(12-02-2019 04:11 PM)Briskbas Wrote:  

(11-28-2019 10:10 AM)CUSA_NEWS Wrote:  Duke. Lance Thomas is probably gonna be the new Corey Maggette

As an amateur athlete from a nonaffluent household, Lance Thomas was able to make a 30K CASH payment to a jeweler while also receiving an additional 70K loan from the jeweler.

These things were alleged in complaint in a lawsuit that was settled. No testimony in any sort of deposition, court hearing, or trial was given on those allegations. I'm sure part of the settlement was a non-disclosure agreement. The NCAA had no direct allegation made to them to work with, no one willing to go on record about anything, or any sort of power to compel any of the people involved to provide testimony on the matter. And the jeweler and Stephenson were not going to be voluntarily talking about anything. Wiseman's ineligibility is based on something that all parties agree and admit happened

Quote:Never had to prove how he got the cash to make the payment (NCAA requires Wiseman show how he'll make the 11.5K repayment though to ensure no crowdfunding)

Never had to prove how he got cash and loans he was alleged to have had. Wiseman not being able to accept what would probably be another impermissible benefit to "pay back" the prior impermissible benefit he and the school disclosed to the NCAA doesn't really have anything to with that

Quote:Nobody had to cooperate with the NCAA. NCAA allowed the jeweler, Duke and Lance to enter into a settlement based on never discussing the terms of the settlement. This outside legal tactic didn't work for Memphis

The NCAA can't compel anyone to cooperate (although there are certainly situations where it might be in a student's or school's best interest to do so). The NCAA had no power to compel Stephenson and the jeweler (Duke was not a party to the lawsuit) to do or not do anything.

Quote:- Did ther NCAA prove such a benefit was available to sl students? Of course not.

Blue blood treatment

The NCAA didn't have any evidence that Stephenson received an impermissible benefit in the first place. So this doesn't matter.

Sure, the NCAA cannot subpoena. And there was a settlement. However, that wouldn't stop the NCAA from investigating. With the original lawsuit documents alone, much of the work was already done. And this was a big amount in public view, so well worth their time.

Besides, D-Rose refused to talk to them about the SAT exam also. Absent any testimony from the player, they took their best guess and applied strict liability. There would seem to be enough of a smoking gun to do the same with Duke. Wonder why they didn't?

(12-02-2019 04:11 PM)Briskbas Wrote:  

(11-28-2019 10:10 AM)CUSA_NEWS Wrote:  Duke. Lance Thomas is probably gonna be the new Corey Maggette

As an amateur athlete from a nonaffluent household, Lance Thomas was able to make a 30K CASH payment to a jeweler while also receiving an additional 70K loan from the jeweler.

These things were alleged in complaint in a lawsuit that was settled. No testimony in any sort of deposition, court hearing, or trial was given on those allegations. I'm sure part of the settlement was a non-disclosure agreement. The NCAA had no direct allegation made to them to work with, no one willing to go on record about anything, or any sort of power to compel any of the people involved to provide testimony on the matter. And the jeweler and Stephenson were not going to be voluntarily talking about anything. Wiseman's ineligibility is based on something that all parties agree and admit happened

Quote:Never had to prove how he got the cash to make the payment (NCAA requires Wiseman show how he'll make the 11.5K repayment though to ensure no crowdfunding)

Never had to prove how he got cash and loans he was alleged to have had. Wiseman not being able to accept what would probably be another impermissible benefit to "pay back" the prior impermissible benefit he and the school disclosed to the NCAA doesn't really have anything to with that

Quote:Nobody had to cooperate with the NCAA. NCAA allowed the jeweler, Duke and Lance to enter into a settlement based on never discussing the terms of the settlement. This outside legal tactic didn't work for Memphis

The NCAA can't compel anyone to cooperate (although there are certainly situations where it might be in a student's or school's best interest to do so). The NCAA had no power to compel Stephenson and the jeweler (Duke was not a party to the lawsuit) to do or not do anything.

Quote:- Did ther NCAA prove such a benefit was available to sl students? Of course not.

Blue blood treatment

The NCAA didn't have any evidence that Stephenson received an impermissible benefit in the first place. So this doesn't matter.

Now swap Lance Thomas or Corey Maggette with any Memphis player and tell me what you think they would have done.

Corey Maggette lied and said he didn't accept any money. He later admitted that he, in fact, did. But yet the NCAA claimed that neither Duke nor Maggette knew, or should have known, that he was ineligible. No strict liability for Duke. What a joke.

(12-03-2019 10:04 AM)Tiger87 Wrote:  ...

Sure, the NCAA cannot subpoena. And there was a settlement. However, that wouldn't stop the NCAA from investigating. With the original lawsuit documents alone, much of the work was already done. And this was a big amount in public view, so well worth their time.

All there was in the original lawsuit documents was probably a complaint that contained a bare allegation without any sort of evidence showing the allegation was true. You can file a complaint that contains all kinds of allegations. That doesn't do anything to establish the truth or falsity of those claims

Quote:Besides, D-Rose refused to talk to them about the SAT exam also. Absent any testimony from the player, they took their best guess and applied strict liability. There would seem to be enough of a smoking gun to do the same with Duke. Wonder why they didn't?

In Rose's case, they didn't need testimony from anyone to establish that the ETS had invalidated the only qualifying college entrance exam that Rose's eligibility was established upon. Rose's only reason to participate would have been to provide exulpatory information to the NCAA to show that the test should not have been invalidated which, as you say, he refused to do. And while I used to think that would have mattered had he (been able to) come forward, I now no longer believe that to be the case because of a similar situation that happened in Ole Miss where the kid cooperated throughout the process maintaining that he took the test and the NCAA still declared him ineligible.

At any rate, the NCAA didn't have to guess about anything. The SAT score got wiped out. Since that was part of the basis of Rose's eligibility, that got wiped out too. Since we played an ineligible player and received a competitive advantage from doing so (and I guess he was no longer available to serve a suspension, although it's not clear to me the NCAA wouldn't do both, but I'm not familiar with any cases where they have) we had to forfeit the regular season games we won that he played in and our appearance in the NCAA tournament.

(12-03-2019 11:32 AM)RekeHavoc Wrote:  Corey Maggette lied and said he didn't accept any money. He later admitted that he, in fact, did. But yet the NCAA claimed that neither Duke nor Maggette knew, or should have known, that he was ineligible. No strict liability for Duke. What a joke.

The NCAA found that both the University and Rose knew or should have known about potential problems with his eligibility, as early as October of 2007

Quote:The institution received notice in October 2007 that the student-athlete's ACT score was under question. The institution‟s response to, and investigation regarding, those questions, including its contacting Educational Testing Service (ETS) regarding the student-athlete‟s SAT score, demonstrate that the institution had reason to know of a serious problem regarding the student-athlete‟s eligibility.

https://web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/search/miCas...?id=102528

The NCAA wasn't clear in the original infractions report about exactly what it meant by saying "This is a "strict liability" situation." (it isn't the best written opinion by a long shot). But if you look at the surrounding discussion they are specifically talking about Rose's eligibility based on "the allegation that [Rose] engaged in unethical conduct through his knowing involvement in the fraudulent completion of his SAT" stating that:

Quote:Ultimately, the committee concluded that it did not need to make a determination as to whether [Rose] engaged in unethical conduct as defined in NCAA Bylaw 10.1 with respect to the alleged fraudulent completion of his SAT. The committee concluded that, due to the fact that [Rose's] SAT score was cancelled by ETS, [Rose] was rendered academically ineligible to compete during the entire 2007-08 season, including the 2008 Division I Men's Basketball Championship. This is a "strict liability" situation.

https://web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/search/miCas...?id=102315

In other words, it doesn't matter if there's evidence to show Rose cheated. The ETS cancelled his score. It remains cancelled. He's "strictly liable" with regards to his eligibilty whether there's a specific showing of fraud or not.

Are you really going to take the position that there was no way for the NCAA to investigate Thomas without his willing participation? Good grief.
Ask Bruce Pearl or Hugh Freeze about that.
You seem to think that self reporting is all that they ever use.

I'm just a regular Joe, with a regular job
I'm your average white, suburbanite slob
I like football and porno and books about war
I got an average house, with a nice hardwood floor
My wife and my job, my kids and my car
My feet on my table, and a Cuban cigar

(12-02-2019 04:11 PM)Briskbas Wrote:  

(11-28-2019 10:10 AM)CUSA_NEWS Wrote:  Duke. Lance Thomas is probably gonna be the new Corey Maggette

As an amateur athlete from a nonaffluent household, Lance Thomas was able to make a 30K CASH payment to a jeweler while also receiving an additional 70K loan from the jeweler.

These things were alleged in complaint in a lawsuit that was settled. No testimony in any sort of deposition, court hearing, or trial was given on those allegations. I'm sure part of the settlement was a non-disclosure agreement. The NCAA had no direct allegation made to them to work with, no one willing to go on record about anything, or any sort of power to compel any of the people involved to provide testimony on the matter. And the jeweler and Stephenson were not going to be voluntarily talking about anything. Wiseman's ineligibility is based on something that all parties agree and admit happened

Quote:Never had to prove how he got the cash to make the payment (NCAA requires Wiseman show how he'll make the 11.5K repayment though to ensure no crowdfunding)

Never had to prove how he got cash and loans he was alleged to have had. Wiseman not being able to accept what would probably be another impermissible benefit to "pay back" the prior impermissible benefit he and the school disclosed to the NCAA doesn't really have anything to with that

Quote:Nobody had to cooperate with the NCAA. NCAA allowed the jeweler, Duke and Lance to enter into a settlement based on never discussing the terms of the settlement. This outside legal tactic didn't work for Memphis

The NCAA can't compel anyone to cooperate (although there are certainly situations where it might be in a student's or school's best interest to do so). The NCAA had no power to compel Stephenson and the jeweler (Duke was not a party to the lawsuit) to do or not do anything.

Quote:- Did ther NCAA prove such a benefit was available to sl students? Of course not.

Blue blood treatment

The NCAA didn't have any evidence that Stephenson received an impermissible benefit in the first place. So this doesn't matter.

You can't even get the guy's name right (Stephenson?).

Same is said about your opinion of what the NCAA can and can't do....

NCAA moved expeditiously on Wiseman (after re-opening his file and dishonering the "we messed up in our ruling but will honor said ruling").

Still operating at snail-mail pace with the FBI tapes, and Zion's dad shopping his son's services.

Imagine Duke receiving a "likely ineligible" letter. Technically, Zion's dad broke the rules by soliciting his son's services for cash, a job and a $800K house which the family received to play at Duke.....