an awful lot like old white guys playing judge-and-jury about what goes on in a college dorm and/or among young people. AND not wanting to acknowledge what we don't know. We know, of course, that indictment applies to the NCAA.
100% agree with your last sentence on the basis of actual evidence and what I just said in the previous paragraph...
FYI if McGee hypothetically took the stand and implicated others knowing then the NCAA def could reopen the investigation and add more penalties.
Zipp implied they could not. That was incorrect.
Zipp implied they could not. That was incorrect.
The basic facts of this case, as acknowledged by UofL, is that there were 15 instances of nasty ho's for recruits, some of the ho's under-age and some of the recruits under-age, all paid for by an assistant coach. Zipp, these are the basic facts as admitted by UofL. I don't know how your statement above of what goes on in a dorm has anything to do with that.
Zipp I don't see how you can say otherwise with a clear conscience. I can say with a clear conscience that these are hardly "benefits" and as the NCAA agreed recruiting was hurt not helped by this (which is where you & I agree as you stated). Post-ho's recruiting, on paper, is better than it's ever been. No benefits, no advantage gained - keep the wins and the banner. Without these ugly, nasty, stank trick-ass ho's we would have kept a few of these Louisville leans that were, as the NCAA said, turned off by this. We might had had more wins and another title in 2012 or 2014 without these ho's. That's my whole argument, part of your argument, and is what the university needs to hammer over and over in their appeal.
My issue is how we, in our world, view trash in the dorms. We see it thru our eyes, but that's not necessarily reality. One good reason that no one paid attention to these ho's was perhaps because there are ho's in some dorms. Do we know otherwise? All we know is that everyone interviewed said THEY would never pay for THAT. ...Which basically tells me it's free and available if you want it.
And when I say "ho's", I don't mean professionally speaking; I'm talking more about quality, if that word can be used with a straight face. I'm confident there were no professional ho's in Minardi unless fleas are part of the deal.
So, to your point, that wasn't a benefit. Nor am I embarrassed about it unless I'm embarrassed by university life generally in some places. I'm not preoccupied about how students live anymore than I am about life everywhere else. Evidently, this stuff goes on, and it's unremarkable--despite what the NCAA and some people here think. If that's you, you very well could be trying to apply your own standards inappropriately...
That doesn't just apply to McGee and this situation... Anyone can come forward anytime with info that the NCAA doesn't have in its possession, and a case be opened or reopened. Unless you're a worrier by nature, that's not a grave concern.
Or if you're a slapd!ck, you're just hoping.
"Elite program," my a$$...
All this and zipp's contention goes down the river if as I fear it turns out that someone like Rozier participated in the activities and then enrolled at U of L. Now he's not going to say that it was because of the parties that he came to the Ville but the NCAA doesn't have to prove that. He got it, it was a benefit and it's not available to the average student.
That is incorrect. That is not the way the 5th Amendment works. The fact that a grand jury has not indicted anyone in the matter in no eliminates McGee's ability to plead the 5th. The only thing that would is immunity.
I submit to you Zipp, FACTS:
Link
The NCAA’s report says Louisville agreed that the infractions, when viewed collectively, were Level I violations. However, the school submitted that each individual violation was only Level III “based solely upon the assigned monetary value of the striptease dances and sex acts.”
I never said nothing occurred. I never even said money didn't change hands. I just said the recipients of such services, to a man, said they would never pay for such services. Why? Because they have little or no value.
And I think as U of L does that's the crux of an impermissible benefits issue. Does something have value and NOT simply whether the NCAA says it does and by how much?
I also believe that skank sex in a college dorm may not be uncommon. At least that's the impression you get reading the accounts of what happened.
All a slappy has to do is ask a five-star recruit what goes on. You don't need me and other old white guys speculating about it.
"Elite program," my a$$...
Last edited:
That logic works fine within the NCAA. But that's not where this thing is headed. The problem for the NCAA is that professional sex is quantifiable even while illegal. And unless the NCAA backs down, they're going to end up arguing that fact--and the amount of that "benefit"--in front of a judge and jury.
As far as Rozier is concerned, very little of the penalties are based on his participation...
Technical point but fine, that just strengthens my argument. There's confidence among some U of L fans that McGee's testimony will never be heard by the NCAA. My point was that such protection for him doesn't extend to court. If you're arguing it's even greater than I'm describing, my rare thanks to a slapd!ck for your help!
I don't know what the statute of limitations are for the charges he was facing. But practically speaking, unless there are OTHER potential charges due perhaps to other illicit activity, he's probably safe from prosecution at this point. His lawyer would have to argue otherwise to try to ignore a subpoena. If or when that happens, it further alleviates the concerns of a handful of worrisome U of L fans.
And visit anytime when you have worthwhile contributions to make such as this.
"Elite program," my a$$...
I think sex in dorms is pretty commonplace. I also think it's commonplace for recruits on visits. The linchpin was the money that was paid in return for the sex to happen. The NCAA states that impermissible benefits can take the form of money, goods, or services. This could have been a prostitute, a car, a tattoo or bag of cash. The NCAA has already ruled that a benefit is a benefit and that the value or advantaged gained didn't matter. Keep in mind that this took place in a world where the NCAA was not allowing football players to put cream cheese on their bagels.
During the appeal UL will need to find a way to get the appeals board to stray from past prescedent and it will take a unique argument. I think Louisville's plea to the appeal board is the most fascinating part of this. What approach will they take to get the NCAA to see things completely differently? I think it will take something other than the argument that no benefit was seen by the program in recruiting
Last edited:
I think the NCAA appeal is a formality, just a part of the process that has to be completed.
The element not mentioned in your above remarks is VALUE. There's plenty of NCAA precedent where the value of a benefit matters. And there are likely few where a single abstract criterion like "repugnance" trumps the value analysis. That's what U of L will argue has happened here. And the forum for that will be a court of law...
I suspect that is the argument UL makes. Can a court force a private entity like the NCAA to lessen its penalties? Has that ever happened before?
I realize you're trying to rationalize your team's violations and that is understandable but your premise is way off. The NCAA doesn't have to prove anything in a court of law. It's a membership organization and UL voluntarily participates in said organization rendering themselves at the mercy of rules, regulations and subsequent penalties as a result of violations. UL would be better served to save their money and move forward.
A court isn't going to allow the NCAA or any "membership organization" to be arbitrary and to legislate on the fly. I've served on a nonprofit HOA board for years, and you're subject to laws and due process just the same.
You're believing what a visiting slappy wants to believe. In the end, we will ALL see; and this baby's nowhere near an end.
"Elite program," my a$$...
Terry Rozier can get better p**** sitting on a bench reading a book. If Terry or anyone else did participate, it's just because it's a warm wet spot to put it, not because these women were so unbelievably hot that they were like "Oh man, I better go to UL so I can party with chicks like the Powell girls." That's the frustrating point that Zipp and I agree on - there are no benefits to any of this!
I think the NCAA has already admitted this is unprecedented, or at least that's what they're attempting.
And we ARE talking about what's commonly joked about being the "world's oldest profession." Kinda tells me there's precedent in the real world--and probably a way to value it or it's not a "profession". Will be interesting to watch highly paid people in coats and ties engaging each other on this...
I might also add...
While many U of L fans wanted to see Powell and McGee behind bars, the fact they escaped prosecution further advances an argument that nothing significant happened. That wouldn't necessarily be the lynchpin of my argument about "value". But let's face it, if there was a lotta material value to that particular crime or series of crimes, the likelihood of prosecution would have been greater.
How does anyone reconcile the underlying criminals--one of whom admitted to the crime--walking away without consequences while the entity in which it occurred is hammered to an unprecedented extent? Nothing consistent about that...
While many U of L fans wanted to see Powell and McGee behind bars, the fact they escaped prosecution further advances an argument that nothing significant happened. That wouldn't necessarily be the lynchpin of my argument about "value". But let's face it, if there was a lotta material value to that particular crime or series of crimes, the likelihood of prosecution would have been greater.
How does anyone reconcile the underlying criminals--one of whom admitted to the crime--walking away without consequences while the entity in which it occurred is hammered to an unprecedented extent? Nothing consistent about that...
I don't think McGee should go to jail. He should have been fired and "blackballed" forever as a college coach. He needs to pay back every cent of the money he earned in his position. As far as Katrina, I don't know if she did anything illegal, that's a separate case and a different legal matter. Her going to jail doesn't excuse the players/recruits for what they did. They weren't dupe. They know what they did wasn't typical.
Absolutely true. If a prosecutor/grand jury refuse to indict then the story comes to an end. The only question that I want answered is from McGee. Was it ONLY his money being spent or was someone else funneling money to him to spend on these "recruits"? If we eventually go to a civil trial (or even a deposition) and he is issued a subpoena that is the one question I'd like for him to answer. Oh maybe one other: are you really as stupid as this makes you appear?
GO CARDS - BEAT EVERYBODY!!! God Bless America!!!
The more I think about a potential court battle the more it reminds me of the Maurice clarette case. It's actually very similar. He took the NFL to court over their rules. Both the NFL and he NCAA are private foundations that govern and punish within. I do think MC had a much stronger case and the court still ruled for the NFL. I was confident he would win because of the right to work aspect. Maybe I'm off base. I'm sure someone will tell me if I am
She's admitted to being a human trafficker. She offered up her own daughters as prostitutes. She belongs in prison regardless what happens to UofL in my humble opinion.
Latest posts
-
-
Several ACC Universities are adding GMs to their staff.- Latest: Cardinal Cash
-
-
-
